There are some astounding figures compiled here.
They need to be carefully reviewed. If they hold
up, the hoodwinking of the world's people by
pharmaceutical companies -- and scientists and
health officials who have gone along with that
paradigm without challenging it -- is absolutely criminal ......
- Mitchel Cohen
http://prn.fm/2013/11/new-flu-season-pain-profit-politics-gary-null-richard-gale
A New Flu Season of Pain, Profit and Politics
by Gary Null & Richard Gale
Progressive Radio Network.org
According to all official health reports, we are
now fully in flu season. It is that time of year
when public health officials, physicians
pediatricians and pharmacists warn that everyone
over 6 months of age should protect themselves
and get vaccinated. Most Americans, believing the
government's propaganda about the safety and
benefits of the flu vaccine, are joining the
inoculation lines without pausing to consider the
accuracy and legitimacy of health officials' and pediatrician claims.
The official government figure for the annual
number of deaths caused by influenza infection
remains at 36,000. Why this figure has not
changed during the course of a decade is anyone's
guess. However, there can between 150 and 200
different infectious pathogens -- adenovirus,
rhinovirus, parainfluenza, the very common
coronavirus and, of course, pneumonia -- that
produce flu-like symptoms. For example, how many
people have heard of bocavirus, which is
responsible for bronchitis and pneumonia in young
children, or metapneumovirus, responsible for
more than 5 percent of all flu-related illnesses?
This is true during every flu season and it will
be no different for the 2013-2014 season.
If we take the combined figure of flu and
pneumonia deaths for the period of 2001, and add
a bit of spin to the figures, we are left
believing that 62,034 people died from influenza.
The actual figures determined by Peter Doshi,
then at Harvard University, are 61,777 died from
pneumonia and only 257 from flu. Even more
amazing, among those 257 cases only 18 were confirmed positive for influenza.
A CBS Investigative Report, published in October
2012, exemplifies the unreliable and perhaps
intentionally deceptive misinformation campaign
steered by the US government health agencies
every flu season . After the CDC refused to honor
CBS's Freedom of Information request to receive
flu infection data by individual state, the
network undertook an independent investigation
across all fifty states to get their infectious
disease statistics. The final report contradicts
dramatically the CDC's public relations blitz.
For example, in California, among the approximate
13,000 flu-like cases, 86 percent tested negative
for any flu strain. In Florida, out of 8,853
cases, 83 percent were negative. In Georgia and
Alaska, only 2.4 percent and 1 percent
respectively tested positive for flu virus among
all reported flu-like cases. If the
infection-rate ratios obtained by CBS are
accurate, the CDC's figures are significantly
reduced and flu season severity is overstated dramatically.
In addition to false advertising by the
government and America media, over recent years,
we have witnessed an increase in "scientific"
studies framed as commercials and public
relations spin to promote vaccine efficacy. A
highly flawed medical trial conducted by a
vaccine maker has a greater chance of being
published in a prestigious medical journal than
scientifically sound research conducted by an
independent scientist or university without
conflict of interests with government and private
industries. When we question why this is the
case, the deduction is that such research is more
often than not promotional spin to support the
financial interests of the corporate party. This
is particularly true of industry and
government-funded vaccine trials with the sole
intention to influence the nation's health policy
makers and physicians, and to relieve doubts
concerning vaccine efficacy and safety. The
nation's health agencies then rely upon these
fabrications to convince the healthcare community
and citizens about the importance of vaccination
and the dangers of contracting an infectious
disease. And this scenario is particularly
flagrant in studies promoting flu vaccine propaganda.
There is a single question that needs to be
answered: what is the actual gold standard proof
to claim that the flu vaccine is efficacious for
any given individual? The question whether or not
the flu vaccine is safe becomes secondary if the
vaccine's efficacy is negligible or useless. In
that case, there would be no convincing
scientific rationale for administering the
vaccine in the first place. During the past four
years, since the hype and subsequent fizzle of
the 2008 H1N1 scare, we have done an extensive
review of the scientific literature and analysis
of flu vaccination, and the results are startling.
In an interview with Dr. Thomas Jefferson,
coordinator for the Cochrane Vaccine Field in
Rome, Italy, he stated that in 2009 he conducted
a thorough review of 217 published studies on flu
vaccines and found only 5% reliable. In other
words, 95% of published flu vaccine studies are
flawed and their conclusions should be dismissed.
