Mandatory Flu Vaccine Coming Your Way?
- January 21, 2020
Story at-a-glance
- Our media no longer fulfill their public duty. Rather than presenting both sides of an argument, most mainstream media now act as mouthpieces for industry
- Public health agencies are also falling short of their duty, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included, which for years has lied about accepting funds from corporations making and selling drugs and vaccines that the federal agency promotes for universal use by all children and adults
- Measles outbreaks and fear-mongering by exaggerating disease risks and minimizing vaccine risks are being cleverly used to create propaganda to eliminate the legal right to make vaccine choices across the board
- A bill has been introduced in New York that requires children to get HPV vaccinations in order to attend day care and public school. This, despite emerging data suggesting the incidence of HPV-related cervical cancer increased in Sweden after HPV vaccine was recommended for all girls and women 9 to 26 years old in 2006
- Research shows long-term annual vaccination may render young children who have not previously been infected with an influenza virus more susceptible to infection with a pandemic influenza virus of a novel subtype
As discussed in my November 5, 2019, article, “Trojan Horse of Measles — More Vaccines With the Mandate,”
while most state legislation targeting vaccination mandates have
focused on measles, what tends to get lost in the debate is that these
mandatory vaccination laws are likely to be extended to all vaccines,
including the influenza vaccine, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine
and any number of vaccines licensed and recommended by the federal
government in the future.
In other words, measles outbreaks and the fear-mongering by exaggerating disease risks and minimizing vaccine risks are being cleverly used to create propaganda to eliminate the legal right to make vaccine choices across the board. As just one example, in “Trojan Horse of Measles,” I discuss how a bill has been introduced in New York that requires children to be vaccinated against HPV in order to attend day care and public school.
This, despite the incredible health risks associated with the HPV vaccine and its low benefit-to-risk ratio,1 not to mention the fact that it has never been proven to lower cancer rates. On the contrary, emerging data suggest the incidence of cervical cancer increased in Sweden after HPV vaccine was recommended for all girls and women aged 9 to 26 years.
Scientific evidence of an increase in the incidence of HPV-related cervical cancer in Sweden between 2006 and 20152 was published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in 2018. The study raised questions about whether women are at increased risk for cervical cancer if they are vaccinated after they have been infected with HPV, which is an asymptomatic viral infection that is cleared from the body within two years by more than 90 percent of women and men.3
The study was retracted a few weeks after it was published. The retraction was not due to falsification of data, but because the scientist who wrote the study used a pseudonym and false affiliation due to fear he would be harmed for publishing his findings. As explained in the retraction statement by the publisher:4
In his presentation, Kennedy reveals Merck data showing Gardasil increases the overall risk of death by 370%, risk of autoimmune disease by 2.3% and risk of a serious medical condition by 50%.
A 2018 study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health5 found that women who received HPV vaccinations suffered higher rates of infertility. According to this study, “if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million."
After “skeptic” critics of scientific evidence that vaccines have significant health risks publicly attacked the study, the paper was withdrawn by the publisher.6
A 2014 case report paper7 described cases of three adolescent girls who suffered premature ovarian insufficiency after their HPV vaccinations — a condition that can render them incapable of bearing children in the future. Conveniently, Merck, maker of Gardasil, is also “the world market leader in fertility treatments,” according to the European Pharmaceutical Review.8
Public health agencies are also falling short of their duty, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included, which for years has lied about accepting funds from corporations making and selling drugs and vaccines.
Several watchdog groups are now petitioning the CDC to cease making false disclaimers about not accepting commercial support, and to retroactively acknowledge conflicts of interest.
