Flu Shots, Exposing Government Lies! All New Must Read!
With New Years behind us and Christmas a fading memory, now begins that four to six month period when nearly every public health official, pediatrician and corner pharmacy relentlessly commands us to do one thing: Get a flu shot.
And each year, that's just what millions of non informed Americans do. Why? Because they believe their healthcare officials know best and that these inoculations are necessary. After all, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), keeps reminding us that an average of 38,000 Americans die from influenza each year.
But let's backtrack for a moment. While health officials squander hard to come by dollars on flu vaccine hype, they're conveniently forgetting to mention that there are actually about 200 different infectious pathogens that cause flu-like symptoms. Among them are the ones we've heard of, like coronavirus and pneumonia – and others not as widely known such as adenovirus, bocavirus (responsible for bronchitis and pneumonia in kids), metapneumovirus (the cause behind just over 5 percent of all flu-related illnesses), rhinovirus and parainfluenza. This has always been true. And it remains so today.
Still, the government's propaganda machine had everyone really worried about the seriousness of flu infections. But it wasn't until 2005 when an enterprising Harvard student named Peter Doshi uncovered the truth behind the 'influenza death numbers', and revealed a government-directed campaign of misinformation.
Doshi said the CDC's claim was misleading, as the people who died did not necessarily die of the flu but, rather, of a flu-related complication. Doshi's research showed that while 61,777 people died from pneumonia, only 18 of them actually tested positive for influenza.
And why should anyone listen to Peter Doshi? For one, the CDC and National Institutes of Health sent 12 scientists around to unsuccessfully challenge him and discredit his findings. The key word here is unsuccessfully. Then they tried bullying him. Again, unsuccessfully. But the real reason is this: The New York Times calls Dr. Doshi “one of the most influential voices in medical research today.”
In a 2013 report published in the British Medical Journal, Dr. Doshi (now at Johns Hopkins) weighed in again on flu vaccinations: “The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.” He pointed to a Bloomberg news story (February 26, 2013) that looked at a study by an Australian team who found that “one in every 110 children under the age of five had convulsions following vaccinations in 2009 for H1N1 influenza.” Separate independent studies conducted in the UK, Finland and Sweden agreed with the claim that the flu vaccine directly contributed to the rise in cases of narcolepsy following receipt of GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix vaccine. They all reached the same conclusion -- the vaccine triggered an immune reaction against the children’s sleep center cells.
Beat the flu and the vaccines. Stick with our Healthy Immune system kit on sale now.
1 × Viragraphis
In October of 2009, President Obama declared swine flu a national emergency and signed a proclamation to effectively increase the ability of treatment facilities to handle a surge in H1N1 patients by easing the implementation of emergency plans.
In his proclamation statement, Mr Obama said the 2009 H1N1 pandemic "continues to evolve . . . and the rates of illness continue to rise rapidly within many communities across the nation.” As if the message wasn't clear enough, he added “. . . and the potential exists for the pandemic to overburden health care resources in some localities."
Presumably, he made his comments based on health officials declaring that swine flu activity was widespread in 46 states with over 1,000 US deaths linked to the virus.
Pretty dire stuff. And a good reason for all of us to be worried, right? Read on.
Around this time, during a months long CBS News investigation of official state-by-state statistics, it was confirmed that most U.S. cases of “swine flu” were not swine flu – and most people diagnosed did not have the flu at all. A state-by-state examination of the result of tests for H1N1 found that most cases were negative.
But how did CBS News even come to do their exhaustive investigation?
It seems that CBS News first asked the CDC for their state-by-state test results . . . and were ignored. So when the CDC failed to respond, CBS went to all 50 states directly, asking for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 flu cases prior to the halt of individual testing and counting.
The test results were eye opening, to say the least. Here's why: Of the approximately 13,000 specimens tested in California, 296 (2%) tested positive for H1N1 flu; 12 percent were another flu and 86 percent tested negative for flu, altogether. In Florida, of the 8,853 specimens, 1575 (17%) were H1N1 flu and 83 percent were negative or “other” flu. In Alaska, of the 722 specimens, 11 (1%) were H1N1 flu, 5 percent were seasonal flu and 675 (93%) were negative for flu. And in Georgia, of 3117 specimens, 74 (2.4%) were swine flu and 97 percent were negative.