This is not a great surprise; even CDC officials
were forced to confess that "influenza vaccines
are still among the least effective immunizing
agents available, and this seems to be
particularly true for elderly recipients."(1) Dr.
Anthony Morris, a distinguished virologist and a
former Chief Vaccine Office at the FDA, found
"there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine
thus far developed is effective in preventing or
mitigating any attack of influenza.' Dr. Morris
stated, "The producers of these vaccines know
they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway."(2)
In 2006, Dr. Peter Doshi published a devastating
study in the British Medical Journal that
systematically unveils the flawed predictive
science used to publicize our health agencies'
influenza statistics and mortality rates. His
analysis shook up enough health authorities to
warrant twelve scientists from the CDC and
National Institutes of Health to unsuccessfully
challenge him. Now at John Hopkins, Doshi
continues his analysis of a century's worth of
influenza mortality statistics and government
manipulation of influenza data, such as the
annual figure of 36,000 influenza deaths we hear
and read repeatedly.(3) Although this magical
number was for all practical purposes
alchemically conjured via mathematical modeling
back in 2003, it continues to be the most holy
number in the CDC's PR vocabulary every flu
season. Doshi draws the conclusion, published in
the American Journal of Public Health, that
commercial interests are playing the role of
science in both industry and government.(4) When
we review the FDA's and CDC's flawed methodology
for promulgating the myth that 36,000 Americans
die annually from flu infections, we will see
that over 90 percent of these mortalities are a
result of pneumonia and other infections, not the
influenza virus. On the CDC's website, the agency
makes reference that deaths caused by influenza
and pneumonia are grouped together
In a more recent 2013 report published in the
British Medical Journal, 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."(5) Separate independent studies
conducted in the UK, Finland and Sweden concur
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.(6)
Perhaps the vaccine industry's single and most
vital error to determine whether flu vaccines are
effective lies in its unsound belief that
measuring antibodies following vaccination is
indicative of protection from flu infection.
Therefore studies are strictly designed to
quantify antibody levels and not to discover
whether the vaccine actually prevenst disease.
This primitive and biologic-denying creed is a
major reason why more voices in the scientific
community acknowledge that the entire premise of
the flu vaccine is based upon junk science. As a
result, one of the very few double blind placebo
controlled trials on Sanofi Pasteur's Vaxigrip
influenza vaccine, utilizing a genuine placebo
(saline solution), noted a 5.5 times higher rate
in respiratory infections caused by non-influenza
viruses in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated.(7)
Pregnant Women and the Flu Vaccine
The CDC's website states, "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." Is there any scientific truth
to this claim?(8) We would expect that if this
were true, then we would find this mentioned on
the flu vaccine package inserts. But we don't.
For example, for the HINI vaccine inserts, we
find "It is not known whether these vaccines can
cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant
women or can affect reproduction capacity."
Surprisingly few vaccine studies have been
performed on pregnant women. And none of them
according to Dr. Jefferson are "high quality."
While some extremely poor trials have been
conducted, the CDC's National Institute for
Allergies and Infectious Disease research into
the potential dangers and risks of the flu
vaccine to both mom and fetus is negligible.
After evaluating all flu vaccine studies on
pregnant women, and finding them "artificial" in
the way they were designed and carried out, Dr.
Jefferson concludes that "I would be very very
cautious about vaccinating unborn babies."(9)
The New York Times published an article touting
the CDC myth of flu vaccine safety for pregnant
women. The Times quoted Dr. Jay Butler, CDC's
chief of the swine flu vaccine task force to
relieve fears about flu vaccine adverse effects,
especially to pregnant women. Dr. Butler said,
"There are about 2,400 miscarriages a day in the
US. 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."(10) Not very
reassuring to expectant mothers across the
country, especially since none of the approved
H1N1 vaccines used at that time had undergone
rigorous clinical safety trials on pregnant women
or the potential adverse effects of mercury-laced
vaccines and other ingredients, such as
spermacide, detergent and cosmetics, on the developing fetus.
In 2012, the National Coalition of Organized
Women received documents with statistics based
upon the government's Vaccine Adverse Events
Reporting System (VAERS) covering the 2009 and
2010 flu season. The CDC's own vaccine injury
data collection revealed a 4,250% increase in
fetal deaths after the flu shot. The VAERS
statistics were confirmed later by Dr. Gary
Goldman and published in the Human and
Environmental Toxicology Journal showing that the
HINI swine flu vaccine did in fact cause a 4,250%
rise in spontaneous abortions.
