LOL, that's gene manipulation and the PC crowd is afraid of eugenics, rightly or wrongly so. It will never happen on our watch. The Chinese are poised to advance science in ways that our present ethics does not permit, and they will.

The U.S. is to modern advancement as Portugal was to exploration. The first, but not the last.

Exactly which B-Movie were you referring to? Legend? Everything turned-out OK at the end! Yipes!

LOL, how about Resident Evil, Night of the Living Dead, or Serenity - reavers? Serenity is not a B movie though.

It's all funny until you are the one coming back from the dead, lol.

I Am Legend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend_(film)

28 Weeks Later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Weeks_Later

And the lifespan of all those generations (UNTIL the advent of modern medicine, in particular vacciantion) was, at best, 35-50 years. As recently as the signing of the Delaration of Independence, it was uncommon for men to survive into their 60s. So, please, feel free to ignore modern medicine... and enjoy that shortened lifespan. Well unless, of course, you're one of those hypocrits that write a post like this, and then run to the doctor for antibiotics, or to the ER. You caan't haveit both ways: the science is the science.

There's good and bad in everything.

Social Engineering it is. The stupid and the ignorant who choose not to take advantage of the advancements of science will live shorter lives and will die off eventually.

Everything will die off eventually.

randyk, what you overlook is the fact that much of the science that validates the use of vaccines was done by research scientists that are paid from government (NIH) grants and that have absolutely no financial stake in the outcome of the work.

I am so sorry that you are such a cynical, paranoid, and sad person. I meet many people like you on the internet and in life. You all have one thing in common. You believe that selectively filtering all information through cynicism and suspicion gives you the power to say "I am not a sheep. You can't pull the wool over my eyes!" This is an attempt to feel in control of your life. What it really does is blind you to the truth of a great many things, while simultaneously insulting the hard work of a great many people who are trying to improve this world's lot.

If this actually works, then most people would SAVE money.

Instead of having to get a new flu shot every year, you just take it once in your life and be done with it.

radagast, I think you hit the nail right on the head. It seems that there are a lot of people out there that are so terrified of being "tricked" by the experts that they just refuse to believe anything the experts say unless it's something they already believed.

That's a shame because, however fallible consensus expert opinion may be, it's still VASTLY more reliable than the opinions of the countless laymen that blog on the internet. I will never understand how so many people can honestly think that the little bit they read on a subject in their spare time can somehow qualify them to critique the conclusions of hundreds of top minds that have devoted their entire adult lives to the study of that one subject.

Hey, I've had all three and I'm doin' alright! Now, if I could just buy health insurance I'd be set...

Sorry you were subjected to that circ, Grandpa. Luckily in our generation we're learning it's unnecessary which is why rates are dropping incredibly.

I hope I wasn't being negative. The history of super-resistent bacteria make me cautious about findings concerning viruses too. I think more testing and less publicity is better for some areas of science like this one.

Bacteria grow resistant to antibiotics, not vaccines.

But viruses Don't respond to antibiotics at all.

And viruses mutate.

My guess that 30 years of the aggressive Republican effort to keep their base stupid, poorly educated, distracted, and confused has been successful.

Tarc, are you saying that only Republicans will take this vaccine then??

What's the point of your remark?

I hoped that I made the distinction between bacteria and viruses in my post because I know the difference. Viruses can become resistant too.

See New England Journal of Medicine, 02-23-2006, "Antiviaral Resistance in Influenza Viruses - Implications for Management and Pandemic Response." Frank Hayden, author.

Yes, virus do mutate. But they don't mutate all of their proteins. Some they need in order to infect us and mutations in those are devastating to the virus' ability to reproduce. This new vaccine targets those "stable" regions of the influenza virus. This is why it can be considered a universal vaccine for flu. All (or most) of the known strains of flu can be targeted through this one vaccine.

And so what if it does mutate? That's just evolution at work. Our development of this vaccine is our way of evolving to the virus' evolution. When this vaccine stops being effective we will make another one. It is an ongoing battle for survival.

Do you think Big Pharma would allow to be blamed for the vaccine/autism link? Why should they be trusted?

If they would stop creating virus in the first place then they wouldn't need vaccines in the second place. Vaccines may have started out as a good thing, but I don't trust them now. Too many rich control freaks in the world.

Health Care my arss.