The CBS study concluded: “ . . . When you come down with chills, fever, cough, runny nose, malaise and what you think are “flu-like” symptoms, 83 to 97 percent of the time the illness is caused by other viruses or bacteria . . . and by influenza as little as 3 percent and at most 17 percent of the time.”
If the CBS figures are to be trusted, then the CDC's infection-rate is much, much lower than previously believed and the severity of the flu season has been deeply exaggerated.
For as long as statistics have been used to sell, convince, motivate and inspire, people have learned how to lie with statistics. That's a behavior we expect from our elected officials and local car dealer . . . not our health officials. After all, these are the people we look to for guidance when either we or our loved ones are at our most vulnerable. We shouldn't have to worry about exaggerated stats, research we can't trust and medical misdirection.
Apparently, there is something more important than money . . . and more motivating than the need to preserve life, cure the sick and improve our quality of life.
It's called greed.
And the ongoing flu vaccine debacle with the CDC reeks of it.
During a recent interview, Dr. Thomas Jefferson, coordinator for the Cochrane Vaccine Field in Rome, Italy, stated that in 2009 he reviewed 217 published studies related to flu vaccines. He said 95 percent of those reports were flawed and their conclusions would have to be discounted. That meant only a scant 5 percent of the conclusions in these professional studies could be trusted. Keep in mind that these aren't studies nobody reads. They're studies that industries, healthcare professionals and ultimately, the general public, will rely on for their quality of their life.
Not surprisingly, says Excerpta Medica (1993), CDC officials eventually admitted that "influenza vaccines are still among the least effective immunizing agents available, and this seems to be particularly true for elderly recipients. Elaborating on that claim was Dr. J. Anthony Morris (distinguished virologist and former Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) who said, “There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.”
In 2006, Dr. Doshi published a study in the British Medical Journal that essentially says the CDC's math is way off – even misleading – in determining flu statistics and mortality rates.
Later, as an MIT graduate student, Dr. Doshi was interviewed by MIT Tech Talk (April, 2008). He said the pandemic-equals-extreme-mortality concept appears to be a generalization of a single data point: the 1918 season, a period in which "doctors lacked intensive care units, respirators, antiviral agents and antibiotics." He argued that "had no other aspect of modern medicine but antibiotics been available in 1918, there seems good reason to believe that the severity of this pandemic would have been far reduced."
Going further, he once again challenged the notion of a modern pandemic flu by noting the gap between evidence and fear, identifying the possible reasons that pandemic flu might be so misunderstood, including the possibility that commercial interests may be playing a role in inflating the perceived impact of pandemics. With public policies such as universal vaccination being discussed and more than $5 billion of federal money spent on preparing for the next pandemic, his study raises many important questions of public policy.
In a 2013 report published in the British Medical Journal, Dr. Doshi had this to say about flu vaccinations: "The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated." He notes that a study published by an Australian team found that "one in every 110 children under the age of five had convulsions following vaccinations in 2009 for HINI influenza."
Separate independent studies conducted in the UK, Finland and Sweden concurred that the flu vaccine directly contributed to the rise in cases of narcolepsy following receipt of GlaxoSmithKline's Pandemrix vaccine. The conclusion is that the vaccine triggered an immune reaction against the children's sleep center cells.
More than anybody, scientists know that today's flu vaccination studies are largely focused on antibody levels, and not whether the vaccine actually combats disease. Which is why scientific community, on whole, acknowledges that 'junk science', not fact, continues to forward the legitimacy of flu vaccines.
From a 2011 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases (March 2012), in one of the very few double blind placebo controlled trials on Sanofi Pasteur's Vaxigrip influenza vaccine, utilizing a genuine placebo (saline solution), researchers noted a 5.5 times higher rate in respiratory infections caused by non-influenza viruses in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated.