The CDC has refused to provide further
information under a Freedom of Information Act
filing until after a three year period, a direct
violation of FIOA law. When confronted and
queried about the rise in fetal deaths among
vaccinated pregnant mothers, the CDC's Dr.
Shimabkuru confirmed the agency knew of this increase.(11)
A study appearing in the journal Vaccine provides
a strong warning against administering the flu
vaccine to pregnant woman.(12) The study observed
a rise in inflammation in pregnant woman that
relates directly to preeclampsia and leading to
premature births. Commenting upon this study,
Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, wrote this
should be expected given the "highly
inflammatory, neurotoxic and immunotoxic"
ingredients found in flu vaccines. A list of flu
vaccine ingredients includes:(13)
* Ethyl Mercury (thimerosal): a powerful
neurotoxin implicated in autism, seizures, mental retardation, dyslexia
* Aluminum compounds: a known neurotoxin that
has been associated with brain damage, dementia, Alzheimers and convulsions
* Ammonium Sulfate: commonly used in
pesticide preparations and attributed to respiratory toxicity;
* Beta-Propiolactdone: a hazardous chemical
associated with lymphomas in animals;
* Formaldehyde: an embalming chemical and
known human carcinogen, neurotoxin, and genetic disruptor;
* Monosodium Glutamate: a preservative known
to adversely affect learning, behavior and reproduction
* Oxtoxinol-9: a vaginal spermicide;
* Phenol: an immune inhibitor that has been
known to be highly toxic to the cardiovascular,
nervous, reproductive and respiratory systems and
once employed by the Nazis in the concentration camps
* Polysorbate 80: associated with
anaphylactic shock and a classified carcinogen in animals
If the dangers of the toxic chemical ingredients
found in flu vaccines is not enough, there is
also the high health risks associated with the
cellular medium pharmaceutical companies use to
prepare the influenza virus. Commonly, chicken
embryos have been the standard medium for growing
flu strains. In her book, Fear of the Invisible,
medical investigative journalist Janine Roberts
reproduces documents from closed CDC meetings to
discuss problems associated with vaccine
manufacturing.(14) The meeting was called to
raise alarm and review the degree of genetic
contamination found in vaccine preparations that
rely on chicken embryo and other animal tissue
medium, including the flu vaccine. The
transcripts conclude that due to the primitive
methodology to filtrate vaccine preparations, the
end result injected into people can contain
numerous known and unknown genetic and protein residues and contaminants.
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, stated, "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."
Because of the known dangers and high level of
genetic contamination of all flu vaccines
developed from chicken embryos, other mediums are
being sought to replace them. Novartis' Flucelvax
employs dog kidney cells, and a more recent flu
vaccine approved by the FDA in 2013 utilizes a
cell line from the armyworm Spodoptere
frugiperda. But no known research has been
conducted to our knowledge on the risks to the
body's immune system from these new genetic cell lines.
Children and the Flu Vaccine
When the CDC launched the new swine flu vaccines
in 2009, it recommended vaccination of children
as young as 6 months. All FDA-approved
intramuscular flu vaccines comprise an
inactivated virus. So is there any evidence that
inactivated viral influenza vaccines are
effective in very young children? Our own
analysis and review has not uncovered any
convincing scientific evidence. However, some of
the most damning evidence was reported in two
studies performed by Dr. Tom Jefferson at the
Cochrane Group and published in The Lancet and
the prestigious Cochrane Database Systems Review.
The first study was a systematic review of the
effects of influenza vaccine in healthy
children.(15) The second was a review of all
available published and unpublished safety
evidence available regarding the flu vaccine.(16)
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
shocking. The only safety study found for an
inactivated flu vaccine was conducted in 1976.
And that single study enrolled only 35 children
aged 12-28 months. Every other subsequent
inactivated flu vaccine study enrolled only
children 3 years and older. Therefore, upon what
medical basis should the flu vaccine be
administered to six month old children? There is none.