There is no vaccine/autism link. It's been proven over and over and over and over by independent scientific groups all over the world that are not paid or influenced by 'big pharma'. As someone that has direct knowledge of the area, I'd point out that there is an extensive chekc of everyone involved in this kind of work to determine their potential conflict of interests from the funding institutions to the employers to the publishers of the journal artlcles. The flat out final word is that no one, at any time, has produced valid scientific evidence that links vaccination and autism. It's simply a lie.

Ok, I feel much better now.

Lucy, simply being suspicious and cynical doesn't necessarily equate to being correct. At some point the cynics have to provide direct evidence for their accusations of evildoing. You can't just propose mere associations of guilt simply because it fulfills your negative view of humanity.

It helps to get your facts straight, Snakeman....

The 1918 flu pandemic (the Spanish Flu) was an unusually severe and deadly influenza pandemic that spread across the world. Historical and epidemiological data are inadequate to identify the geographic origin, though some suspect an Army cantonment in central Kansas.

Speculation is not fact ;)

In this case both the article AND you, are wrong.

Radagast, believe what you choose to believe and I'll believe what I choose to believe. Trust who you will and what they tell you to believe, but, in my opinion, trust has to be earned. And in this day and age of money greed and power, I don't believe for one minute that total strangers are looking out for my best interest. Thank you.

Lucy, no one is telling you what to believe, or not to carry suspisions. How you veiw the world is totally up to you. However, as in court, if you make an accusation, you'd better have some pretty meaningful evidence. and/or research to back up your claims. Suspisions are the reason for research in many areas of interest. Understanding a little bit about the scientific method and/or using critical thinking skills can go quite a long way.

And btw, news generally isn't science. it's entertainment at best.

Opinion and accusations are 2 different things. And trust is another.

Ah, yet they are intimately connected Lucy. To have trust is to carry opinion/accusation, and to have those takes background checks or repeated performance- aka building trust. Even in the best senarios there are chances you will misjudge.

Unless you decide to live as a schizophrenic...

Although, yes companies are out to make the buck, the population as a whole ( including you and me ) do care about our health, enough to impose law against anything that will harm an individual. Most research is done in labs by scientists - often those people attempting to make the world better, not soley for the companies agenda. Any proposed science breakthroughs are reviewed by many other people, none of whom work for the company. So yes, even the company needs to prove their claims.

Lucy none of the jargon above is based on faith or belief. I did as well as I could to simplify the process for you to hopefully understand. I may have errors within it myself ( imagine that ) but I have at least took the time to access knowledge for myself to form an opinion, rather than using blind faith or belief.

this drug is being processed for the "new world order", you wont be able to opt out in time, it does say "Universal" for more than one reason,

Derrick, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Thank you Lucy1, we need to look at the "big picture" and dont take our eye off it

Why would we have to stay home if YOU GOT the flu shot?

Pretty much sums it up. They don't work.

Vitamin D3 has been proven to be several hundred times more powerful at fighting the flu than any vaccine, oh wait, the FDA and big pharma say you don't need Vitamin D3 and to smear carcinogens (spf) all over your body to make sure you don't get Vitamin D3 all the while 90 percent of all nursing mothers breast milk contain SPF in it.

WOOT, we are all just crash dummies for big pharma and you are the head dummy in charge there warthog!! gratz...

Quit being sheeple.

You should stay home because 1)People you work with may have babies at home that are too young to get the shot, thereby making them more susceptible to the flu and death from the flu complications and 2) not everyone gets the flu shot so you risk making other people who don't "believe" in the shot get sick. Then it can come back to you since having the flu does not mean you cannot get it again!

Wow, just wow... This thread is a perfect example of cynicism and rumor taking the place of direct knowledge.

Really, guys? The New World Order? Controlling the masses through vaccinations? Breast milk can protect us from UV rays?

Patrick vitamin D3 does not prevent the flu. The flu is a virus and it multiplies inside your cells. vD3 cannot prevent such a directed attack. UV rays decrease the immune response. That is why UV light therapy is used to control certain auto immune skin lesions (to mixed success). There is no secret cabal of big pharma and government making you use sunscreen in order to sell you vaccines. OMG, holy @!$%#...OMG!

If the gov't really wanted to make money off of you they would get into the tinfoil business.

If you are vaccinated and cannot get the flu (although we all know you can and say "the flu vaccine didn't make me as sick") then if I don't get it, how can I spread it to you? If I don't get the flu because my vitamin D3 levels are 50-70 ng/ml and my body can fight this off without getting me sick, I in turn can't spread it to you who get the vaccine and do get sick.