The Flu Vaccine and Pregnant Women: Risky Business
The CDC is convinced that flu vaccines are safe – and even beneficial – for pregnant women. They even say so on their website: “If you are pregnant, a flu shot is your best protection against serious illness from the flu. A flu shot can protect pregnant women, their unborn babies and even the baby after birth."
As a research scientist and educator, I take seriously my responsibility to not only read as much as I can, but also stay on top of as many reviews, journals, published reports and studies, as humanly possible. And I'll say this: In 30 years, I haven't seen a single study or published report supporting the claim that 'flu shots are safe for pregnant women'.
I have seen the H1N1 vaccine package inserts warning that "It is not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women or can affect reproduction capacity."
In fact, there have been precious few vaccine studies conducted with or performed on expectant mothers. The one or two I've heard of were questionable at best, and the results of any research covering the dangers of flu vaccines and pregnant women by the CDC's National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease was negligible.
The CDC Bites Back
In a pre-flu season New York Times article (Sept. 28, 2009), the CDC – tired of hearing that the 1.1 million heart attacks, 795,000 strokes, 876,000 miscarriages, and 200,000 seizures that happen within hours or days of a flu shot, were most likely caused by the flu shot – attempted to stave off a public relations nightmare and announced to a nervous nation that the vaccine was not responsible.
Said Dr. Jay Butler, CDC's chief of the swine flu vaccine task force, "There are about 2,400 miscarriages a day in the U.S. You'll see things that would have happened anyway. But the vaccine doesn't cause miscarriages. It also doesn't cause auto accidents, but they happen."
Butler's cringe worthy statement completely missed the mark in reassuring a nervous public, especially pregnant women. Somehow, the CDC failed to address the fact that of all the approved H1N1 vaccines used at that time, none had been run through clinical safety trials on pregnant women. They also dropped the ball when it came to assessing any of the potential adverse effects of the vaccines or their ingredients on developing fetuses.
In 2012, documentation received from the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) stated that between 2009 and 2010 the mercury-laden combined flu vaccinations have increased Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems (VAERS) fetal deaths by 4,250 percent in pregnant women receiving a flu shot.
Eileen Dannemann, NCOW’s director, claimed that even though the CDC was aware of these figures, unbelievably they still recommended the multiple-strain, inactivated flu vaccine containing mercury (Thimerosal) to pregnant women as a safe vaccination for the 2009/2010 season.
The journal Vaccine published a study that was quite clear in its conclusion which warned against giving the flu vaccine to pregnant woman. The study observed a rise in inflammation in pregnant woman related directly to preeclampsia (a very dangerous pregnancy complication) and leading to premature births.
The ingredients in a flu vaccine reads like a laundry list of the dangerous, deadly and disruptive. Among them:
Thimerosal (mercury). Used as a preservative.
Very toxic. Associated with autism and linked to a host of side effects, including behavioral disorders, vomiting, diarrhea, visual disturbances, convulsions, rapid heart rate, central nervous system disorders, depression, kidney, liver and blood disorders, and reproductive defects.
A very dangerous neurotoxin linked to brain damage, dementia, Alzheimers and convulsions. Human and animal studies have shown that aluminum can even cause nerve death.
Ammonium Sulfate. A substance commonly added to pesticides.
Not known if it's cancer-causing, but has been suspected of gastrointestinal, liver, nervous system and respiratory system toxicity.
A hazardous chemical on at least five federal regulatory lists. It caused lymphomas and hepatomas after being injected into lab mice, It's affect on humans not yet known. May be a human carcinogen.
Formaldehyde. Used as a preservative to stabilize the vaccine.
An embalming chemical and used in industry to manufacture building materials and produce many household products.
Monosodium Glutamate. Used as a stabilizer in vaccines.
One of the worst food additives on the market, MSG excites and poisons cells and tissues. It's also an endocrine disruptor that's known to cause reproductive disorders, learning disabilities and behavioral issues.
An incredibly hazardous compound, it's listed on at least federal regulatory lists.
An embalming chemical and known human carcinogen, neurotoxin, and genetic disruptor. Suspected of weakening the immune system and causing neurological system damage, genetic damage, metabolic acidosis (excessive blood acidity), circulatory shock, respiratory insufficiency and acute renal (kidney) failure.