Another lawsuit, filed by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) in 2018 against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, revealed the HHS — in violation of federal law — has not provided a single required biannual vaccine safety report to Congress since 1988.9 As noted by ICAN founder Del Bigtree:10
This isn’t surprising considering Sun was one of three journalists hand-selected by the CDC to get exclusive early access to the findings, knowing she could be trusted to report on the study in a way that would minimize influenza vaccine risks so pregnant women would be persuaded to get a flu shot during every pregnancy.14,15
In a November 21, 2019, article,19 journalist Jeremy Hammond details four instances that exemplify how Sun has lied about vaccine safety. To repeat but one, Sun has stated that:20
In simpler terms, while naturally experiencing and recovering from type A influenza can provide immunity against other subtypes of the influenza virus, it appears that vaccination does not do that, making previously vaccinated children more susceptible to pandemic flu strains. (Pandemic influenza is when a new influenza A virus appears that spreads easily among individuals and spreads globally.25)
Other studies linking annual flu vaccination with increased risk of illness are listed in my March 2019 article “Is the Flu Vaccine Really ‘Working Well’ This Year?”
For example, in 2017, BBC News reported27 the findings of a systematic review28 published in The BMJ, which concluded that vitamin D supplementation protected against acute respiratory tract infection.
The number needed to treat (NNT) was 33, meaning 33 people had to take the supplement in order to prevent a single case of infection. Among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, the NNT was 4.
As reported by BBC News,29 “That is more effective than flu vaccination, which needs to treat 40 to prevent one case,30 although flu is far more serious than the common cold.”
The BBC actually downplays the findings when it says “flu is far more serious than the common cold,” because the NNT of 40 that BBC News cites refers to the overall effectiveness of inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI), which the World Health Organization defines31 as “an acute respiratory infection.” (About 80 percent of all lab tested ILI cases do not test positive for A or B influenza but are caused by other types of viral and bacterial infections.)32
In other words, comparing the NNT of 33 for vitamin D with 40 for the flu vaccine is entirely accurate and appropriate as far as ILI or acute respiratory infection is concerned.
According to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews cited by the BBC, to prevent one case of confirmed influenza, the NNT for inactivated vaccines was 71.33 The Harvard Gazette also published the findings of that BMJ study under the headline, “Study Confirms Vitamin D Protects Against Colds and Flu.”34
A 2009 systematic review38 of randomized controlled trials in which supplemental vitamin D was assessed for its ability to prevent or treat various infectious diseases found that the strongest evidence supporting the use of vitamin D existed for tuberculosis, influenza and viral upper respiratory tract illnesses.
In 2018, a randomized, controlled clinical trial39 published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal found that infants receiving high doses of vitamin D who went on to develop influenza had significantly shorter duration of illness compared to those who received a lower dosage.
According to the authors, “High-dose vitamin D (1200 IU) is suitable for the prevention of seasonal influenza as evidenced by rapid relief from symptoms, rapid decrease in viral loads and disease recovery.”
A shortcoming of many (if not most) studies looking at vitamin D’s effects on preventing ILI and/or influenza is that they focus on dosage rather than blood levels, and we now know that it’s achieving a certain blood level that matters, not how much vitamin D it takes to get there. Most studies also use dosages around 1,000 or 2,000 IU’s a day, which are unlikely to raise blood levels of vitamin D to any significant degree.
In other words, measles outbreaks and the fear-mongering by exaggerating disease risks and minimizing vaccine risks are being cleverly used to create propaganda to eliminate the legal right to make vaccine choices across the board. As just one example, in “Trojan Horse of Measles,” I discuss how a bill has been introduced in New York that requires children to be vaccinated against HPV in order to attend day care and public school.
This, despite the incredible health risks associated with the HPV vaccine and its low benefit-to-risk ratio,1 not to mention the fact that it has never been proven to lower cancer rates. On the contrary, emerging data suggest the incidence of cervical cancer increased in Sweden after HPV vaccine was recommended for all girls and women aged 9 to 26 years.
Scientific evidence of an increase in the incidence of HPV-related cervical cancer in Sweden between 2006 and 20152 was published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in 2018. The study raised questions about whether women are at increased risk for cervical cancer if they are vaccinated after they have been infected with HPV, which is an asymptomatic viral infection that is cleared from the body within two years by more than 90 percent of women and men.3
The study was retracted a few weeks after it was published. The retraction was not due to falsification of data, but because the scientist who wrote the study used a pseudonym and false affiliation due to fear he would be harmed for publishing his findings. As explained in the retraction statement by the publisher:4
“On inquiry, the author informed us that he had used a pseudonym besides a false affiliation. He later made his identity known to IJME’s editor on the promise of strict confidentiality.
