Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy

Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the
Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices"
by David M Ayoub, M.D., and F. Edward Yazbak, M.D. J Am Phys Surg
2006;11:41-47.


http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf


The only thing I want to add is the Munoz study only followed the
infants until 6 mos of age. As with congential minamata disease
(Mercury Poisoning in utero)the babies did not start to show symptoms
until 6 mos and older. With the most severe to profound children, they
usually dont start to show symptoms until 6 mos.

Kevysmom wrote:
Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the
Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices"
by David M Ayoub, M.D., and F. Edward Yazbak, M.D. J Am Phys Surg
2006;11:41-47.


http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf

JPANDS? Political science, not real or even alternative science.

Mr Know-it-all Mark,

I dont think you know your head from you arse!

Kevysmom wrote:
Mr Know-it-all Mark,

I dont think you know your head from you arse!

Sorry, Donna, but you are quite wrong. I post with my head. Others post
with their arse.

As for JPANDS:

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/art...nge-bedfellows

the blogger is deeply involved in Autism support.

Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy:

A Critical Assessment of the
Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices"
by David M Ayoub, M.D., and F. Edward Yazbak, M.D. J Am Phys Surg
2006;11:41-47.


http://www.jpands.org/vol11no2/ayoub.pdf


The only thing I want to add is the Munoz study only followed the
infants until 6 mos of age. As with congential minamata disease
(Mercury Poisoning in utero)the babies did not start to show symptoms
until 6 mos and older. With the most severe to profound children, they
usually dont start to show symptoms until 6 mos.



OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assesment) reports;

"The scientific evidence that PMA and Thimerosal cause reproductive
toxcitity is CLEAR and VOLUMINOUS.

The evidence for its reproductive toxcitity includes severe mental
retardation or malformations in human offspring who were poisoned
when thier mothers were exposed to ethylmercury or thimerosal while
pregnant."

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_...p/hgbayer1.pdf


MSDS for THIMEROSAL that is INJECTED into Pregnant women: Includes Fetal
DEATH!

http://www.nomercury.org/science/doc...m_12-03-02.pdf



Why would any parent with no medical background with a disabled child tell
another parent it is safe to inject thimerosal while they are pregnant?

Kevysmom wrote:

MSDS for THIMEROSAL that is INJECTED into Pregnant women: Includes Fetal
DEATH!

http://www.nomercury.org/science/doc...m_12-03-02.pdf

Have you *actually read* this paper? Here's their reference and
commentary:

===========================================
Chmielnicka J, Brzeznicka E, Baranski B, Sitarek K (1985). The effect
of ethyl mercury on fetal development and some essential metals levels
in fetuses and pregnant female rats. Biol Trace Element Res 8:181-189.

Chmielnicka et al. administered ethyl mercury ***chloride*** to
pregnant rats at a dose of ***2.5 mg Hg/kg/day by gavage every other
day*** from gestation day 6 - gestation day 20 and did a standard
fetal exam on gestation day 21. Group size was 14 pregnancies for the
ethyl mercury experiment. Ethyl mercury had a significant effect on
body weight gain of dams, fetal crown rump length and fetal body weight
(p0.05, litter basis).
===========================================

(*** emphases mine)

1. This is ethyl mercury CHLORIDE, not a derivative of thimerosal.
Chemically, these are two completely different compounds and, thus, it
has no relevance to thimerosal used in vaccines.

2. That's a HUGE dose, not to mention administration every other day?
How relevant is that?

3. What is the route of gavage administration? It sure isn't
intramuscular injection, despite your claim that it is.

4. This really has no relevance to thimerosal because it does not mimic
the biochemical processing used by the body. Plus, throw in that
chloride and you now have a different molecule.

This is an extremely weak document, scientifically speaking. Your
assertion that it has relevance either (1) reveals your ignorance about
chemistry, or (2) suggestes that you are not being honest.