In a 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.(17)
Dr. Jefferson told Reuters, "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."(18)
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. National Vaccine Information
Prevention founder and president Barbara Lo
Fisher concurs: "The live virus activated vaccine
has the ability to spread flu."(19) Medimmune,
the sole manufacturer of the live flu nasal
vaccine, repeatedly refused to give 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.(20) These are all
indicative signs found in some ASD. But health
officials prefer to ignore such results. For the
future health of American children, the study's
findings arrived at a bad time when a Harvard
study reported that autistic spectrum disorders
(ASD) had increased to 1 in 91 people compared to
the earlier 1 in 150 estimate.
The Elderly and the Flu Vaccine
Is there any benefit for senior citizens to
receive the flu vaccine? To date, there is in
fact no credible data to support the marketing
campaign to push flu vaccination upon the elder
population. Rather there is strong scientific
data to suggest that seniors avoid it all costs.
For the 2013 flu season, Fluzone is the preferred
vaccine being marketed to seniors. This "high
dose" vaccine contains more viral antigens
compared to the normal vaccine given to younger
adults. Thee results of Fluzone's own safety
trial documents 7.4% of elderly volunteers
experience serious adverse events and 23 persons
in the trial died following administration of the
vaccine. All total there were 249 serious adverse
incidences out of 3,833 participants enrolled in
the study.(21) A common excuse we hear from the
CDC and FDA when a vaccine has been associated
with serious health consequences is that the
problem is not the vaccine, but other
unidentified health risk factors in the victims.
This type of defense and blatant denial is found
repeatedly on our federal health agencies own websites.
In 64 studies that looked at a total of 66,000
healthy adults, "Vaccination of healthy adults
only reduced 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."(22) So if this is true of
healthy adults, what about the flu vaccine's
efficacy among the elderly who are frequently
immuno-comprised from other illnesses?
The flu vaccine has been shown to be less
effective among seniors over 65 years of age than
other age groups. Nevertheless, the over-65
population remains a primary target for federal
vaccination campaigns. There have been many
studies conducted in nursing homes to determine
how effective flu vaccines are in preventing
infection. Average effectiveness results, which
means measuring only the dose required to
stimulate an adequate immune response, are in the
low to mid twenty percent range (21-27 percent).
Another set of four studies indicates the flu
vaccine was 0, 2, 8 and 9 percent effective.(23)
Yet despite these dismal results, the CDC still
wishes us to believe that vaccinating elderly
citizens is "50-60% effective in preventing
hospitalization and pneumonia and 80% effective in preventing death.(24)
Government health projections confirm, and the
CDC has been forced to acknowledge, that elderly
people, with or without the flu shot, show less
than a one percent rate of being hospitalized for
pneumonia and influenza. That means that 99
percent of elderly people manage to weather the
storm.(25) In an even more shocking study, the
CDC had to admit that last year's flu vaccine was
91% ineffective for seniors citizens.(26) However
this has not discouraged government officials
from marketing the flu vaccine upon senior
citizens and professional geriatric medical
associations and healthcare facilities.
An important Dutch study was conducted in a large
home for the elderly. In spite of two thirds of
the residents having been vaccinated, the flu
infected 49% of them, including bacterial and
pneumonia infections, and 10% died. The critical
observation found in the study was that 50% of
those vaccinated got the disease whereas 48% of
non-vaccinated people were infected. The results
of this study again reveal the uselessness of the flu vaccine.(27)
Heart and cardiovascular disease risks increase
during natural aging and is a leading cause of
death among the elderly. It has recently been
discovered in a study published in the
International Journal of Medicine that the flu
vaccine contributes to cardiovascular
inflammation thereby increasing the risk of heart
attack. 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.(28)
Alzheimer's disease is now the sixth leading
cause of death in the US and affects over five
million people. The disease is growing rapidly
and today one in three seniors die from it or
another form of dementia at a cost of $203
billion in 2013 and an expected increase to $1.2
trillion by 2050.(29) With the federal health
agencies aggressive pursuit to vaccinate senior
citizens with the flu vaccine, is there any
evidence that over vaccination is contributing to the Alzheimer surge?
Dr. Hugh Fudenburg, a leading immunologist and
founding director of Neuro Immuno Therapeutic
Research Foundation, is one of the most quoted
immnogeneticists of our times, with over 850
papers in peer-reviewed publications. After years
of immunological study, he discovered that
individuals who had five consecutive flu shots
between 1970 and 1980, the chances of acquiring
Alzheimer's Disease were ten times or 1000%
higher than those who had only one or two
vaccinations during that same time period. The
reasoning is the accumulate amount of mercury and
aluminum in the body after successive annual flu shots.
