ForumGarden

25-year-old can barely walk or talk just two months after being vaccinated



A Virginia woman is adamant that a flu shot has caused her to contract a debilitating and irreversible neurological disease, while the CDC refuses to comment on her case.

25-year-old Desiree Jennings was a fit and healthy cheerleader up until two months ago when she got a seasonal flu shot.

Ten days after the shot she began experiencing flu like symptoms, followed by severe convulsions and black outs.

Now she can barely talk or walk and her life has all but been destroyed.

After seeing around 60 doctors, Jennings was eventually diagnosed with dystonia, a paralyzing neurological disorder that causes the muscles to relentlessly contract and spasm.

Bizarrely, increased physical activity causes her heart rate to decline, meaning she can run for hours, however, her resting heart rate is 90 and walking a few steps is exhausting and almost impossible.

There is no cure for the disease and it gets worse over time.

The causes of the disease are not yet fully understood, however, it is thought that physical trauma, infection, heavy metals poisoning or adverse reaction to drugs are possible triggers.

Jennings is certain that the flu shot caused the disease and has pledged to do all she can to warn others.

“Nothing else explains such a fast moving neurological damage. The medical hospitals ruled out everything, CAT scans normal, blood normal, MRI normal. The only thing that explains it is the shot caused the neurological damage.” she told WUSA News.

Watch a WUSA news report on the story:

Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com » Woman Blames Paralyzing Neurological Disease On Flu Shot

Swine flu vaccine shunned despite availability

Debora MacKenzie

New Scientist

Wednesday, Oct 14th, 2009

Vaccination against swine flu has started in the US and will soon begin in Europe, but many of those who should be first in line are having second thoughts.

Healthcare workers are a top priority for vaccination because they can infect vulnerable people and because their services are vital in a pandemic. Yet in a survey of UK nurses last week, 47 per cent said they would not get vaccinated.

Meanwhile, British hospital bosses quizzed by The Guardian newspaper claim that as few as 10 per cent of staff will have the shot. In the US, many hospital employees are protesting against rules saying they must be vaccinated or lose their jobs.

Children are also at the top of the vaccine list. In the US summer outbreak, the age group most hospitalised was children under 4. Yet 40 per cent of US parents say they won’t vaccinate their kids, according to a poll by the University of Michigan.

Swine flu vaccine shunned despite availability - health - 13 October 2009 - New Scientist

Shes kinda hot.

Its the Democrats giving the vaccine shots isn't it?

Buck up little camper.

In a decade or two you'll be dead.

I Don't & Won't get a Flu shot

look up the ingrediants for this serum. my choice, I can't do it.

My Sister how ever was Paralyzed on one side of her body for a period of time, after receiving a Flu Shot.

We're trusting the Gov't to administer a Flurry of this Serum....?

One Size Fits All - never did like that either...

Patsy

• Seasonal flu (that’s the regular flu) currently kills an estimated 36,000 people each year in the United States. [But most people who die are already suffering from existing diseases such as asthma.]

• Most “colds aren’t really caused by the flu virus. As few as 7 or 8 percent (and at most, 50 percent) of colds have an influenza origin. There are more than 200 viruses and pathogens that can cause “influenza-like illnesses (and therefore be easily mistaken for the flu).

• Viruses mutate with amazing speed, meaning that each year’s circulating influenza is genetically different from the previous year.

• The vaccine for each upcoming flu season is formulated by health experts taking a guess [a wild guess, at times] about what strain of influenza might be most likely to circulate in the future.

researchers can’t exactly pin down who has influenza and who doesn’t, the research conducted on the effectiveness of vaccines simply calculates the death rate from all causes among those who take the vaccine vs. those who don’t.

• These studies show a “dramatic difference between the death rates of those who get the vaccines vs. those who don’t. People who get vaccinated have significantly lower death rates [from ALL causes, and herein lies the problem...].