On verification of his identity, the editor confirmed that (a) the author had the necessary qualifications, expertise and research experience on the subject of the article; and (b) the author did face a credible threat of harm, making it necessary not to be named publicly.
Further we reconfirmed the reviewers’ conclusions: that the article used publicly available data with a simple statistical method; made a fair attempt to report a possible association of the increased incidence of carcinoma cervix with HPV vaccination …
We felt that the data and analysis could be scientifically appreciated and critiqued without reference to the author … Following our decision, we received valuable advice from our editorial board and other well-wishers, emphasizing that there should be zero tolerance to the author’s deception, irrespective of the content of the paper.
While our assessment of the science of the article may be correct, we have concluded that tolerating the author’s deception and retaining the article was an error of judgment. … We hope that the hypothesis of possible harm of vaccinating women previously exposed to HPV is carefully explored in future studies.”Chairman and chief legal counsel for Children's Health Defense Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in “The Plaintiff’s Science Day Presentation on Gardasil,” that Merck’s HPV vaccine Gardasil “has distinguished itself as the most dangerous vaccine ever invented."
In his presentation, Kennedy reveals Merck data showing Gardasil increases the overall risk of death by 370%, risk of autoimmune disease by 2.3% and risk of a serious medical condition by 50%.
A 2018 study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health5 found that women who received HPV vaccinations suffered higher rates of infertility. According to this study, “if 100% of females in this study had received the HPV vaccine, data suggest the number of women having ever conceived would have fallen by 2 million."
After “skeptic” critics of scientific evidence that vaccines have significant health risks publicly attacked the study, the paper was withdrawn by the publisher.6
A 2014 case report paper7 described cases of three adolescent girls who suffered premature ovarian insufficiency after their HPV vaccinations — a condition that can render them incapable of bearing children in the future. Conveniently, Merck, maker of Gardasil, is also “the world market leader in fertility treatments,” according to the European Pharmaceutical Review.8
Advertisement
Media and Public Health Agencies Are Letting Us Down
Unfortunately, our media no longer fulfill their public duty. Rather than presenting both sides of an argument, most mainstream media now act as mouthpieces for pharmaceutical industry propaganda, and this is particularly true where vaccines are concerned.Public health agencies are also falling short of their duty, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included, which for years has lied about accepting funds from corporations making and selling drugs and vaccines.
Several watchdog groups are now petitioning the CDC to cease making false disclaimers about not accepting commercial support, and to retroactively acknowledge conflicts of interest.
Another lawsuit, filed by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) in 2018 against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, revealed the HHS — in violation of federal law — has not provided a single required biannual vaccine safety report to Congress since 1988.9 As noted by ICAN founder Del Bigtree:10
"It is apparent that HHS doesn't have a clue as to the actual safety profile of the now 39 doses, and growing, of vaccines given by one year of age, including in utero. In 1986, a one-year old child received 11 doses.
HHS spends billions annually promoting vaccines and generates a steady stream of reports promoting vaccines. Yet, when, despite federal law, HHS cannot bother to complete the simple task of preparing a biennial report on vaccine safety, there is little hope HHS is tackling the much harder job of improving vaccine safety."
Vaccine Science Is Not Being Reported Honestly
A 2018 article11 in The BMJ highlights the media’s influence over vaccine policy and how journalists are misleading the public about vaccine safety and effectiveness. The article, “Reporting Flu Vaccine Science,” written by freelance journalist Rob Wipond, notes:“When reporting on medical studies, the popular press has a habit of sensationalizing. So the muted response to a recent research paper12 reporting increased risk of miscarriage with influenza vaccines was at first sight surprising.
The study, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that women who had received an influenza vaccine containing the 2009 pandemic strain pH1N1 and who were also vaccinated in the next flu season had a statistically significant, 7.7-fold higher odds of spontaneous abortion within 28 days of the second vaccination …
The concerning odds ratio fostered extensive discussion in the paper. But the news media projected an air of calm, highlighting the observational study’s many limitations.”Among the “muted” press coverage cited by Wipond is The Washington Post’s report13 on the study, written by Lena Sun, which significantly downplayed the findings and urged pregnant women to continue getting their annual flu shot.