Asthma and the Flu Vaccine
Vaccine opponents claim that one of the adverse
effects of vaccination is the onset of asthmatic
conditions. A great way to counter this attack is
to make the claim that flu vaccination will
reduce asthmatic attacks brought on by flu
infection among those children who are most
susceptible to them. In fact, this is what the vaccine industry claims.
A study by Dr. Herman Bueving at the Department
of Family Practice at Erasmus University Medical
Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands, conducted one
of the few randomized, double-blind placebo
studies found in vaccine literature. The two-year
study enrolled 696 asthmatic children, half
vaccinated and the rest administered a placebo.
The study found there was no difference between
the incidence and severity of asthmatic attacks
between the two groups. This Dutch study exposes
another CDC deception and strengthens the case
against flu vaccine's ineffectiveness.(31)
In fact, in children with asthma, inactivated flu
vaccine did not prevent influenza related
hospitalizations in children. The database shows
that children who received the flu vaccine were
at a higher risk of hospitalization than children
who did not receive the vaccine. In a separate
study involving 400 children with asthma
receiving a flu vaccine and 400 who were not
immunized, there was no difference in the number
of clinic and emergency room visits and
hospitalizations between the two groups.(32)
Concealing Research Data
If the influenza vaccine is effective and safe,
and corporations have strong evidence to prove
this, then why is so much data held by vaccine
makers concealed from government drug regulatory
agencies, the scientific community and the public?
Independent vaccine investigators and scientists,
with no vested interest in the vaccine industrial
complex, and who wish to preserve high standards
of scientific integrity, face hostile resistance
and find themselves hamstrung to gain access to
necessary scientific and clinical trial data from
the vaccine industrial complex and their
guardians in government health services. This has
hindered proper vaccine evaluation. Federal
agencies do not regulate what a corporation does
or does not do with its clinical data on vaccine
efficacy and safety. All that is required from
vaccine makers is the necessary documentation
required for FDA submission in order to gain
approval and registration. All other data is
sealed in a proprietary vault off-limits to the
scientific community unless a company provides
access willingly. This in itself is a violation
of the highest ethics of medical science, which
by definition should be a quest for discovering
and confirming medical facts and by sharing
information publicly so scientists can further
their knowledge to find the best solutions for tackling our health problems.
Dr. Jefferson states, "We believe all unpublished
trial safety data should be readily accessible to
both the regulatory bodies and the scientific
community on request. Our evidence gives rise to
a concern that lack of access to unreported data
prevents published data being put into context
and hinders full and independent review. This
cannot be good for public confidence in these vaccines."(33)
A scientific study was reported on CTV, Canada's
largest private television network, on September
23, 2009. The study, conducted in three Canadian
provinces -- British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec
-- by Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, raised
serious concerns over the potential efficacy of
the flu vaccine based upon new data showing that
a person vaccinated with last year's seasonal
vaccine is more susceptible to contract the H1N1 virus.(34)
More recently, an animal study conducted by the
Center for Biologics and Evaluation and the
National Animal Disease Center discovered that
young piglets vaccinated with one flu strain
(H1N2) not only failed to protect the animals but
in fact protected and enhanced the proliferation
of another flu strain (H1N1) in the lungs thereby
causing pneumonia and respiratory illness.(35)
Flu Vaccine Safety
Over the decades I have interviewed many of the
world's most knowledgeable vaccine scientists,
researchers, physicians and vaccine attorneys
working with children who are damaged victims
from vaccination. Among the questions I routinely
ask, is whether or not there is any evidence that
vaccine makers conduct randomized double-blind
placebo studies to determine efficacy and safety.
Throughout true science, this protocol has served
as the gold standard, and never has anyone in the
medical community, nor any source in our own
research, found evidence for randomized
double-blind placebo studies ever being conducted
in vaccine trials by the CDC, NIAID and the corporate drug industry.
The use of placebos used in vaccination trials is
exceedingly important. In standard scientific
methodology a placebo should be a very inert
substance, such as water, saline or a sugar
substance, in order to accurately determine the
tested substance's effects on human biology.
According to Australian vaccine historian Dr.