• Flu shot propaganda cites these studies, telling people that if they get their flu shots every year, they will have a significantly reduced chance of dying. But this is extremely misleading¦

• Critics question the logic of these studies: As it turns out, compared to the number of deaths from all causes, the number of people killed by influenza is quite small. According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, deaths from influenza account for — at most — 10 percent of the total deaths during the flu season (and this includes all indirect deaths aggravated by the flu).

• This brings up a hugely important dilemma: If influenza only accounts for roughly 10 percent of all deaths during the flu season, how could an influenza vaccine reduce total deaths by 50 percent? (As is claimed by the vaccine manufacturers.) [It doesn't add up. Even if the vaccines were 100% effective, they should only reduce the total death rates by 10%, given that only 10% of the total deaths are caused by influenza.]

• Here’s a direct quote from the story: Tom Jefferson, a physician based in Rome and the head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence, says: “For a vaccine to reduce mortality by 50 percent and up to 90 percent in some studies means it has to prevent deaths not just from influenza, but also from falls, fires, heart disease, strokes, and car accidents. That’s not a vaccine, that’s a miracle. [Emphasis added.]

• There have been no placebo-controlled studies on flu vaccines because the vaccine pushers say such clinical trials would be “unethical. Thus, there is actually no hard scientific evidence that they work at all.

• The “50 percent reduction in mortality statistic that’s tossed around by vaccine pushers is a total fabrication based on “rubbish studies (cohort studies).

• Scrutinizing the existing studies that claim to support vaccines reveals that flu vaccines simply don’t work. And when vaccines aren’t available or the formulation is wrong, there’s no spike in death rates, indicating quite conclusively that these vaccines offer no reduction in mortality.

• Flu vaccines only produce antibodies in people who don’t need vaccines. At the same time, they fail to produce antibodies in people who are most vulnerable to flu. Thus, vaccines only work in people who don’t need them.

• The entire flu vaccine industry is run like a cult, with dogma ruling over science. Anyone who asks tough, scientific questions is immediately branded a heretic. No one is allowed to question the status quo. (So much for “evidence-based medicine, huh?)

As you can see from all this, the flu vaccine is pure quackery. Those who administer vaccines are, by inference, QUACKS. They claim to have scientific minds, and yet they are the most gullible of all: They will believe almost anything if it’s published in a medical journal, even if it’s complete quackery.

Today, countless doctors, nurses and pharmacists across North America and around the world are pushing a medically worthless, scientifically-fabricated chemical injection that offers absolutely no benefit to public health¦ and yet they’re convinced it’s highly effective! It just goes to show you how easy it is to brainwash people in the field of conventional medicine.

They’ve abandoned real science long ago, you know. Now the whole industry is just run on the momentum of dogmatic arrogance and the illusion of authority. From the CDC and FDA on down to the local pharmacist at the corner store, the American medical system is run by some seemingly smart people who have been brainwashed into become full-fledged members of the Cult of Pharmacology where vaccine mythology overrules real science.

The vaccine industry is perhaps the greatest medical scam ever pulled off in the history of the world.

TB can you quote a source? Link?

I just got my seasonal flu shot yesterday. I will be in line for the H1N1 shot as well. You take a chance with your life just crossing the street. There are risks in everything we do. I have been around long enough to see friends die from the FLU not pretty.

If you have never received a flu shot and your healthy you most likely won't need one your immune system is good. For the young and elderly not the case life threatening if they get the flu.

The Atlantic just posted a pretty good read about flu vaccines in general.

Definitely worth a read.

CARLA;1252186 wrote: I just got my seasonal flu shot yesterday. I will be in line for the H1N1 shot as well. You take a chance with your life just crossing the street. There are risks in everything we do. I have been around long enough to see friends die from the FLU not pretty.

If you have never received a flu shot and your healthy you most likely won't need one your immune system is good. For the young and elderly not the case life threatening if they get the flu.


You obviously didn't watch the video of that girl flopping around like a fish because she can't control her muscles. How embarrasing, and for the rest of her life! Why? All because of a little flu shot that she had an adverse reaction from.

I'm not takin the chance. I'd rather die than live like that. But that's just me.