Kevysmom wrote:

MSDS for THIMEROSAL that is INJECTED into Pregnant women: Includes
Fetal
DEATH!

http://www.nomercury.org/science/doc...m_12-03-02.pdf


******************


What I posted is from studies done in 1972, what you posted is NOT listed
on this MSDS sheet and your study is from the 1980's!


YOU CAN NOT PROVE THIMEROSAL IS SAFE ON A FETUS, BECAUSE IT ISNT! AND
THERE IS NOT ONE STUDY SHOWING IT AS SAFE, JUST THE OPPOSITE, ITS BEEN
PROVED THIMEROSAL KILLS A FETUS OR CAN LEAVE A FETUS WITH SEVERE MENTAL
RETARDATION!

Kevysmom wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:

MSDS for THIMEROSAL that is INJECTED into Pregnant women: Includes
Fetal
DEATH!

http://www.nomercury.org/science/doc...m_12-03-02.pdf


******************


What I posted is from studies done in 1972, what you posted is NOT listed
on this MSDS sheet and your study is from the 1980's!

Umm, it was a link provided by you.



YOU CAN NOT PROVE THIMEROSAL IS SAFE ON A FETUS, BECAUSE IT ISNT! AND
THERE IS NOT ONE STUDY SHOWING IT AS SAFE, JUST THE OPPOSITE, ITS BEEN
PROVED THIMEROSAL KILLS A FETUS OR CAN LEAVE A FETUS WITH SEVERE MENTAL
RETARDATION!

You provided three links. One (the MSDS) does not have the word
"pregnant" in it at all, another discusses the fetal toxicity of ethyl
mercury chloride, which is not a metabolic product of thimerosal, in
huge doses not relevant to vaccinations, and a third paper which is a
pseudoscientific publication. I searched in PubMed for this paper using
the search parameter of "ayoub [au] AND yazbak [au]" and there is no
such paper. That means "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" is
not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, otherwise it would have
shown up in PubMed. In other words, it has as much scientific
credibility as "Mad Magazine". If you are going to make assertions then
you should be prepared to substantiate those assertions using
evidence-based data (i.e., peer-reviewed scientific publications).
Until then, your assertions have no merit.

"Kevysmom" wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the
Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices"
by David M Ayoub, M.D., and F. Edward Yazbak, M.D. J Am Phys Surg
2006;11:41-47.

This may be a "critical" assessment, but it is clearly a biased one, by
doctors who are clueless.

Jeff

Vaccine-man wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:
Kevysmom wrote:

MSDS for THIMEROSAL that is INJECTED into Pregnant women: Includes
Fetal
DEATH!

http://www.nomercury.org/science/doc...m_12-03-02.pdf

******************


What I posted is from studies done in 1972, what you posted is NOT listed
on this MSDS sheet and your study is from the 1980's!

Umm, it was a link provided by you.


YOU CAN NOT PROVE THIMEROSAL IS SAFE ON A FETUS, BECAUSE IT ISNT! AND
THERE IS NOT ONE STUDY SHOWING IT AS SAFE, JUST THE OPPOSITE, ITS BEEN
PROVED THIMEROSAL KILLS A FETUS OR CAN LEAVE A FETUS WITH SEVERE MENTAL
RETARDATION!

You provided three links. One (the MSDS) does not have the word
"pregnant" in it at all, another discusses the fetal toxicity of ethyl
mercury chloride, which is not a metabolic product of thimerosal, in
huge doses not relevant to vaccinations, and a third paper which is a
pseudoscientific publication. I searched in PubMed for this paper using
the search parameter of "ayoub [au] AND yazbak [au]" and there is no
such paper.

Yazbak is cited on Whale.to. 'nuf said?

That means "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" is
not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, otherwise it would have
shown up in PubMed.

See
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/art...nge-bedfellows

This article proves that JPANDS uses political science instead of real
science or alternative science.

In other words, it has as much scientific
credibility as "Mad Magazine".

Hey! MAD gets it right more often than JPANDS.

If you are going to make assertions then
you should be prepared to substantiate those assertions using
evidence-based data (i.e., peer-reviewed scientific publications).
Until then, your assertions have no merit.