Viera Scheibner, vaccine trials do not employ an
inert placebo. Instead, what is substituted for
an actuaql placebo is "the vaccine with all the
adjuvants and preservatives, certainly not inert
substances, minus those viruses and bacteria."
According to Scheibner, "that is why when they
compare the trial children who were given the lot
and those who were given placebo, they have the
same rate of reaction."(36) This means that all
vaccine efficacy and safety trials using a
non-inert placebo are fundamentally flawed by
design at the starting gate. Flawed methodology
inevitably results in flawed data. Yet that is
the guiding principle the vaccine industrial
complex relies upon, and our federal health
officials and professional medical associations,
such as the American Pediatric Association, are
all too ready to approve and promote outrageously bad science.
If there is no compelling scientific evidence
that flu vaccines are effective and have a high
degree of certainty of protecting us from flu
infection, then it is criminal to suggest that
the vaccine should be made mandatory.
Flu Vaccine Mandates
The recent push to mandate flu vaccines for
American healthcare workers is not the first time
mandatory flu vaccines have been tried. During
the 1980s, Japan had mandatory flu vaccination
for school children. Two large scale studies
enrolled children from four cities with
vaccination rates up to 90 percent discovered
there was no difference in the incidence of flu
infection. As a result, in 1987, Japanese health
authorities ruled that flu vaccination was
ineffective and was no more than a serious
liability if it were to continue. The mandatory
policy was quickly overturned. By 1989, the
number of Japanese taking the flu vaccine dropped
to 20 percent. A follow up study at that time
found that there was statistically insignificant
change in influenza infection rates compared to
when the vaccine was mandatory.(37)
In recent years fictitious literature
masquerading as sound science has become the norm
for aggressive national campaigns to increase flu
vaccination rates. Often these studies either
remain unpublished or are reinvented for
publication well after the fact. CDC funded
research is especially culprit in promoting
vaccine fraud. Once the public learns to
distinguish fact from fiction in the government
and major media endeavors to vaccinate every
American against influenza, the greater the
realization that the Bernay-like advertising
blitzkrieg has no scientific basis and is
intended increase financial interests of the
vaccine industrial complex and insurers.
Hygiene is More Effective than the Flu Vaccine
In a curious twist of fate, corporations, far
removed from drug and vaccine development, but
obligated to test and market their own products,
conduct studies that contradict the dogma of the
pharmaceutical industrial complex. Procter and
Gamble have conducted numerous studies on their
common household products such as soap and liquid
detergents. One such study was a randomized,
placebo study of 611 hundred households, in 36
separate neighborhoods, in Karachi, Pakistan to
determine whether frequent use of a common hand
soap, an antibacterial (promotional) soap and a
placebo soap would reduce the rate of lung
infections due to pneumonia among children.
Proctor and Gambles' results are quite startling
with 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. Compare this with the efficacy of
the flu vaccine and it is evident that soap and
hygiene is a far more effective and less
dangerous means for preventing the spread of communicable infections.
The truth of the CDC's and the Department of
Health and Human Services' statistics claiming
serious illness and death due to influenza
infection is complicated by another simple
medical fact. "Over 200 viruses cause influenza
and influenza-like illness which produce the same
symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough
and runny nose)." When it comes to identifying
the infecting virus for any case displaying
flu-like systems, only PCR is sound and reliable.
According to a Cochrane Summary of this issue,
unless reliable, and more costly, diagnostic
testing is performed, "doctors cannot tell the
two illnesses apart." The summary continues, "At
best, vaccines might be effective against only
Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of
all circulating viruses."(38) For all other
strains and flu-like viruses, the flu vaccine is utterly inadequate.
While this may appear to be an irrelevant
example, it compliments Dr. Jefferson's research
at the Cochrane group. His conclusion about the
flu vaccine is, "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."(39, 40) And if you are among those who
hold Dr. Jefferson suspect, then even the FDA's
and CDC's 1999 directive to manufacturers to
remove mercury from vaccines recommends that the
safest and most effective way to prevent flu
infections is frequent hand washing and a healthy lifestyle.(41)
Conclusion
The good news is that throughout developed
nations, citizens are increasingly educating
themselves about the dangers of vaccines, not
just to protect their children, but themselves.