For those who missed the video:

http://gannett.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/ ... 1294691939

TruthBringer;1252321 wrote: You obviously didn't watch the video of that girl flopping around like a fish because she can't control her muscles. How embarrasing, and for the rest of her life! Why? All because of a little flu shot that she had an adverse reaction from.



I'm not takin the chance. I'd rather die than live like that. But that's just me.


Even though she was flopping around she was still pretty hot.

Nomad;1252324 wrote: Even though she was flopping around she was still pretty hot.


lol. She was. But thats not the point eh?

TruthBringer;1252325 wrote: lol. She was. But thats not the point eh?


Well...thats what I took away from it. You know its Nomad Day right?

Ironic that today was the day I made my 10 year old daughters flu jab appointment.

She has had them yearly since she was 5 years old with no side effects. The thought of her contracting flu with her asthma isnt worth thinking about.

Rapunzel;1252173 wrote: TB can you quote a source? Link?


Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine by Mike Adams the Health Ranger

TruthBringer;1252400 wrote: Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine by Mike Adams the Health Ranger


Hardly a reliable, scientific, authenticated source

Bryn Mawr;1252422 wrote: Hardly a reliable, scientific, authenticated source


And yet, it states the facts. Which last time I checked, were not confined to any preferences.

TruthBringer;1252489 wrote: And yet, it states the facts. Which last time I checked, were not confined to any preferences.


Given the source, I have no confidence that the "facts" are true.

The one that stands out as needing support is :-

• Flu vaccines only produce antibodies in people who don’t need vaccines. At the same time, they fail to produce antibodies in people who are most vulnerable to flu. Thus, vaccines only work in people who don’t need them.


It's easy to claim, difficult to prove - without proof it is opinion, not fact.

Bryn Mawr;1252510 wrote: Given the source, I have no confidence that the "facts" are true.

The one that stands out as needing support is :-



It's easy to claim, difficult to prove - without proof it is opinion, not fact.


But at the moment it appears to be true. Until proven otherwise. Does it not? And if something appears to be true, than it at least in appearance is factual. Until proven otherwise.

I agree that facts have to be proven and tested in order to be solid. And we could both venture out onto the web to gather the evidence in this case to come to our own conclusions. But until a serious study is done (which may already be the case) we have to go off of what we already know, which in my case leans toward the above arguement, and since I cannot speak for you, I do not know which way you are leaning.

So what I will do is I will attempt to gain the evidence for the above arguement as quickly and as thouroughly as possible.

I'm due to get my flu injection tomorrow!

Alright here is some evidence to support the above claim about vaccines only helping people who are not already sick and doing nothing to create antibodies for people who already may have the virus they are getting vaccinated for - or any other virus for that matter:

Vaccines help your body make antibodies before it is infected by a virus. Flu vaccines contain dead or weakened flu viruses. These help your body make antibodies. So when you come into contact with the live flu virus, your body already knows how to fight it.

Flu - Flu vaccines

On the same site....it contradicts itself with the following statements:

Who should have a flu vaccine?

In the United States, a flu vaccine is recommended for:

People of any age with certain long-term (chronic) conditions, such as asthma, diabetes or heart disease



Most people get the flu vaccine as a shot. You can use the nasal spray vaccine if you are healthy and age 2 through 49.



It isn't recommended for:

People who have a medical condition that puts them at high risk for complications from the flu. This includes people with heart disease, asthma and other lung diseases,

Is that not a direct contradiction for each statement? That makes no sense to me.

So it would appear, at least on the surface, that even Health.org can't get the facts straight. And what you have to ask is, do you really want to take a flu shot when the facts are being twisted by even mainstream medical websites who claim to have authority on the matter? My answer would be no.

TruthBringer;1252516 wrote: But at the moment it appears to be true. Until proven otherwise. Does it not? And if something appears to be true, than it at least in appearance is factual. Until proven otherwise.

I agree that facts have to be proven and tested in order to be solid. And we could both venture out onto the web to gather the evidence in this case to come to our own conclusions. But until a serious study is done (which may already be the case) we have to go off of what we already know, which in my case leans toward the above arguement, and since I cannot speak for you, I do not know which way you are leaning.

