California Citizens – Call your State Assembly member today
2012 May 3 by Randall Neustaedter OMD
I am forwarding an urgent message from the National Vaccine Information Center. The unconstitutional and coercive bill to require a doctor’s signature in order to obtain a vaccine exemption for school entry has passed the appropriations committee and is headed to the full Assembly.
Please call your assembly member and urge them to Vote No on AB 2109.
You can easily find your Assembly member at this website.
http://assembly.ca.gov/assemblymembers
URGENT CALIFORNIA ACTION ALERT:
CALL YOUR ASSEMBLY PERSON NOW TO OPPOSE AB2109
Bill Requiring Medical Visit for Vaccine Exemptions Scheduled for Assembly Vote TODAY May 3rd
Dear California NVIC Advocacy Team Members,
AB2109 is on the schedule for a vote in the full assembly today, May 3rd.
PLEASE STOP EVERYTHING AND PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL YOUR ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO ASK THEM TO VOTE NO ON AB2109! (directions below)
AB2109 was passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee with a “B” roll call on May 2nd which means the vote went straight down party lines with 12 l Democrats voting yes and 5 Republicans voting no. NVIC submitted financial arguments in opposition and California State NVIC Director Dawn Winkler testified at the hearing against the bill. We disagree that the fiscal analysis done by the committee staff accurately portrays the cost burden of this unnecessary bill.
Video of the hearing in Assembly Appropriations and Assembly Health Committee are both available to watch on-line. Look for Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 2nd and Assembly Health Committee on April 17. Click on the video link. http://www.calchannel.com/
ACTION NEEDED:
1. Contact your state assembly member and tell them to VOTE NO when AB2109 comes up for a vote on the assembly floor. If you log in to the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org your legislators are displayed on the right side. You can click on their names to open up their contact information. Additional information for all members is available at http://assembly.ca.gov/
2. Send this to as many friends and family in California that you can and ask them to please register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org so they can get added to this state email list and receive updates on how they can help fight this bill. If the bill is passed by the full assembly, it will then go to the senate.
SAMPLE PHONE PLAN:
- Call the office number for you state assembly member, introduce yourself and ask to talk to someone about AB 2109 which is being voted on today.
- Let the appropriate person know you are opposed to AB 2109 because it requires you to have to pay for an extra medical office visit you don’t want or need, it requires additional bureaucratic paperwork, and as a parent if this passes, you have no guarantee you will be able to find a provider who will take these appointments or sign the form. (If you’ve ever been harassed by a doctor before or denied care, this is a great place to talk about this). If you have a vaccine injured child, tell them the vaccine vulnerable or vaccine injured should not have to go back to the same doctor who caused the injury to your child in order to be “counseled” and get permission to exercise your right to a personal belief exemption.
- Let the legislative office know that this bill wastes your time and money because you are already well educated on vaccine risks and benefits (explain the steps you have taken to educate yourself above and beyond any handout could provide).
· Let them know about your personal story, what got you involved in this issue and why an unrestricted personal belief exemption is important to your family especially if anyone in your family has had a vaccine reaction.
Vaccine Choice Still Endangered in California – Support Letters Needed
2012 April 7 by Randall Neustaedter OMD
A California Congressional bill (AB2109) threatens to take parents’ choice about vaccinating their children and placing that choice in the hands of doctors. If this bill is passed into law, then parents who choose not to give a vaccine on the recommended schedule will need to find a doctor who is willing to sign a paper stating that they have informed parents of their choices. This will require a visit to a physician who is willing to discuss vaccines. If parents cannot afford or cannot find a doctor willing to do this, then they will not be able to obtain a personal belief exemption. This bill could effectively eliminate the personal belief exemption in California because many pediatricians refuse to see children whose parents choose not to give a vaccine they recommend.
A public hearing on Assembly Bill 21009 has been scheduled for April 17 by the Assembly Committee on Health. I urge you to write a letter to the Committee members opposing this bill. The law as it stands is completely adequate to provide parental choices in their vaccination decisions. No legislative action needs to be taken to ensure that parents have the right to choose what vaccines their children will receive.