A vaginal spermicide.
Phenol. Used to help stimulate immune response
Prevents your immune system from properly dealing with the pathogens that enter your body through the vaccine. Highly toxic to liver, kidneys and skin, as well as your cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, nervous, reproductive and respiratory systems, the Nazis used it on prisoners in concentration camps. Used to make weed killers and synthetic resins. The federal government has included phenol as a hazardous chemical on at least eight federal regulatory lists.
A cause behind anaphylactic shock; also classified as a carcinogen in animals.
Emerging Health Risks From Vaccines
An emerging health risk – and not just the mercury in vaccines – warrants serious discussion.
It is standard practice for pharmaceutical companies to use chicken embryos to grow flu strains. Unfortunately, the way in which the the vaccine preparation is filtered isn't efficient enough to remove the viruses from chickens, humans and monkeys, RNA and DNA fragments, and various 'cellular degradation products'.
Janine Roberts, a BBC investigative journalist, discovered this and other sickening revelations during her decade-long investigation originally conducted on behalf of parents with children severely ill after vaccinations, to discover if the medical authorities were hiding anything from them.
Roberts discovered that the top government scientists admit to colleagues that vaccines are contaminated. They report that it is impossible to commercially purify vaccines. They express great concerns, but the public is not told anything despite the possible consequences for long-term public health. A recent US court decision has linked autism with vaccine contamination.
Roberts uses (and includes) transcript from actual meetings in her no-holds-barred book, Fear of the Invisible: How Scared Should We Be of Viruses and Vaccines, HIV and AIDS (Impact Investigative Media Productions: Bristol UK, 2009).
During one meeting, Dr. Andrew Lewis, then head of the DNA Virus Laboratory in the Division of Viral Products confirmed that "All the egg-based vaccines are contaminated.... These fertilized chicken eggs are susceptible to a wide variety of viruses." Among these viruses are Avian Leuokosis Virus (associated with leukemia cancer in birds) and Equine Arteritis Virus (associated with arthritic conditions in horses).
Dr. Conroy of the World Health Organization stated that the arthritis virus is found in all fertilized chicken eggs. Other active biologic ingredients include prions (tiny proteins responsible for incurable diseases and neurological disorders in both humans and animals) and oncogenes (a gene that turns normal cells cancerous). One attendee, Dr. Goldberg, revealed that: "There are countless thousands of undiscovered viruses, proteins and similar particles. We have only identified a very small part of the microbial world—and we can only test for those we have identified. Thus, the vaccine cultures could contain many unknown particles."
Children and the Flu Vaccine
In 2009, the CDC recommended vaccinating children as young as six months when It rolled Out its new swine flu vaccine. These FDA-approved intramuscular flu vaccines comprise an inactivated virus were easily 'the next big thing' in flu prevention and you could practically hear the fanfare all the way from Washington D.C.
Still, some scientists wondered if inactivated viral influenza vaccines would be are effective in very young children. Among them was the Cochrane Group's Dr. Thomas Jefferson. He knew that babies and flu vaccines didn't – and shouldn't – mix and wasted little time in reporting his evidence in both The Lancet and the prestigious Cochrane Database Systems Review. The first study (Assessment of the Efficacy and Effectiveness of Influenza in Healthy Children: A Systemic Review, 2005) was a systematic review of the effects of influenza vaccine in healthy children. The second (Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2004.) was a review of all available published and unpublished safety evidence available regarding the flu vaccine.
The authors of the study had also contacted the lead scientists or research groups for all the efficacy and safety trials under review in order to gain access to additional unpublished data the corporations may possess. The conclusions are staggering.
Juist one safety study for an inactivated flu vaccine had been found – and that study, from 1976, had enrolled only 35 children between the ages of 12-28 months. Subsequent inactivated flu vaccine studies enrolled only children three years and older. Finding a medical basis for the flu vaccine to be administered to six month old children would not be easy. Mainly because there was none.