Keep believin big pharma!! The studies are out there, vitamin D3 works and works multitudes better than any vaccine.

Is there proof that D3 prevents the virus? I have not read any. Vitamin D3 simply regulates T-cells. If those T-cells are naive to the virus, they will not respond fast enough to the virus to prevent cellular infection. Only vaccination can train the immune system to recognize the virus and be preparedfor it before it infects. Low D3 may hamper this, but overdoseing on it will not help a naive immune system to get ahead of the virus.

There is also a difference between being infected and being sick. I think this has been a problem for many in their understanding. A person who has been vaccinated can still have a viral load that they can spread for a time. Their body just fights it off before they feel the affects of the attack. Also, if someone who has been vaccinated is infected with an unusually high dose of virus - say a snotty eight year old sneezing directly into your mouth - their immune system, although trained, may be overwhelmed and they may feel the effects of the sickness.

Also the flu can live on clothing and on surfaces. So a person who has been vaccinated can still spread it to others even if he is not sick. The more people are vaccinated, however, the harder it is for the virus to multiply in any given town, city, or population. Therefore there will be less virus in regions where more people are vaccinated.

Here is one small study, but there are more out there. Have you ever heard the CDC, or FDA recommend taking additional Vitamin D3? , oh, yes, they did just increase the required amounts but hardly enough to make a difference. They would never recommend the necessary amounts needed in the winter, because it would scrap their entire vaccination money making plan. Just dig a little deeper and you'll find numerous studies about the benefits of Vit D3. Not only fights the flu, but also beneficial for many other diseases, breast cancer for one. I take 5000 IU's a day in the winter and never get colds or the flu, and thankfully I do not get the vaccine. I give my 7 year old and 5 year old 2000 IU's a day as well. My 5 year old has not missed any school this year, and my 7 year old missed one day for a low grade fever. I swear by it! Keep researching and you'll find enough to change you mind about it's value!

As I said, D3 supports proper immune function, but all the D3 in the world isn't going to prevent a fast replicating virus like influenza from causing sickness in a person whose immune system is naive to the virus. The disease will be well under way before a proper response is made - even when more than enough D3 is present and the immune system is functioning perfectly. Vaccination prepares the immune system to recognize the virus BEFORE it does damage.

Anecdotal evidence about taking a vitamin and not getting sick is not proof. I could just as easily say that eating a fried egg every morning will prevent the flu because I didn't get sick this year and ate an egg every morning. These are coincidences. There are certainly people out there who have gotten sick while taking D3. It is not a preventative it is only supportive of immune function and there is a limit to its effectiveness at high doses. It is not a substitute for vaccination.

"the rulers of the planet want 90% of the worlds population dead."

Prove it.

Clearly with sucha great knowledge of virology, you are positive that you've only had a rhinovirus, not one of it's relatives? It's statisitcally unlikely (that's kind - it's pretty much impossible unless you're sealed ina plastic bubble). It's a flat out lie to say "if you get the flu shot, you get the flu". Most idiots don't realize that most vaccines DO NOT include anything that's even potentially infective (just a protein or three from the entire organism, much like a tiny skin flake from an entire human), and they mistake the (very deliberate) REACTION that the vaccine causes for getting the actual disase. You SHOULD have a bitof a reaction at the site of injection, and if you feel punk for a day or three, THAT IS WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. That's your body creating the immunity. With many vaccines, that creates a very strong resistance to future infection, often lasting many years. The flu is a tricky virus, and it mutates fast, so the flu vaccine actually contains three different vaccines each year. If you get the flu shot regularly, you SHOULD have a fair reaction each year to the vaccination because your immunity to the real thing is STRONG. And while vaccination does not guarantee immuity (can anyone imagine not getting a bug after your 3 year old sneezes in your face for the tenth time?), what will happen is that you will fight it off much more quickly and get far less sick. Remember, this is a battle to prevent DEATH, not completely avoiding a little sniffle. And time has proven again and again, vaccines work and work well.

Can we please drop the CoH for this one? Pullleeeeze!?

There is so much to say about the stagerring ignorance of some people, which is made a million times worse by their cynacism and assuredness. They only look for what they expect to see - the exact opposite of scientific logic.