Letters must be received by 12:00 PM on April 11 either by mail or by fax.
A simple letter stating your opposition to the bill is sufficient. Here is some suggested text.
Dear California Assembly Health Committee Members:
I am opposed to the passage of AB2109, which would impair a parent’s ability to obtain a personal (philosophical) belief exemption to vaccination for their child. This should be a parent’s right, and California immunization act currently allows parents to make this choice. The requirement to obtain a doctor’s approval of this choice places an unnecessary burden on parents, who may not have access to a physician willing to sign such a waiver.
Mail or Fax your letter to:
Assembly Member Bill Monning
Chair, Assembly Health Committee
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0027
Tel: (916) 319-2027
Fax: (916) 319-2127
The Latest Measles Outbreak Warning. Should We Be Scared?
2012 April 6 by Randall Neustaedter OMD
Here is my newest post at the excellent SAFbaby website on vaccines
Measles Warning
You’ve probably heard about the latest headline news that a possible Measles outbreak could hit the US this year.
USA Today reported a few weeks ago that The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned folks that the Olympics in London and the Euro 2012 soccer cup in Poland and Ukraine will be huge draws for American travelers and will increase the risk for measles infection. We wonder, “Is FEAR the ONLY way to push people into getting their shots?”
Today, we are asking our own SAFbaby expert, Dr. Randall Neustaedter OMD, to give us his opinion about these current ‘scary’ headline news:
Doom and Gloom Tactics
Doesn’t everyone get tired of hearing the CDC and the media making predictions of deadly epidemics year after year in an attempt to scare people into getting vaccinated?
Do we have such short attention spans that we forget the predictions of worldwide bird flu epidemics that would wipe out millions of people in 2004 and the H1N1 flu from Mexico that would devastate the population in 2009? Because none of those supposed epidemics that dominated the news ever materialized. Are we having a hard time distinguishing reality from disaster movies? Are we so gullible that we don’t recognize these manipulative tactics of the pharmaceutical industry?
US Tourists told to get Measles Vaccines
Now we receive this pure speculation about how tourists are going to bring measles home to America. The CDC is constantly trying to scare Americans into running to their doctors and pharmacies to get shot up with protective vaccines. The vaccine campaigns have also shifted to target adult populations with flu, pertussis, and measles vaccines, another lucrative market.
Make no mistake that the CDC, mainstream media, and vaccine policy makers are in league with vaccine manufacturers whose only goal is profit, not public health.
A profitable way to promote vaccines?
Vaccine companies are worried about the negative press that measles vaccine has received over the past few years. The association between measles shots and skyrocketing autism rates is not good press for them.
Who in the marketing department thought up this newest angle for vaccine promotion? Europeans infect Americans with deadly diseases at the Olympics. Intriguing. And what if there were some cases of measles in the US?
Conventional Medicine has no treatment for Measles
Everyone used to have measles as a child. It was a normal childhood disease. Like most childhood diseases there were sometimes complications. Conventional medicine has no treatment for measles, or most other viral diseases. Doctors are interested in preventing these diseases without regard for consequences of the vaccines. And this prevention makes billions of dollars.
Holistic Medicine to prevent complications and treat Measles
Holistic medicine is able to prevent complications and treat these diseases. A holistic program and lifestyle that creates a strong immune system will enable the body to handle these illnesses. If they occur, then a holistic treatment program using Vitamin A in high doses, Chinese antiviral herbs, elderberry, and homeopathic medicines are all effective in treating these diseases.
Holistic practitioners have confidence in treating these diseases. Where conventional medicine has no recourse except to watch the disease and see if complications occur, holistic medicine has active preventive and treatment methods. It’s a matter of perspective.
How Safe Are Vaccines?
Vaccines are assumed to be safe by the majority in conventional medicine. The CDC, WHO, FDA, and other health administration and vaccine policy making bodies all staunchly defend vaccines as safe and effective. However, for at least the past 40 years the safety of the vaccine campaign has been called into question. The very questioning of vaccine safety has been viewed as heresy and outright blasphemy by those proponents who view vaccination as a savior of humanity. Vaccines, after all, have been credited with ridding the world of the scourges of smallpox, polio, and measles. But because of the cost of serious adverse vaccine reactions the US government has passed laws that protect vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits involving vaccine damage.
