Facts you need to know about the flu vaccination - Event Date: April 14 2013 - April 14 2014

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Factual and evidence-based
Information about Flu Vaccines

The Flu Vaccine - Are We Being
Fooled?

There
is an ongoing scandal about whether the flu vaccine is beneficial for any age
group.

What you need to know:

•
Flu symptoms have a multitude of causes.

•
Only 1 to 3% of adults have a type of flu each year that is targeted by flu
vaccines.

•
High values of claimed effectiveness mislead anyone not familiar with incidence
statistics.

•
Expert reviews of the flu vaccine agree that the vaccine has very little if any
benefit.

•
Claims for flu vaccine effectiveness ignore the disease caused by the vaccine
in the two weeks following vaccination.

•
Conclusion:
If all
the available data from
flu vaccine trials is included in effectiveness (efficacy) calculations, flu vaccines show NO effectiveness.

The
statements above are addressed using common knowledge and frequently quoted
statistics on yearly flu incidence, followed by an experts review of flu
vaccine trials and, finally, trial data from one flu vaccine manufacturer so
you may judge for yourself. For the sake of brevity, our study is confined to
data from one manufacturer and one age group, adults 18-64. Younger and older
age groups experience higher incidence numbers but the same principles and
conclusions discussed here apply. The presented data is typical of industry
wide methodology and results.

What can cause flu symptoms?

Typical
flu symptoms are fever, chills, muscles aches, weakness, headache, dry cough
and sore throat. Fever is the body's immune response to an infection or
accumulated toxins. Muscle aches and weakness are the result of toxins moving
in the blood stream. Cough and sore throat are associated with a higher than
normal body toxin level and constipation. A wide variety of toxins can trigger
detoxifying symptoms similar to those associated with the flu. A short list includes 200 other viruses
and bacteria, food poisoning, pesticides, herbicides, herpes and STD's, some
insect and spider bites, chemotherapeutic agents, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde
and influenza vaccines and
the flu shot does not help with any of these. When specimens from patients with
flu symptoms are lab tested to determine the cause of their illness the
resulting “chemical signature” usually characterizes an influenza-like illness
(ILI). These
ILIs have all the symptoms that both laymen and professionals identify as the
“flu.”
However, only a small percentage of ILI's

are
true influenza as defined by medical professionals. These defined “chemical
signatures” are referred to as clinically-confirmed or culture-confirmed
influenza to distinguish them from other ILIs. Each year's flu vaccine targets
three of the many types of culture-confirmed influenza and thus is recognized
as ineffective for all other types.

How many cases of influenza occur
each year in adults aged 18-64 in the USA?

Annual ILI incidence is between 15 to 20
percent of the
adult population.

In a year when both ILI and true influenza have high incidence, about 3%

of the population have what medical professionals call culture-confirmed

influenza. In a low incidence year, this number drops to 1%. Since 97
to 

99 adults out of 100 escape culture-confirmed influenza each year without

vaccination, it defies logic to think a vaccine will actually improve natural

immunity and reduce the chance of getting the flu. 

The graph below illustrates the
same principle as
the previous
graph,

except that here is pictured a low incidence year when only 1 person out

of 100 adults experiences a culture-confirmed case of
influenza, the
sole 

target of the vaccine. 

Misleading Vaccine Effectiveness
Claims

We
frequently hear the claim that “the flu vaccine reduces the odds of getting the
flu

by
70% to 90%.”  However, this claim is
based on the appearance of a reduction of 

between
1 to 3 cases of influenza for each 100 adults. Example: The standard 

formula
for effectiveness yields 67 percent effectiveness when one reduces the 

number
of cases by two out of three. When you hear 70% to 90% do you think the 

speaker
means a reduction of less than 3 cases per 100 vaccine recipients?

Expert review warns trial
conclusions are often 

manipulated.

After
reviewing available flu vaccine trials, the Cochrane Collaboration concluded, 

“Influenza vaccines have a modest effect
in reducing influenza symptoms and 

working days lost. There is no evidence
that they affect complications, such as

pneumonia, or transmission.”(1)
The review warns “... reliable evidence
on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation
of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.  The
content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this
finding.”(2) [Bolded for emphasis.] In effect, this professional,
industry-independent organization concludes that currently even the best
available trial conclusions may be erroneous. We will show that incomplete data
is the reason why industry conclusions for flu vaccine effectiveness are
incorrect. Dr.
Tom Jefferson,
a physician based in Rome and the head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international
network of researchers who appraise medical evidence, is one of the world's
best-informed researchers on the flu vaccine. He leads a team of researchers
who have examined hundreds of vaccine studies. To quote directly from the
article: “The
vast majority of the studies were deeply flawed, says Jefferson. "Rubbish
is not a scientific term, but I think it's the term that applies to these
studies.”  Jefferson has called for
randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the vaccines