The arrogance of ignorance!

myownwords-

If 90% is dead then who will they tax??? Did you think about that? Did you think?

I thought that big pharma and the government were trying to sell us multiple vaccines as a money making scheme. Didn't they want to sell us a flu shot every year? Now they say they can do it with one shot that could work for years?! Doesn't that blow a hole in the theory that it's all for the money, or are we just gonna move the goal post on that?

@radagast-Your comments against cynics are really starting to irk me, and probably other cynics as well. We're like that because of all of our past negative experiences, and know what evils people and different systems are capable of, therefore it makes us smarter, stronger, and extremely cautious, and untrusting. But that DOES NOT mean we're cynical about everything. You keep commenting that cynics filter ALL information through our "cynicysm and suspicion"...well did you ever consider that us cynics have VALID REASONS to be cynical and suspicious? They do not filter EVERYTHING like that, and that is just an incredibly stupid assumption to make about them. Ever consider that these cynics have seen the potentially negative effects of these vaccines? Some people react differently to them, sometimes they may not be as effective. Ever consider that us cynics have had many negative things happen in all aspects of their lives (not just healthcare, not just vaccines) that have shaped their personalities that way? No of course not, you're more comfortable making blanket assumptions and accusations on their character. And all the while you don't seem to know or give a damn why they're like that. Cynics are informed and made more aware by their experiences, and many of us are open to this new information, and want to learn and expand on it, but are still cautious. Well there's nothing wrong with that.

"They filter all information through their cynicysm and suspicion. What it really does is blind you to the truth of a great many things."

Wrong. Many of these people have seen the ugly truth about many things, and are now MORE aware of it. That does NOT make us blind, it makes us smarter, and more prepared for what this world will hurl in your face. As I've said we're not cynical about everything, our cynicysm is based on our bad experiences of what we've seen. There are plenty of great truths that we can agree with, it's not all about putting a blanket assumption on everything to us. So you can just stop all your cynic bashing because you obviously have no idea what it's like to be turned into a cynic, or what causes it. Stop making generalized assumptions about these things before you judge.

Tarc and radagast, thank you for trying to explain it to some of these posters, it is commendable. Unfortunately, most won't listen, I have said many of the same things you have mentioned straight to peoples faces, and they still either don't understand, or refuse to accept it. They are all internet self taught virologists, just like Jenny Macarthy and Jim Carrey, just look at the comment above about mercury.

I read, I ask my doctor, and blend it with what the majority of experts agree with, and then try to make an informed decision (If I'm really bored, I might check out some of the fringe stuff). Their knowledge comes from the fact that they knew a guy who had a friend, that saw someone on TV talking about an unconfirmed report by Glen Beck stating that vaccines might cause erectile dysfunction, when mixed with lots of alcohol. So you know it's true. How can we ever compete with that.

I just wish they didn't have the ability to kill us all by their refusal to get themselves and their kids vaccinated.

Isis - a personal experience is not enough to go on especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that vaccines do a lot of good in this world. There is a difference between being skeptical and cynical. You seem like you are trying to describe yourself as a skeptic, but you refer to yourself as a cynic. A skeptic takes nothing at face value and asks the hard questions in order to properly understand. A cynic on the other hand simply discounts things based on pre-conceived notions and relies on emotional arguments to make their case.

You are a cynic and so are many of the others who post against vaccines. I am sorry if you have had bad experiences, have had a rough time of it, or simply have seen too much of the ugliness of human beings, but a skeptic would look deeper and not paint with such a broad brush. A skeptic would ask if it is warranted to cast dispersions on a whole field of health and science simply due to what could possibly be a misunderstanding or an expectation of wrongdoing by those in power.

I'm sure you aren't a racist, but I think racists are often cynical in how they approach people of other races. They validate this by saying they had a bad experience and then they cast those dispersions on the whole race. A skeptic would expect a few bad apples and not blame the whole race for a bad experience. Again, you are not a racist, but maybe that description would help you to see that blaming vaccines for the evils of the world is extremely unproductive and ignores their virtue.

Perhaps you can still justify your cynicism? But when has cynicism been used as evidence in a courtroom? Never - that's because cynicism isn't proof. I am here, as are many others, trying to defend the truth of the matter. Not because we love drug companies, but because we love the truth. Cynics do not love the truth, they only love their pre-conceived notions - no matter how they justify them. If a true debate is to be had then all I ask is for those who are against to present real evidence beyond here-say and to listen to evidence in return. But that is not what these forums produce. They produce only cynics who want to vent and get very angry when the facts don't support their cynicism.