This isn’t surprising considering Sun was one of three journalists hand-selected by the CDC to get exclusive early access to the findings, knowing she could be trusted to report on the study in a way that would minimize influenza vaccine risks so pregnant women would be persuaded to get a flu shot during every pregnancy.14,15
Hypocrisy and Double Standards
In a reply to Wipond’s article, retired pediatrician Allan S. Cunningham seconds many of Wipond’s concerns, stating:16“After weeks of brooding about the Donahue article linking flu shots to miscarriages … it was with a sense of relief that I read Rob Wipond’s narrative of media attempts to sweep a serious vaccine safety issue under the rug.
He points out the hypocrisy (his words were ‘double standard’) of authorities who dismissed the Donahue paper because it was an ‘observational study.’ Year after year they have quoted observational studies to announce, ‘ … 80% vaccine effectiveness … 60% effectiveness … 40% effectiveness …’
They do not mention that these studies make no effort to look for adverse vaccine effects (e.g. narcolepsy, seizures, high fever, oculorespiratory syndrome). They do not mention ‘negative vaccine effectiveness,’ the increase in risk of illness from influenza and non-influenza viruses associated with (or caused by) the vaccines …
They do not mention that a vaccine ‘effective’ in one season may increase influenza risk in a subsequent season … They do not mention that the observational studies they refer to are likely to exaggerate vaccine effectiveness in the first place because of the ‘healthy user effect’ well known to epidemiologists …
Wipond does not mention another technique used to dismiss legitimate vaccine safety concerns, having to do with ‘statistical significance.’ Recently, a large cohort study17 found that flu shots given during the first trimester of pregnancy were associated with a 20% increase in autism spectrum disorder in the offspring.
P for the association was 0.01, and the authors acknowledged that, if it was causal, would mean four (4) additional autism cases for every 1,000 mothers vaccinated.
However, they incorrectly used a statistical manipulation to adjust the finding into ‘non-significance’ … One typical media headline about the study was, ‘Flu vaccine during pregnancy not linked to autism’ … This kind of thing goes on all the time with news releases for vaccine research.”
Why You Cannot Trust The Washington Post
Washington Post reporter Lena Sun has published a number of patently false claims about vaccines,18 and has attacked me personally for making fully referenced and scientifically provable statements about vaccine risks and the fact that maintaining adequate vitamin D levels has been shown to be effective in preventing respiratory infections, even more effective than the flu vaccine.In a November 21, 2019, article,19 journalist Jeremy Hammond details four instances that exemplify how Sun has lied about vaccine safety. To repeat but one, Sun has stated that:20
“The effectiveness of the vaccine schedule is tested extensively to ensure that the vaccines in the combination don’t interfere with one another and can be easily handled by the infant and the child’s immune system. No new immunization is added to the schedule until it has been evaluated both alone and when given with the other current immunizations.”As noted by Hammond, this is “a brazen lie,” as published papers21 and even committees at the Institute of Medicine22 (which the CDC considers an authoritative source) have warned about the complete lack of such testing, and the fact that there not only is inadequate scientific evidence to prove safety of the CDC’s birth to age 6 childhood vaccination schedule, but that the synergistic effects of giving multiple vaccines to infants and children has not been adequately studied.
Flu Vaccination Increases Risk of Pandemic Flu
New York, New Jersey and other states have introduced bills to mandate Influenza vaccines for children and adults,23 while the mainstream media continues to ignore evidence that routine flu vaccination increases risks for influenza infections during pandemic outbreaks. A study24 published in the Journal of Virology in 2011 pointed out that:“Infection with seasonal influenza A viruses induces immunity to potentially pandemic influenza A viruses of other subtypes (heterosubtypic immunity).”
And that “long-term annual vaccination using inactivated vaccines may hamper the induction of cross-reactive CD8+ T cell responses by natural infections and thus may affect the induction of heterosubtypic immunity.”The study’s authors note that long-term annual vaccination, in turn, “may render young children who have not previously been infected with an influenza virus more susceptible to infection with a pandemic influenza virus of a novel subtype.”
