On 29 =ED=E6=E4=ED=E6, 01:56, "JOHN" <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> http://whale.to/vaccine/king.html
>
> Fifth, with respect to the myth's claim, "by 2002 no new childhood
vaccin=
es
> with Thimerosal were being sold in the U.S.," this is also false
because,
> among other Thimerosal-containing vaccines that could be given to
childre=
n
> in 2002, the Thimerosal-preserved influenza vaccine, which, by its
nature=
,
> is a new vaccine every year, was effectively knowingly added to the
> recommended vaccination schedule for pregnant women as well as to the
> recommended childhood vaccination schedule in April of 200228 at a time
w=
hen
> all doses of the influenza vaccine approved for "healthy children aged
6-=
23
> months" were Thimerosal preserved.
>
> Sixth, compounding the harm, in April of 2002, the CDC's recommendation
t=
hat
> the Thimerosal-preserved influenza vaccine be given to pregnant women
who
> would be in their second and third trimesters of their pregnancies
during
> the influenza season, thereby knowingly recommending the Thimerosal and
> mercury poisoning the developing child in utero when the risk of harm is
> even greater than it is postpartum and the results published in 197729
> clearly found that Thimerosal-preserved influ vaccines that were given
to
> pregnant women significantly increased (with a hospital-standardized
> relative risk of 2.0 or higher) their children's risk of serious birth
> defects (cleft palate [RR =3D 7.1], microcephaly [RR =3D 2.3], and
pylori=
c
> stenosis [RR =3D 2.0]).
|