Well, I wasn't basing my post off of my experiences with vaccines, just what I've seen. A lot of it was based on my negative experience with the entire health system. I am NOT basing my entire post off of my experiences or emotions. There are some aspects of the health system that I support, and some that I am against. Example: my cynical side is extremely skeptical of the mental health system, as I had a terrible and traumatizing experience with it. I stay away from anyone who works in that field. But other aspecs of the health system, such as OB/GYN, or a regular doctor for just a checkup is fine to me, and I'm not skeptic at all.

Is it not possible to be a cynic, as well as a skeptic? I have always looked at the pros of vaccines and the cons. The way I see it, if I'm not going to have any adverse reactions to it, and it does it's job, I should get it. But not the flu vaccine....I've never had a flu shot, and the only sickness I ever get is a mild cold, if that.

Your post "Cynics do not love the truth, they only love their preconcieved notions" is dead wrong. One of my friends backstabbed me, but did I bash all my other friends because of one? No. Your idea that cynics look at everyone the same is a blind assumption.

"blaming vaccines for the evils of the world is extremely unproductive and ignores their virtue." WHOA...slow down. I do not blame vaccines ONLY for the evils of the world. Hell, I don't blame vaccines for the evils of the world at all. You know who I blame for the evils of the world? People like you who say that I'm making generalized assumptions because of one person, yet you just said that I'm using my vaccine post to blame the world for it's evil. Hypocrite much? What a generalized statement. And you said I'm the one blaming everyone for one person's fault, well look in the mirror. I support vaccines, but not all of them. I think people should be given a choice. And as I stated earlier, there are parts of the health system that I oppose, but that doesn't mean I'm going to bash the entire thing. For you to label me as that kind of person just shows how quick you are to judge.

MrCool Very educational post. Many university scientists will use funds to study areas where they can show results in order to keep the funding coming from the NSF. It would seem prudent for some researchers to initiate a study knowing the outcome than to risk losing funding for lack of favorable results.

As one of those scientists (for more than 20 years now), I'll just point out that the above comment is effective a giant crack-dream of the anti-reason nutjobs. The completely incoherent mishmosh of ideas and concepts is nearly unreadable, let alone sensible or correct. Seriously, seek mental help.

Tarc:

I don't think it's people like yourself that others fear. There are probably many like yourself that care and research to try to help others. Just knowing that virus and diseases can be created is creepy. I just think many are afraid anymore.

If it matters, thank you for your dedication.

"One famous researcher, who may have a Nobel Prize, hinted that he/she can prove any given "hypothesis" that is requested; i.e. "The Moon Is Made Of Blue Cheese.""

I know one nobel prize winner who also thinks that DNA teleports by homeopathic energy fields. Luc Montagnier. Your statement is proof of nothing. All the awards in the world cannot make all subsequent statements true. Proof must be shown no matter the previous accolades.

Tarc's got it right.

The completely incoherent mishmosh of ideas and concepts is nearly unreadable, let alone sensible or correct. Seriously, seek mental help.

Contrary to all scientific evidence...

You realize that I am Legend is fiction, right?.....

Scary how some SciFi movies are becoming reality.

If they can inject cancer, HIV and all other diseases into these poor animals they can surly inject them into humans.

I'd never thought I'd say this, but maybe it's a blessing in disguise that I could not have a baby. God only knows what these children are in for.

Did they or will they ever admit it? I'm sorry for your situation.

Yeh, tell jacob the same thing. And while you're at it, tell the lab rats too.

jacob-3027683

I will pass on this one too. Two years ago, as a health care worker, I received the H1N1 vaccine. I was one of the unfortunate few who developed Gullain Barre' Syndrome after that injection. Recall, then it came out that thousands of lots of that vaccine that was manufactured in other countries was recalled?

Yeah, Lucy1, there is a very tiny incidence of people developing Guilliam-Barre after getting vaccinated, and with a single production back in the 1970's, the chance was a bit higher. They have studied this extensively, and the virus was not in the vaccine, so the people that got it HAD IT ALREADY in their bodies. GB tends to hide in certain cells in the body, and occasionally, when someone gets vaccinated, it stimulates the GB virus to emerge (like winter with a cold sore - one of the herpes simplex viruses). Was it the vaccine's fault? Nope. If the same person would have gotten the flu the regular way, they might have also gotten GB. Of they got herpes, or any other viral disease. Finally, the incidence of this is TINY, and presumably, if you don't already have GB, it's NEVER a problem.