In simpler terms, while naturally experiencing and recovering from type A influenza can provide immunity against other subtypes of the influenza virus, it appears that vaccination does not do that, making previously vaccinated children more susceptible to pandemic flu strains. (Pandemic influenza is when a new influenza A virus appears that spreads easily among individuals and spreads globally.25)
Other studies linking annual flu vaccination with increased risk of illness are listed in my March 2019 article “Is the Flu Vaccine Really ‘Working Well’ This Year?”
Influenza Vaccine Is Vastly Oversold
Mainstream media outlets also will not admit that Pharma bias compromises the results of most vaccine studies. Yet the presence of such bias was clearly highlighted in a 2010 study26 by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, in which they assessed the effectiveness of flu vaccines in preventing influenza and complications in healthy adults and included a clear warning:“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.
WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size.
Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that 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.”
Does Vitamin D Outperform Flu Vaccine?
According to reporter Sun of The Washington Post, I lie when I say that maintaining adequate vitamin D levels outperforms the flu vaccine, yet published studies have come to this exact conclusion and the results have been published by other mainstream reporters.For example, in 2017, BBC News reported27 the findings of a systematic review28 published in The BMJ, which concluded that vitamin D supplementation protected against acute respiratory tract infection.
The number needed to treat (NNT) was 33, meaning 33 people had to take the supplement in order to prevent a single case of infection. Among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, the NNT was 4.
As reported by BBC News,29 “That is more effective than flu vaccination, which needs to treat 40 to prevent one case,30 although flu is far more serious than the common cold.”
The BBC actually downplays the findings when it says “flu is far more serious than the common cold,” because the NNT of 40 that BBC News cites refers to the overall effectiveness of inactivated vaccine against influenza-like illness (ILI), which the World Health Organization defines31 as “an acute respiratory infection.” (About 80 percent of all lab tested ILI cases do not test positive for A or B influenza but are caused by other types of viral and bacterial infections.)32
In other words, comparing the NNT of 33 for vitamin D with 40 for the flu vaccine is entirely accurate and appropriate as far as ILI or acute respiratory infection is concerned.
According to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews cited by the BBC, to prevent one case of confirmed influenza, the NNT for inactivated vaccines was 71.33 The Harvard Gazette also published the findings of that BMJ study under the headline, “Study Confirms Vitamin D Protects Against Colds and Flu.”34
The Link Between Influenza and Vitamin D
The association between low vitamin D levels and influenza has been recognized for some time (although low vitamin D levels may not be the sole factor responsible for the seasonality increases of influenza and ILI35). As noted in “Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin D,” published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection in 2006:36“An interventional study showed that vitamin D reduces the incidence of respiratory infections in children. We conclude that vitamin D, or lack of it, may be Hope-Simpson's ‘seasonal stimulus.’”Similarly, a 2010 study37 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that “vitamin D3 supplementation during the winter may reduce the incidence of influenza A” in schoolchildren, especially those “who had not been taking other vitamin D supplements and who started nursery school after age 3.”
A 2009 systematic review38 of randomized controlled trials in which supplemental vitamin D was assessed for its ability to prevent or treat various infectious diseases found that the strongest evidence supporting the use of vitamin D existed for tuberculosis, influenza and viral upper respiratory tract illnesses.
In 2018, a randomized, controlled clinical trial39 published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal found that infants receiving high doses of vitamin D who went on to develop influenza had significantly shorter duration of illness compared to those who received a lower dosage.
According to the authors, “High-dose vitamin D (1200 IU) is suitable for the prevention of seasonal influenza as evidenced by rapid relief from symptoms, rapid decrease in viral loads and disease recovery.”
A shortcoming of many (if not most) studies looking at vitamin D’s effects on preventing ILI and/or influenza is that they focus on dosage rather than blood levels, and we now know that it’s achieving a certain blood level that matters, not how much vitamin D it takes to get there. Most studies also use dosages around 1,000 or 2,000 IU’s a day, which are unlikely to raise blood levels of vitamin D to any significant degree.
+ Sources and References
No comments:
Post a Comment