Pro-Vaccination / Anti-Vaccination Debate
The myriad controversies and some vaccine fiascos, have led to a polarization of the vaccine camps into pro-vaccination and anti-vaccination factions. At times this polarization has erupted into outright warfare with professional casualties in the form of ruined professional careers and apparent witch hunts. And all of this heated debate centers on the question of whether vaccines have saved countless children’s lives or devastated the health of countless children. Anyone who cares to take even a casual look at the literature and numerous internet sites dedicated to the subject of vaccine safety will find a wealth of sobering, considered, and reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate. One can also easily find heated arguments and outright rage at the audacity of the other group which is risking the lives of children. One group will claim that children are being vaccinated into a chronic disease state, and the other accuses parents of leaving the unvaccinated prey to the evils of dreaded diseases. One side flings accusations of vaccine damage and conspiratorial cover-up, and the other side produces scholarly medical studies that vindicate vaccination.
The issue is not whether one vaccine is safe or not, but whether the entire program of universal and enforced vaccination may be misguided. – Dr. Randall Neustaedter
Are vaccines responsible for the rise in a handful of chronic, epidemic diseases in children?
That is the current state of the world that new parents venture into if they question the wisdom of subjecting their infant to the long list of routine vaccines in the modern recommended schedule.
Vaccine safety is not a simple question. For many parents, and many experts in the holistic medical field, the issue is not whether one vaccine is safe or not, but whether the entire program of universal and enforced vaccination may be misguided. There is a convincing argument that vaccines are responsible for the rise in a handful of chronic, epidemic diseases in children, specifically asthma, autism, attention, and diabetes. There is no question that the incidence of these diseases has been steadily increasing in children during the same period of time that the number of vaccines administered to those children has multiplied. And there is no other cogent explanation for the rise of these diseases except their possible association with vaccines.
The Decision to Vaccinate is Yours
Ultimately, every parent must decide whether they are more anxious about the disease or the vaccine hurting their child. This is a complicated decision process. Each of the diseases has varying risks and severity. Some are frightening and some are benign. Some diseases like whooping cough are more severe in infancy when the vaccines seem to have the greatest risk of harm, and some diseases like hepatitis B and cervical cancer from HBV are sexually transmitted and only prevalent in adults. This is a difficult subject for anyone to navigate, even for those with medical training. To help you make your own educated decision read my book, The Vaccine Guide.
California Vaccine Personal Belief Exemptions in Jeopardy
2012 March 16 by Randall Neustaedter OMD
I am passing along this important information from the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) so that you can protect your rights to vaccine exemptions. Please ask your representatives to oppose AB2109.
Contact California Legislators NOW to Oppose AB2109
Your rights to make informed independent vaccination choices for your family are under attack by forced vaccination proponents in California who want to profit from restricting your independent access to a personal belief exemption to mandatory vaccination. We need your timely help to contact California legislators to oppose Assembly Bill 2109.
AB2109, introduced by Assembly Member Richard Pan, who himself is a pediatrician, would impose these additional costly and time consuming burdens on parents wanting to use a personal belief exemption to:
1) pay for an expensive appointment at a medical doctor’s office to be given vaccine risk and benefit information that is already available online for free; and
2) jump through the bureaucratic hoops of obtaining yet additional new forms provided by the Department of Public Health which state that the health care practitioner has provided risk and benefit information to the parent; and
3) find a health care provider actually willing to take the appointment and then sign the new forms within 6th months of starting school for the exemption to be valid.
This raises many questions legislators need to answer including:
How will the state pay for all these extra required office visits for families on public assistance and for the kids of state employees who have their health coverage provided by the state?
What happens to a parent who can’t find a provider willing to make these types of appointments and then sign the form?
What will stop doctors from using this law to deny access to philosophical exemptions? It is already hard enough for families to find providers who are willing to just treat children in their practice at all when they deviate from the required vaccination schedule.