Annually, the percentage of people refusing flu
vaccination increases. Towards the end of the
2012-2013 flu season, the Washington Post
reported only 36% of Americans were
vaccinated.(42) It would be expected that the
majority of those vaccinated were children
because they more frequently visit pediatric
physicians for regular checkups and have vaccines
forced upon them. A 2011 survey conducted by the
Rand Corporation found that about 50% of adults
said they "don't need" the flu vaccine or they "don't believe in it."(43)
A 65% non-vaccination rate worries US health
officials greatly. But health officials are not
only feeling the pressure from parents and
informed citizens questioning vaccine safety and
efficacy but also from doctors and scientists.
Late in 2012, a group of scientists in the UK
demanded that British health ministers make the
truth about the flu vaccine public. The
scientists, some expert in immunology, demanded
the government be held accountable for "wasting
taxpayer money" on a vaccine that is not only
unnecessary but essentially useless.(44)
Private vaccine and pharmaceutical companies have
no expense for marketing and distributing
influenza vaccines to doctors and health care
facilities. Rather the US government purchases
the flu vaccine outright from vaccine makers and
then the government is required to promote,
advertise and sell them. Government holds the
debt. Because the pharmaceutical industry already
received its money, it is the government's
responsibility, with taxpayer money, to sell the
vaccines by whatever means at its disposal. This
is another reason why people of all ages and
parents need be better educated to see past the
barrage of junk science and the publicity of
misinformation originating in the federal health agencies.
<http://prn.fm/2013/11/new-flu-season-pain-profit-politics-gary-null-richard-gale/#_ednref1>FOOTNOTES
1. Kidder D, Scmitz R. Measures of costs and
morbidity in the analysis of vaccine
effectiveness based on Medicare claims. In
Hannoun C, et al. Eds. Options for the Control of
Influenza 11. Amsterdam: Excerpts Medica, 1993; 127-33.
2. Patrick, Jay. "Flu Vaccines ‘Worthless' Says Eminent FDA Virologist."
3. Doshi, Peter. "Viral Marketing: The Selling of
the Flu Vaccine." Harpers Magazine. March. 2006
4. "MIT grad student's study challenges notions
of pandemic flu" MIT Tech Talk. April 16, 2008
5. Hubbard SB. "Johns Hopkins Scientist Slams Flu
Vaccine." Vaccine Information Network, May 16, 2013.
6. "Glaxo's Swine Flu Shot Linked to Narcolepsy
in UK Kids." Bloomberg, February 26, 2013.
7. Cowling B, Fang V, Nishiura H, Chan KH, Ng S,
Chiu S. "Increased risk of noninfluenza
respiratory virus infections associated with
receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine."
Clinical Infectious Diseases. DOI: 10.1093.
8. Pregnant Women Need a Flu Shot
<http://www.cdc.gov/features/pregnancyandflu/>http://www.cdc.gov/features/pregnancyandflu/
9. Interview with Dr. Tom Jefferson, "The Gary
Null Show" Progressive Radio Network, January 8,
2012 <http://www.prn.fm/>www.prn.fm
10. McNeil, Donald. "Don't blame flu shots for
all ills, officials say" New York Times. September 28, 2009
11. Dannemann E. "4,250% increase in fetal death
reports covered up by the CDC"
<http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/2012/12/09/4250-increase-in-fetal-death-reports-covered-up-by-cdc-untested-h1n1-vaccine/>http://vaccineliberationarmy.com/2012/12/09/4250-increase-in-fetal-death-reports-covered-up-by-cdc-untested-h1n1-vaccine/
12.
www.GreenMedInfo.com/article/flu-vaccination-causes-measurable-increases-inflammation-pregnant-which
13. Luther D. "Five Reasons Why I'll Never Get a
Flu Shot" Activist Post, January 12, 2013.
<http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/5-reasons-why-ill-never-get-flu-shot.html>www.activistpost.com/2013/01/5-reasons-why-ill-never-get-flu-shot.html
14. Roberts, Janine. Fear of the Invisible: How
Scared Should We Be of Viruses and Vaccines, HIV
and AIDS Impact Investigative Media Productions: Bristol UK, 2009
15. Jefferson T, Smith S, Demicheli V, Harnden A,
Rivetti A. Assessment of the efficacy and
effectiveness of influenza in healthy children:
systemic review. The Lancet 2005; 365: 773-780.
16. Smith S, Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Harnden T.
Matheson N, Di Pietrontonj C. Vaccines for
preventing influenza in healthy children.
Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2004. 3:CD004879.
