November 2013


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:33:24 -0500
text/plain (43 kB) , text/html (44 kB)
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

A New Flu Season of Pain, Profit and Politics
by Gary Null & Richard Gale

Progressive Radio

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)


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.


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 

9. Interview with Dr. Tom Jefferson, "The Gary 
Null Show" Progressive Radio Network, January 8, 
2012 <>

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" 


13. Luther D. "Five Reasons Why I'll Never Get a 
Flu Shot" Activist Post, January 12, 2013. 

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?"

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 

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" 


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." 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 <>


38. Cochrane Summary.

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.

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?" 

44. "Scientists urge ministers: tell truth on 
over-hyped flu vaccine." The Independent. November 14, 2014