The bill has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Health. Text of the bill can be found here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2109_bill_20120223_introduced.html.
In the meantime, we need you to take the following actions to help oppose this bill:
1) Contact your state senator and state assembly member and ask them to oppose AB2109. If you log in to the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org and view this alert on the California state page, we will automatically lookup who your legislators are and display them to the right of this alert. You can click on their names to open up their contact information. This free confidential service requires your registration and login in order for us to be able to calculate who you legislators are.
2) Contact members of the Assembly Committee on Health and ask them to oppose AB 2109 (suggested phone call outline below).
William Monning (D) - Chair
Tel: (916) 319-2027
Fax: (916) 319-2127
Dan Logue (R) – Vice Chair
(P) 916-319-2003
(F) 916-319-2103
Tom Ammiano (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2013
Fax: (916) 319-2113
Toni Atkins (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2076
Fax: (916) 319-2176
Susan Bonilla (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2011
Fax: (916) 319-2111
Mike Eng (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2049
Fax: (916) 319-2149
Martin Garrick (R)
(P) 916-319-2074
(F) 916-319-2174
Richard .S Gordon (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2021
Fax: (916) 319-2121
Mary Hayashi (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2018
Fax: (916) 319-2118
Roger Hernandez (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2057
Fax: (916) 319-2157
Bonnie Lowenthal (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2054
Fax: (916) 319-2154
Allan R. Mansoor (R)
(P) (916) 319-2068
(F) (916) 319-2168
Holly J. Mitchell (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2047
Fax: (916) 319-2147
Brian Nestande (R)
(P) 916-319-2064
(F) 916-319-2164
Richard Pan (D) – sponsor
Tel: (916) 452-0505
Fax: (916) 452-5525
V. Manuel Perez (D)
Tel: (916) 319-2080
Fax: (916) 319-2180
Jim Silva (R)
(P) 916-319-2067
(F) 916-319-2167
Cameron Smyth (R)
(P) 916-319-2038
(F) 916-319-2138
Das Williams
Tel: (916) 319-2035
Fax: (916) 319-2135
Additional contact information for district offices is available by clicking on the assembly members name here – http://ahea.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff
Emails are listed as assemblymember.lastname@assembly.ca.gov
3) Let us know if you can help with the hearings by contacting NVIC CA State Directors, Dawn Winkler or Michelle Gutierrez, at CADirector@NVICAdvocacy.org or call Dawn Winkler at (530) 283-1018. if you
a) are willing to attend the committee hearings and/or testify against the bill; or
b) have a family member who has suffered an adverse reaction to a pertussis containing vaccine and are willing to provide written or oral testimony against the bill while describing that reaction; or
c) you have been thrown out of your doctor’s office for delaying or declining a vaccine and are willing to share your story with legislators; or
d) you are a health care provider who is willing to provide testimony against the bill.
4) Send this to as many friends and family in California that you can and ask them to please register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at http://NVICAdvocacy.org so they can get added to this state email list and receive updates how they can help fight this bill during this session. TO LIKE AND SHARE THIS ALERT ON FACEBOOK, link to http://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Resources/CAOPPOSEAB2109RestrictingVaccineExemptions.aspx and click on “like” or “send” by the Facebook tag on the top of the page.
Sample Phone Plan:
· Call the office number and introduce yourself and ask to talk to someone about AB 2109. If this is your assembly member’s office, let them know you are a constituent and what town/city you are from.
· Let the appropriate person know you are opposed to AB 2109 because it requires you to have to pay for an extra medical office visit you don’t want or need, it requires additional bureaucratic paperwork, and as a parent if this passes, you have no guarantee you will be able to find a provider who will take these appointments or sign the form. (If you’ve ever been harassed by a doctor before or denied care, this is a great place to talk about this).
· Let the legislative office know that this bill wastes your time and money because you are already well educated on vaccine risks and benefits (explain the steps you have taken to educate yourself above and beyond any handout could provide).
· Let them know about your personal story what got you involved in this issue and why an unrestricted personal belief exemption is important to your family especially if anyone in your family has had a vaccine reaction.