17. Tenpenny, Sherri. "The Truth about Flu
Shots". Idaho Observer, June 1, 2009.
18. Reaney, Patricia. "No Evidence Flu Shots Work
for Under-2s: Study. Reuters, September 22, 2005;
Jefferson, Tom. "Safety of influenza vaccines in
children." The Lancet, 2005. 366:803-804.
19. Dupre, Deborah. "The Big Lie: H1N1
Coincidences, Contradictions and Conspiring." The
Philadelphia Examiner. August 27, 2009.
20. Geier D, King P, Geier M. "Mitochondrial
dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction
activity, degeneration, and death in human
neuronal and fetal cells induced by low level
exposure to thimerosal and other metal
compounds." Toxicology and Environmental
Chemistry. Volume 91, Issue 4, June 2009.
21. "Twenty Tree Seniors Died After Receiving
This year's Flu Shot Sold by Pharmacists" Health Impact News, November 6, 2013.
22. Tenpenny, Sherri. "The Truth about Flu
Shots". Idaho Observer, June 1, 2009.
23. Severyn, Kristine. "Flu Shots: Do They Really Work?" www.vran.org
24. Prevention and control of influenza:
recommendations of the Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices 9 ACIP. MMWR 4/21/95; 44 (rr-3).
25. Flu prevention campaign underway. Health Care
Financing Administration press office. HHS News,
1016/95. US Department of Health and Human Services.
Dowdle WR. Influenza Immunoprophylaxis after 30
years experience. In Nayak DP, ed. Genetic
Variation Among Influenza Viruses. New York: Academic Press, 1981: 525-34.
26. Centers for Disease Control. "Interim
Adjusted Estimates of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine
Effectiveness" February 2013
<http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6207a2.htm?s_cid=mm6207a2_w>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6207a2.htm?s_cid=mm6207a2_w
27. Beyer WEP et al. "Influenza-epdiemie in een
verpleeghuis door een virus dat niet in het
vaccine was opgenomen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993; 137/39: 1973-7.
28. Lanza G, Barone L, Scalone G, Pitocco D,
Sgueglia G, Mollo R, Nerla R. "Inflammation
related effects of adjuvant influenza A
vaccination on platelet activation and cardiac
autonomic function." J Intern Med. 2010 Sept 1. Epub 2011 Sept 20.
29. Alzheimers Association "Facts"
<http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_facts_and_figures.asp#quickFacts>http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_facts_and_figures.asp#quickFacts
30. www.royalrife.com/flu-shots.html
31. Neustaeder, Randal. The Vaccine Guide. North
Atlantic Books: Berkeley, 2005.
32. 105th International Conference of the
American Thoracic Sociey, May 15-20, 2009 (quoted
in , Sherri. "The Truth about Flu Shots". Idaho Observer, June 1, 2009)
33. Jefferson T, Smith S, Demicheli V, Harnden A,
Rivetti A. Assessment of the efficacy and
effectiveness of influenza in healthy children:
systemic review. The Lancet 2005; 365: 773-780.
34. CTV News Staff. "Unpublished Study Raises
Questions About Flu Shot." CTV.ca September 23, 2009.
35. "Vaccine Induced Anti-HA2 Antibodies promote
virus fusion and enhance influenza virus
respiratory disease" Sci Transl Med 28 Aug 2013: Vol 5, Issue 200, p 200ra114
36. Interview with Dr. Viera Scheibner. Broadcast
WPFW, Washington DC. September 21, 2009. Archived
at <http://garynull.org/>http://garynull.org
37. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/flu7.html
38. Cochrane Summary.
www.summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults
39. Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "Two studies question
the effectiveness of flu vaccines." New York Times, September 21, 2005.
40. Stein, Rob. "Studies question flu vaccines"
The Washington Post, reprinted in the Seattle Times, September 25, 2005.
41. Paraphrased from reference in "Influenza :
The Disease and the Vaccine." Vaccine Risk Awareness Network. www.vran.org
42. "Why 64.8 percent of Americans didn't get a
flu shot." Washington Post, January 12, 2013
43. Rand Corporation. "Seasonal Flu Vaccination:
Why Don't More Americans Get it?"
<http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9572/index1.html>http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9572/index1.html
44. "Scientists urge ministers: tell truth on
over-hyped flu vaccine." The Independent. November 14, 2014
|