Tarc, thanks for that info. What is in the vaccine that caused the GB to emerge? Can the vaccine be broken down to find this out?

It may not be the vaccine, but the immune response the vaccine produces. Any adaptive immune response, whether to a vaccine or to an actual infection, could triggerGB. I'm not certain that there is a virus associated with GB. It appears to be more of an autoimmune attack against nerve cells.

One of the things that happens when the body produces an immune response is certain chemical signals are sent to cells that are supposed to help those cells deal with a potential viral attack. If the cell is already infected with a virus it could cause that virus to respond by "awakening" in an attempt to escape and repopulate somewhere else. This awakening leads to disease symptoms.

But for GB, it seems that the immune response to an infection or a vaccine goes awry. There are literally dozens upon dozens of potential variables in every immune response. There are dozens of different chemical signals being sent, there are dozens of different activation states of different cells, there are cells designed to quench the immune response and keep it in check and there are others designed to push the response further. All of these things can be affected by hormone levels and diet.

There is also a great deal of random chance involved when considering what the T-cell receptors and B-cell receptors look like and which ones become triggered by the immune response. The body makes these receptors with random shapes which are designed to bind to other molecular shapes that a virus or bacterium may have. It makes them randomly and changes the shapes quite often. In this way the body can respond to whatever the world throws at it by always having a wide repertoire of receptors at the ready for any unknown molecules. There is a system in place to filter out the receptors that randomly bind to "self" molecules however. If poorly designed receptors are in circulation and have escaped this filtering system they can be activated and may attack self molecules instead of foreign ones.

Autoimmunity arises as a result of the architecture of the immune system and can have thousands of potential triggers. Blaming some unknown toxin in a vaccine is only a scapegoat that ignores the complexity and fragility of the immune system.

Thank you Radagast.

I said this to Tarc and I will say this to you as well. Thank you for your dedication.

Many people are just very unsure of what to believe and who to trust anymore, don't take it personally. Again, thank you for your dedication and knowledge.

You're welcome Lucy, and thank you for actually listening and considering. There are many who just want to validate their pre-conceived notions and it is good to know that some people aren't simply being combative when they ask a question. They may actually want an answer!

Cheers

Tarc, what you just stated really backs up my reply to you about people being afraid. Your dedication and intentions are well and good, but even you just voiced your concerns that the medical community is forgetting. So being that you are educated in science much more that most here on the vine, and still have concerns, imagine the concerns and questions of us less educated in your field.

Thanks again for your dedication.

Tarc:

Where did viruses come from to begin with? Does science know this?

I edited my post above but the first version was posted? WTH?

Thimerosal (mercury laced preservative) is most definitely in the multi dose vials, straight from the CDC's website!

www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html

Do MMR vaccines contain thimerosal?

No, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal.

Do all flu vaccines contain thimerosal?

No. Influenza (flu) vaccines are currently available in both thimerosal-containing and thimerosal-free versions. The total amount of flu vaccine without thimerosal as a preservative at times has been limited, but availability will increase as vaccine manufacturing capabilities are expanded. In the meantime, it is important to keep in mind that the benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the theoretical risk, if any, of exposure to thimerosal.

Way to spread your crap Laurie, next time, try posting all the information, not just the FOX news headlines.

i honestly don't consider the cdc a completely trustworthy source, much like i don't consider the fda a protector of our food supply. regardless, here is what is in vaccines:

naturalnews.com/SpecialReports/VaccinesFullStory/v1/VaccineReport-EN.pdf

Way to spread your crap Laurie, next time, try posting all the information, not just the FOX news headlines.

Sorry to burst your bubble, MacGyver, but Laurie's right. Perhaps you'd like to read your own post more carefully.

Do ALL flu vaccines contain thimerosal?

No. Influenza (flu) vaccines are currently available in both thimerosal-containing and thimerosal-free versions. The total amount of flu vaccine without thimerosal as a preservative at times has been limited, but availability will increase as vaccine manufacturing capabilities are expanded. In the meantime, it is important to keep in mind that the benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the theoretical risk, if any, of exposure to thimerosal.