Additional Talking Points Against AB 2109 to be used in your written letters/email:
· Forcing parents into a paid contractual relationship with a health care provider they wouldn’t otherwise utilize for their children’s health care is not only a violation of basic parental rights, it creates distrust and resentment towards public health programs run by the state.
· Especially in California, many families utilize health care providers not reliant on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and only practitioners part of the pharmaceutical paradigm or medicine are allowed to provide the information and sign the form under this bill.
· AB 2109 discriminates against families utilizing complementary and alternative medicine by forcing them into paying money to a medical practitioner they wouldn’t otherwise use who is already philosophically opposed to the parent’s personal and religious convictions regarding vaccination.
· Parents who utilize vaccine exemptions are typically more educated regarding the risks and benefits of vaccination than both the parents who choose vaccination and aren’t required by this bill to receive this information and the health care providers who would be required to sign the exemption in order for it to be valid.
· Many doctors’ offices throw families out of their practice for delaying or declining a vaccine. There is nothing in this bill to prevent a doctor’s office from refusing to take these appointments to begin with or for refusing to sign the form once a family pays for a visit. These real obstacles will restrict or deny access to the personal beliefs exemption for some families currently using it.
· The state is not in the financial position to pay for all these extra required office visits within 6 months of school starting for families on public assistance and for the kids of state employees who have their health coverage provided by the state and who want to delay or a decline one or more vaccines.
· The information required by this bill is already available to parents online for free and coercive measures like this bill do nothing but create and further distrust and resentment towards public health programs run by the state.
· There is NO current crisis that would indicate that CA needs to make it more difficult to obtain exemptions from vaccination.
· Most vaccination rates in CA for children 19 to 35 months old for individual vaccines are at or above the CDC Healthy People 2020 goal of 90%. (http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/nis/nis_iap2.asp?fmt=v&rpt=tab03_antigen_state&qtr=Q1/2009-Q4/2009)
· Vaccination rates for children entering kindergarten in California have increased from 2010 to 2011 and are at or above the CDC Healthy People 2020 goals of 90%, except for one category, which is at 89.4%. (http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2011SelectiveReviewResults.pdf)
· Bill Sponsor Assembly Member Dr. Richard Pan, claims in a press release that his bill will help prevent outbreaks of pertussis. It is important for legislators to understand that the pertussis outbreaks in CA are due to waning immunity of the vaccine, and not because of families taking the exemption. Here are some references to back this point.
o “The rise in pertussis doesn’t seem to be related to parents’ refusing to have their children vaccinated for fear of potential side effects. In California, pertussis rates are about the same in counties with high childhood vaccination rates and low ones. And the C.D.C. reports that pertussis immunization rates have been stable or increasing since 1992.”(http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/vaccination-is-steady-but-pertussis-is-surging/ )
o Children can be susceptible to pertussis even if they are completely vaccinated. (http://www.inewsource.org/2011/03/28/experts-zero-in-on-waning-immunity/ )
o The acellular pertussis vaccine’s failure to deliver durable infection protection to children aged 7-10 years led to the 2010 California pertussis epidemic. (http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/news/conference-news/infectious-diseases-society-of-america-conference/single-article/acellular-pertussis-vaccine-s-waning-immunity-caused-california-epidemic/71de9826f4.html)
o The pertussis vaccine has been found to wane after only 3 years, leaving a much larger population of fully vaccinated children susceptible to pertusssis than unvaccinated children. KPBS and the Watchdog Institute performed a joint investigation into the recent increasing pertussis rates in California and found the majority of cases of pertussis were occurring in fully vaccinated populations of children in the 8-12 year old age group. They went on to show that the vaccine wanes after only 3 years. (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/sep/20/whooping-cough-vaccine-wanes-after-three-years/)
· Bill supporters claim that vaccines are safe. The reality is there is real risk. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established by Congress in 1986 to protect vaccine manufacturers and doctors from liability for vaccine injuries and death. As of Jan. 3, 2012, there have been 14,073 claims filed for vaccine injury and 1077 death claims. The total dollar amount of vaccine injury and death awards granted and paid to families of vaccine victims by our government is $2,366,649,931.96. (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#Claims)
· Just for pertussis containing vaccines alone administered in the state of California, 11,516 reports of Vaccine Adverse Events have been filed with the federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System where 77% of the reports of adverse events are for children 6 and under. There have been 5,775 disorders of the nervous system reported and 172 deaths. 96% of the deaths reported were in children three and under. (http://www.medalerts.org/)
The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) works diligently to prepare and disseminate our legislative advocacy action alerts and supporting materials. We request that organizations and members of the public forward our alerts in their original form to assure consistent and accurate messaging and effective action. Please acknowledge NVIC as originators of this work when forwarding to members of the public and like-minded organizations. To receive alerts immediately, register at http://NVICAdvocacy.org, a website dedicated to this sole purpose and provided as a free public service by NVIC.