Reference:  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

But vaccine pushers are resisting these
clinical trials!  They call the trials
"unethical" but, in reality, they know that a randomized,
double-blind placebo-controlled study would reveal the complete failure of flu
vaccines, and they will do anything to prevent such a trial from happening.  Don't you find it amazing that drug pushers
and vaccine advocates claim they have "science" on their side, but
they won't submit their vaccines to any real science at all?  No placebo-controlled studies have ever been
conducted on flu vaccines because the industry says they would be
"unethical.“  So where do these people get off
claiming their vaccines work at all?

Do vaccine recipients suffer less than
non-vaccinated?

According to the PI, test
participants were “... monitored for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) starting 2 weeks post-vaccination and lasting for approximately 7
months.”(4) Table 1 (below) lists Solicited Local Adverse reactions. Fluarix recipients had 11% higher rates of
muscle aches than did placebo recipients in just four days following vaccination. Hmm, muscle
aches, could that be the flu? Excess adverse events in vaccine recipients versus placebo recipients must be
subtracted from the alleged benefits list in Table 4. The 11% muscle aches occur a minimum of 11 days
and reduce the alleged 14-day benefit of the flu vaccine to 3 days.

More Adverse Events

In addition to Table 1 (previous
page), there
were unsolicited adverse events recorded within the first 21days following vaccination. Found on page 4 of the package
insert, "Unsolicited adverse events that occurred in ≥1% of recipients of FLUARIX and
at a rate greater than placebo included:

•upper
respiratory tract infection (3.9% versus 2.6%)

•nasopharyngitis (2.5% versus 1.6%),

•nasal
congestion (2.2% versus 2.1%), 

•diarrhea
(1.6% versus 0%),

•influenza-like
illness (1.6% versus 0.5%), 

•vomiting
(1.4% versus 0%),and 

•dysmenorrhea
(1.3% versus 1.0%).”(5)

•

Five of the 7 unsolicited adverse
events listed above –
Nasopharyngitis, nasal congestion, diarrhea, vomiting and dysmenorrhea total 9% versus the placebo 4.7% (9 - 4.7 = 4.3), an excess of 4.3%. This is a minimum of 4 more days of misery equal in
intensity to flu symptoms to be subtracted from the remaining 3 day of alleged vaccine benefit. “Benefit” total (3
- 4 = -1) is now less than zero showing that the vaccine is harmful rather than beneficial.

There are two remaining adverse reactions.  Upper respiratory tract infection was 1.3% greater in the Fluarix vaccinated versus placebo. Likewise,
influenza-like illness was 1.1% greater in the vaccinated versus placebo.  These two adverse events are similar to
clinically-confirmed influenza that averages 7 days in duration. The excess of 2.4% (1.2 + 1.3 =
2.4) is bigger than the claimed 2% “benefit” in Table 1 of the PI. 
We cannot
subtract the full 2.4% because these “unsolicited adverse events” occurred 0-21
days following

vaccination.  A portion of the ILIs extending
beyond 14 days may have been included in the 7 month monitoring period.

Conclusions:

Adding the adverse events in the 2 weeks
following vaccination to the diseases occurring in the following 7 months shows
more disease occurred in the vaccinated versus the non-vaccinated. Even this
limited trial data shows the vaccine less than worthless in the first flu
season following vaccination.  Apparently
some cases of flu that would have occurred in the 7 month flu season have
simply been “shifted” to the period immediately following vaccination and NO
prevention of disease has occurred but rather the opposite, disease increased
for those who accepted Fluarix. 
Other brands of flu vaccines show similar patterns.  It is known that receiving a flu vaccination
in one year makes one more susceptible to a more severe flu the second flu season.
Additional long-term consequences of injecting viruses and various chemicals
including formaldehyde contained in flu vaccines are unknown due to the absence
of scientific research.  Aluminum and
mercury that are in some influenza vaccines have been associated with increased
risk of Alzheimer disease.  A search of
the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data base for influenza
vaccine

(all manufacturers, all ages of patients,
covering 1990 to current date, 21 March 2013) reveals 918 events where Vaccine
is influenza and patient died, 1799 events were life threatening, 24,339 events
resulted in ER visit and 6737 events where patient was hospitalized. Less than
10% of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS.

References:

1.
http://www.cochranejournalclub.com/vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-clinical/

2.
http://www.cochranejournalclub.com/vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-clinical/

3.
http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/

us_fluarix.pdf

4.
Ibid., Page 11

5.
Ibid., Page 4