The Idaho Observer (September 22, 2005) reported that in its review of 51 studies involving over 294,000 children, there was "no evidence that injecting children 6-24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than placebo. In children over 2 years of age, flu vaccine effectiveness was 33 percent of the time preventing flu.”
In an interview with Reuters (Reaney, Patricia. "No Evidence Flu Shots Work for Under-2s: Study. Reuters, September 22, 2005), Dr. Jefferson revealed the following: "Immunization of very young children is not lent support by our findings. We recorded no convincing evidence that vaccines can reduce mortality, [hospital] admissions, serious complications and community transmission of influenza. In young children below the age of 2, we could find no evidence that the vaccine was different from a placebo.”
A live flu virus vaccine is available via nasal administration. As for this vaccine, no safety studies have been performed on children under 22 months. Of course a vaccine with an flu active virus can make the recipient potentially contagious. As reported in the Philadelphia Examiner (Dupre, Deborah. "The Big Lie: H1N1 Coincidences, Contradictions and Conspiring." The Philadelphia Examiner. August 27, 2009), National Vaccine Information Prevention founder and president Barbara Lo Fisher agreed: "The live virus activated vaccine has the ability to spread flu." Medimmune, the only manufacturer of the live flu nasal vaccine, steadfastly refused to supply unpublished data to Dr. Jefferson without executive clearance. This was also true for some vaccine makers working with inactive viruses.
Mercury, in the form of thimerosal, continues to be used in infant influenza vaccines. An important peer-reviewed study appearing in the June 2009 issue of Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry discovered a causal relationship between the amounts of mercury found in infant flu vaccines when administered to monkeys, and cellular toxicity resulting in mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative reduction activity and degeneration and death in neuronal and fetal cells. These are all signs of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).
For some reason, health officials prefer to ignore such results. In the last few years, ASD has increased to 1 in 91 people, compared to the earlier estimate of 1 in 150.
Vaccine Issues and the Elderly
Can flu vaccinations really help protect senior citizens?
Until I see any data which supports that position, I say 'absolutely not'. What I have seen is a great deal of credible scientific info that suggests seniors are better off completely avoiding flu shots.
This year, the influenza vaccination specifically targeted to seniors is Fluzone Hi-Dose. The high dose means the vaccine has four times as much microbial antigen – the lab altered flu viruses – that prompt your body to produce antibodies to the three different influenza strains contained in the flu vaccine.
Now here's what the well executed marketing campaign isn't telling you: The side effects are pretty awful. 7.4% of elderly volunteers experienced serious adverse events and 23 persons in the trial died following administration of the vaccine. All told, there were 249 serious adverse incidences out of 3,833 participants enrolled in the study.
And of course, the CDC and the FDA will continue to claim that the problem with serious side affects isn't the fault of the vaccine, but “other unidentified health risk factors in the victims.”
I could tell you that our health officials don't actually know whether or not flu shots work on seniors, but I'll defer to the package insert of Fluzone High-Dose to do the talking instead. What you are about to read is on the actual package:
"Data from clinical trials comparing Fluzone to Fluzone High-Dose among persons aged 65 years or older indicate that a stronger immune response (i.e. higher antibody levels) occurs after vaccination with Fluzone High-Dose.
Whether or not the improved immune response leads to greater protection against influenza disease after vaccination is not yet known. An ongoing study designed to determine the effectiveness of Fluzone High-Dose in preventing illness from influenza compared to Fluzone is expected to be completed in 2014-2015."
After reviewing 64 studies that enrolled 66,000 healthy adults, The Idaho Observer (June 2009) reported that "vaccinations of healthy adults only reduced the risk of influenza by 6 percent and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day. There was no change in the number of hospitalizations compared to the non-vaccinated."
But how did seniors over 65 fare? Especially the ones with compromised immune systems?
Interestingly enough, the flu vaccine was even less effective among this group as compared to other groups. You'd think health officials would have gotten the message by now, especially after having had to concede last flu season's vaccine was 91% ineffective for seniors.
And then there was the Dutch study conducted in a elderly residence home. Despite a large scale vaccination (two-thirds of the population) half the vaccinated residents still caught the flu, as did half the non-vaccinated. And 10 percent of the residents died. Another example of the waste of resource flu vaccinations represent.