So what I will do is I will attempt to gain the evidence for the above arguement as quickly and as thouroughly as possible.


No, it does not appear to be true.

You cannot make a claim like that without evidence and expect it to be taken as true. The person making such a claim is the one responsible for showing it to be true - it is not "to be accepted as true until proven otherwise". The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

Bryn Mawr;1252544 wrote: No, it does not appear to be true.

You cannot make a claim like that without evidence and expect it to be taken as true. The person making such a claim is the one responsible for showing it to be true - it is not "to be accepted as true until proven otherwise".


Like I said the evidence I provided does state that a vaccine is "supposed" to be intended for someone who has not already been debilitated in any way by ANY virus. This is where the word before comes into play. Therefore people with suppressed immune systems do to any virus known to man would be at risk for not experiencing any benefit at all from a viral vaccine. Because it would already be after the fact. Which is exactly what the source stated. That antibodies are only created in people who receive the vaccine before they are already infected with a virus.

The evidence was provided above. Unless you also believe Health.org to be an unscientific, unauthenticated source.

Also just wanted to add that it is entirely possible for something to appear to be true before it is actually proven to be the case.

Two examples:

The Earth appeared to be flat until we discovered it was round.

Blood appears to be red when it exits the body but we now know that it is actually not this color as it travels through the body on the inside. So it's natural color is not red. Even though it would have appeared to be otherwise.

TruthBringer;1252546 wrote: Like I said the evidence I provided does state that a vaccine is "supposed" to be intended for someone who has not already been debilitated in any way by ANY virus. This is where the word before comes into play. Therefore people with suppressed immune systems do to any virus known to man would be at risk for not experiencing any benefit at all from a viral vaccine. Because it would already be after the fact. Which is exactly what the source stated. That antibodies are only created in people who receive the vaccine before they are already infected with a virus.

The evidence was provided above. Unless you also believe Health.org to be an unscientific, unauthenticated source.


Yes, I believe Health.Org to be an unauthenticated source.

Also, your tract above is unscientific. The action of a vaccine is not invalidated by previous viral infection. A person suffering from a cold would still get immunity from smallpox if given the vaccine.

TruthBringer;1252555 wrote: Also just wanted to add that it is entirely possible for something to appear to be true before it is actually proven to be the case.

Two examples:

The Earth appeared to be flat until we discovered it was round.

Blood appears to be red when it exits the body but we now know that it is actually not this color as it travels through the body on the inside. So it's natural color is not red. Even though it would have appeared to be otherwise.


Is this not exactly what I've been saying?

A fifteenth century broadsheet that printed the "fact" that the Earth was flat should not be accepted at face value without showing due evidence - the onus is on the claimant to prove the claim.

Bryn Mawr;1252565 wrote: Yes, I believe Health.Org to be an unauthenticated source.

Also, your tract above is unscientific. The action of a vaccine is not invalidated by previous viral infection. A person suffering from a cold would still get immunity from smallpox if given the vaccine.


Not in every case. In fact, depending on how poorly their immune system is functioning, they might not produce any antibodies at all.

TruthBringer;1252586 wrote: Not in every case. In fact, depending on how poorly their immune system is functioning, they might not produce any antibodies at all.


To state it as an invariable scientific fact is wrong. If what you say is what they meant then what reliability can you place on the rest of the article?

"In the US, many hospital employees are protesting against rules saying they must be vaccinated or lose their jobs."



In the UK I face no such ban. I wont get the jab, because every time I have in the past, I have gotten the flu. I have been exposed to so many illnesses, that my immune system is KICKIN! I'll take my chances.



As for immunity, if you havent already had a disease, like chicken pox or small pox, whooping cough, etc, you will produce antibodies with a jab. Depending on what it is, the immunity could be for a season or for life. Unless you are already compromised by HIV and other immune deficiencies, your T-cells and memory cells will protect you, and continue to provide immune response when exposed to what you are jabbed for. And unbeknownst to general public, the flu is different each year. Depending on where it breaks out first, usually in the east, a vaccine is made from that particular strain.