Flu Vaccines Judged Ineffective
2011 October 20 by Randall Neustaedter OMD
Every year studies are conducted evaluating the effectiveness of flu vaccines. Every few years the Cochrane Collaboration reviews the scientific literature on the effectiveness of flu vaccines. And every review shows that flu vaccines are relatively ineffective. Despite these findings, vaccine manufacturers and government committees continue to recommend flu vaccines for the entire population.
The July 2010 Cochrane Database Review of 50 studies of flu vaccine use in healthy adults showed once again that these vaccines are not effective for those adults (Jefferson 2010). This confirms a previous review from 2007. That review looked at 274 studies. Both these reviews revealed that flu vaccine had no effect on complications such as pneumonia or on hospital admissions. And flu vaccine reduced the symptoms of illness by only a modest one percent. The authors of these reviews make an interesting observation. Industry-funded studies were more likely to be cited by other articles and the media. And publicly-funded studies were much less likely to show results favorable to vaccines. Don’t forget that if a vaccine manufacturer study does not show the results that the industry wants, they will discard the study.
The authors also note widespread misrepresentation of the conclusions that were reached in these reviews. They berate official government articles that misquote their findings to justify actions previously taken to recommend flu vaccines. Articles from the Centers for Disease Control that quote the Cochrane reviews misrepresent the efficacy of the flu vaccine to serve an agenda that promotes the use of these vaccines. Their conclusion: “The CDC authors clearly do not weight interpretation by quality of the evidence, but quote anything that supports their theory.”
The final conclusion of these authors is that their results should discourage the use of flu vaccine in healthy adults as a routine health measure.
Previous reviews of other age groups have shown similar ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine. The vaccine is ineffective in babies and in the elderly. The Cochrane review of flu vaccines in children less than two years of age showed the vaccine had no protective effect compared to placebo (Jefferson 2008). Similarly in the elderly, who are more susceptible to complications of the flu, studies were unable to show effectiveness (Rivetti 2006).
Finally, the flu vaccine itself causes notable adverse effects. For example the swine flu vaccine campaign of 1976 was halted because of a significant incidence of paralysis as a direct effect of the vaccine. This was an H1N1 vaccine similar to the swine flu H1N1 vaccine that is included in this year’s flu shots. And the new H1N1 vaccine is showing similar problems.
There are much more effective ways to prevent the flu. Taking immune system enhancers such as vitamins A and D supplements and medicinal mushrooms like cordyceps, reishi and shiitake, as well as lactoferrin and immunoglobulins contained in whey powder or colostrum will maintain a strong immune system. All of these supplements are available at most health food stores. There are also excellent natural treatments for the flu (Neustaedter 2005).
References
Jefferson T O, Rivetti D, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, and Demicheli V.. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 (2): CD001269.
Jefferson,T O, Rivetti A, Harnden A, Di Pietrantonj C, and Demicheli V.. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 (2): CD004879.
Jefferson,T O, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 (7): CD001269.
Neustaedter R. FLU: Alternative Treatments and Prevention. 2005. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA.
Rivetti D, Jefferson T, Thomas R, Rudin M, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C, and Demicheli V.. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 (3): CD004876.