But still seniors remain the focus of the government's very aggressive marketing campaign.
Other Potential Health Risks
As we age, the potential for heart and cardiovascular disease increases, making that a leading cause of death among the elderly. The Journal of Internal Medicine (January, 2011) reports that the flu vaccine contributes to cardiovascular inflammation thus increasing the risk of heart attack even more. The study found that the flu vaccine induced platelet activity, elevated C Reactive Protein, and reduced heart rate variability – all indicated in adverse cardiovascular events.
As the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., Alzheimer's disease affects over five million people annually and kills one in three seniors.
According to preeminent immunologist Dr. Hugh Fudenburg, founding director of the renowned Neuro Immuno Therapeutic Research Foundation, people who've had five consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980, were ten times (1000 percent) more likely to develop Alzheimer's disease than someone who's had only one or two vaccinations during the same period. The reason behind this connection is as grim as it is disturbing: the buildup of mercury left to accumulate in one's system after all these years. Mercury is perhaps the most toxic heavy metal known to man and is known to cause Alzheimers.
Asthma and the Flu Vaccine
The vaccine industry claims that flu vaccination 'will reduce asthmatic attacks brought on by flu infection among those children most susceptible to them'.
In 2002, a Dutch study led by Dr. Herman Bueving at the Department of Family Practice at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, put that claim to bed.
The two-year randomized double-blind placebo study of nearly 700 children by in Rotterdam, Netherlands, enlisted two groups of children – one group received inactivated influenza vaccine, while the other received a placebo throughout the winters of 1999-2000, and 2000-2001.
At the end of the study, Dr. Bueving concluded there was 'no difference between the incidence and severity of asthmatic attacks between the two groups', further proof of the flu vaccine's ineffectiveness.
A separate study involving two groups of 400 children concluded that not only did the vaccine not prevent flu-related hospitalizations, there was no difference in the number of clinic and emergency room visits and hospitalizations between the two groups.
Mandated Flu Shots in Japan
The move to mandate influenza vaccines is not new. In Japan, mass influenza vaccination programs for school aged children had been started in 1960, and about 3 million children were vaccinated. In 1976, the compulsory vaccination system had been introduced and 17 million children from primary to high school had to be vaccinated twice annually.
In 1987 about 400,000 children were observed as part of a study of adverse reactions against the influenza vaccine. The total adverse reaction rate was 254.3 per million with 10 per million children complaining of neurological symptoms.
That same year the Japanese government changed the vaccine from compulsory to free choice. The government also ruled that “flu vaccination was ineffective and was no more than a serious financial and legal liability if it were to continue.”
Almost immediately the mandatory policy was overturned. Less than two years later the number of Japanese taking the flu vaccine had dropped to 20 percent. Subsequent studies have concluded there is practically no change in influenza infection rates between now and the period when flu shots were mandatory.
Good Hygiene May Be Better Than Flu Vaccine
Can washing your hands protect against the influenza virus?
Apparently it can as it represents an effective step in avoiding catching a bug.
The key to a first line of defense against the flu is to cut the risk of infection. Hands act as magnets for microscopic bacteria and viruses that can easily find their way into bodies.
North Carolina State Professor Dr. Lee-Ann Jaykus' advice during flu season is simple and direct. "Hand washing is absolutely vital."
A recent Proctor and Gamble study to determine whether frequent use of a common hand soap, an antibacterial soap and a placebo, would reduce the rate of lung infections due to pneumonia among children, yielded similar results. Conducted throughout various neighborhoods in Pakistan, the frequent use of soap and water produced a fifty percent lower incidence of pneumonia infections among children under five with the plain and antibacterial soaps compared to placebo. There was also a 53 percent reduction in diarrhea and a 34 percent decrease in incidences of impetigo. Compared to the efficacy of the flu vaccine and you can see how much more effective (and less dangerous) cleanliness is in preventing the spread of communicable infections.
Says a 2013 Cochrane Summary on the issue (Vaccines to Prevent Influenza in Healthy Adults, Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E), without laboratory tests, "doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10 percent of all circulating viruses."
