• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Medical specialists have launched a public challenge against compulsory mass vaccination against influenza A H1N1

Tonka

New member
http://www.larepublica.net/app/cms/www/index.php?pk_articulo=33280

Thursday February 4, 2010 | Recommend

In a request to the Ombudsman, specialists intend to investigate the dose requirement
Doctors question effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccine
? Minister of Health claims that dose is safe

Vanessa Chaves
vachaves@larepublica.net

Medical specialists have launched a public challenge against compulsory mass vaccination against influenza A H1N1, for which appealed to the Ombudsman for investigation.
This finding that there is insufficient evidence capable of demonstrating that the dose is effective and safe.
This argument is supported by at least three points.
The first is that the influenza A virus H1N1 would be more benign, that is less harmful than the seasonal flu.
The second is that the World Health Organization (WHO) removed in the traditional definition of pandemic severity criterion, in order to declare the situation that existed as such.
Once a pandemic has begun, it began the manufacture of vaccines by the pharmaceutical companies, and the rush was put aside his studies to demonstrate safety and efficacy.
Another argument is that the vaccine used in Costa Rica, contains a substance called thimerosal.
"This is a very dubious product safety, particularly when used in children under six and pregnant," the document signed by over 90 specialists, including lawyers and doctors of different specialties.
These two populations are required to receive the vaccine as stated in the decree.
In this regard, the Ombudsman's office is working on the case. Specifically yesterday sent a series of questions to the Ministry of Health giving five working days to respond.
The document specifically calls on six aspects of the vaccine. Including its composition and side effects and adverse effects of the application. Also requests information on the strategy of informing the public about the possible consequences of applying or not the vaccine.
Meanwhile health officials say the vaccine is safe and that all people of the risk groups mentioned in the decree must be applied.
"He has gone through numerous tests and have been vaccinated 35 million people in Europe and 200 million in the U.S., demonstrating the safety and few side effects, mostly mild and transient," said Maria Luisa Avila, Minister of Health.
 
Re: Doctors question effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccine

Re: Doctors question effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccine

despite the headline, I don't see any argument against effectiveness in the article
 
Re: Doctors question effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccine

Re: Doctors question effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccine

#1: "The document specifically calls on six aspects of the vaccine."


I supposed mercury was only one stuff (it could be effective, but harmfull),
and that the remaining 5 aspects must be relevant,
if:
#1: "the document signed by over 90 specialists, including lawyers and doctors of different specialties"
 
Back
Top Bottom