Following his research at the Cochrane group, Dr. Jefferson said this in a New York Times (September 21, 2005) interview: "People should ask whether it's worth investing these trillions of dollars and euros in these vaccines.. What you see is that marketing rules the response to influenza and scientific evidence comes fourth or fifth. The best strategy to prevent illness is to wash your hands.
Will They or Won't They?
Not too long ago the general population, as a whole, blindly followed their government officials (and Big Pharma), believing all the hype, misinformation and carefully worded propaganda Big Brother kept dishing out. No longer. With websites (like this one, I'm proud to say!) committed to educating people and informing them of the truth, it's getting easier to separate the chafe from the wheat when it comes to the health of our loved ones and ourselves – especially when dangerous and unnecessary vaccinations are concerned.
And I'm happy to report that the word on the ineffectiveness and danger is getting out. And here's the proof. The Washington Post (Jan. 13, 2013) reported that well into the 2012-2013 flu season, a staggering “64.8 percent of Americans didn't get a flu shot.” Why were flu vaccination rates so low? The influential researcher RAND Corp., said that part of the issue had to do with no consequences for not getting vaccinated. A study they conducted in 2011 found that about half of those who did not get vaccinated agreed with statements such as "I don't need it" or "I don't believe in flu vaccines."
And consumers aren't the only ones thumbing their noses up at flu vaccines.
According to The Independent (January 14, 2014), a 2010 review by the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration, an international network of experts, concluded that the vaccine had little impact in years, like the winter of 2011-12, when the vaccine and the viruses were mismatched.
On average, flu vaccine shortened the illness by about half a day but did not reduce the number of people hospitalized, it said.
Tom Jefferson, an author of the Cochrane reviews, said: “We have conducted four reviews since the late 1990s. We calculated that you need to vaccinate between 33 and 99 people to prevent one case of flu, depending on the match between the vaccine and the circulating strains of the virus. I want people held accountable for wasting taxpayer’s money on these vaccines. The reviews have been available for years and nothing has been done.”
A report published by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, US, says the perception that existing flu vaccines are highly effective has become a barrier to developing new and better vaccines.
It also risks undermining public trust in mass immunization campaigns if Governments fail to tell the truth about the vaccine.
Of course, it's hard to imagine health officials, both here and abroad, are pleased with that news. Especially when they have to continually defend vaccine safety and efficacy – and their own ethical behavior.
The British Medical Journal (June 2010), in a joint investigation with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, found that three key scientists behind World Health Organization (WHO) advice on stockpiling of pandemic flu drugs had financial ties with companies which stood to profit, an investigation has found. The advice prompted many countries around the world into buying up large stocks of Tamiflu, made by Roche, and Relenza manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. Although the scientists involved had freely declared the links in other places and said WHO asked for conflicts of interest forms prior to expert meetings, those ties were not publicly declared by WHO.
But will things change anytime soon . . . even though the business of flu vaccinations accounts for big money? It has to. But first you have to understand, when I say big money, I really do mean BIG MONEY.
VacTruth.com, the venerable watchdog site, disclosed how in 2011, the U.S. Federal government awarded six pharmaceutical corporations contracts worth nearly $6 Billion to manufacture pediatric vaccines.
According to information posted on the CDC and Federal Business Opportunities websites, the contracts were for the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program.
But here's the problem: The VFC program purchases the vaccines from the manufacturers, which are then distributed to state health departments and territorial public health agencies. With the money we pay in our taxes. Money that could definitely be used for something that we actually want to fund or at the very least, isn't a waste of our money.
And because the vaccine manufacturer isn't obligated to pay for any expensive marketing campaigns, the federal government . . . yes, our federal government . . . now has to foot that bill. Which is probably why they'll say and do pretty much anything they need to so they pay the expensive marketing bill they've been saddled with.
Now, you'll really understand why the government's campaign of lies, fiction and misinformation is so convincing. For their sake, it has to be.
Beat the flu and the vaccines. Stick with our Healthy Immune system kit on sale now.
Here are the products listed below.
1 × Excellent C
1 × Ultimate D3-5000