Flu Shots: Government's Big Lie

Governments don't lie, do they? Nah. Political parties lie, right? Especially the one you disagree with--they always lie. And your party never lies, right? Governments don't lie, no way.

Well, one lie hard to pass off for very long is the scientific lie. One such lie is about the efficacy of the flu vaccine. This is one of my staunchest issues, and I'll never shut up about it: Flu shots are bull turds!

A recent interview with prestigious epidemiologist and flu-vaccine researcher for the Cochrane Collaboration in Britain, Tom Jefferson uncovers exactly why we must question the utility of the flu vaccine (not to be confused with swine flu or H1N1 vaccine), despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) new public health campaign in the U.S. encouraging vulnerable patients--particularly the elderly--to "protect yourself and the ones you love against flu: GET VACCINATED!"

According to Mr. Jefferson, when a systematic review of ALL studies on the efficacy of flu vaccines was conducted, the findings were inconclusive. In other words, they didn't show effectiveness or non-effectiveness one way or the other. The governments of the U.S., Britain, Australia and Germany, however, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) use a "citation bias" when evaluating flu vaccines, which essentially means they cite studies that agree with their viewpoint, and ignore (or fail to cite) studies that show no effect or disagree with their agenda. What do you know? Keep that in mind Global Warmers.

This isn't news to me as I've pointed out in several posts(here, here, here, here, and here) the use of selective science. This method of subjective objectivity has been running rampant in today's science, particularly the health sciences. It's shameful, and buyer beware: You better check many sources when trying to get the truth these days.

He goes on to say that bigger and better studies on flu vaccinations are needed, but somehow governments are largely ignoring this. An "extraordinary situation," Mr. Jefferson calls it. Not if you understand modern politics, sir.

He believes, as I do, that effective and provable methods for preventing the spread of flu are simple hygienic practices like hand-washing, wearing gloves and masks (a little weird but effective), and distancing oneself from infected people. Duh! And here's one of my own, not mentioned by Mr. Jefferson: How about just catching the flu? I don't mean actively seek it out, but being ill has its benefits, you know.

Too avant-garde? OK, then just try washing your your hands. Mr. Jefferson states,

"There is solid evidence that [hygienic practices] work against all [flu viruses], not just specific strains [unlike the flu vaccine, as it is designed]. They are culturally acceptable and cheap, and they reduce transmission rates of other viruses too. A great American called Stephen Luby of the CDC has published a study from Karachi, Pakistan, that found that physical interventions are lifesavers. He should receive a Nobel Prize for his work, but I'm sure he never will.

I'm sure he will not, either--no money in simple hygiene. But oodles in useless vaccines.

Mr. Jefferson concludes that he is not antivaccination (and neither am I); he has five children, all of them vaccinated. As he says, childhood vaccines have strong evidence to back up their effectiveness, unlike the annual flu shot. "I am not antivaccine. I am anti–poor evidence," he says.

Bravo! Nothing more refreshing than a scientist dedicated to the truth. Sounds weird, I know, since science is the investigation of truths of the universe. But that's the way it goes when politics get involved in any endeavor. When it comes to your health, you better find the truth for yourself, because you won't get it from the government. Governments lie.

So What if You Encounter Swine Flu?

Since starting this blog two years ago, I've spent a lot of time writing about the flu vaccine. Regular readers know my feelings on this completely bogus inoculation--it does nothing. My reasoning behind this belief is two-fold: First, the influenza virus is one of the most rapidly mutating viruses on the planet. The difficulty of developing a viable viral vaccine against such rapid mutation is close to impossible--it's not entirely impossible, just a low probability of effectiveness from year to year. We need only to look at the 2007-2008 flu vaccine to confirm my point exactly.

The second point of my reasoning is that I believe that we must encounter the influenza virus head-on from time to time (yearly, every other year, whatever) to develop natural immunity. I believe that each time we get sick with the flu, we are exposed to the latest strain, the latest mutations if you will. This is necessary to keep our immune system up-to-date, much like downloading the latest updates for your virus scan. This provides a degree of protection against new flu strains that arise as a result of their constant mutation.

Case in point: Experts now say that the H1N1 swine flu virus is not a new virus. Instead it's a mutated hybrid of human, pig and bird flu strains; and that it has probably been circulating undetected for years. Somewhere, maybe in Mexico, maybe in Asia, it made the jump from swine to humans. The three most recent flu pandemics--1918, 1957 and 1968--started when a new avian flu virus started infecting people. Experts are saying that the current "triple reassortant virus" as the swine flu is called, is not a rapidly mutating virus--a sample from a patient in Mexico is virtually identical to samples from various U.S. states and other countries.

So again I make my point: It's important to get sick; It's important to encounter new flu strains as they arise; mutations create potentially new bugs, and only by encountering them periodically will we develop recognition of their deadlier cousins in the future.

Swine flu? It can be mild or it can be nasty; but like any other virulent microorganism, the environment is as important as the bug. So swine flu is here. It'll kill some people, but lots of people are surviving it now, and many more will continue to do so. Just take care of yourself. Get lots of rest, stay hydrated, stay away from immune lowering toxins like narcotics, heavy alcohol or loads of pharmaceuticals. And if you smoke...well just know it lowers immunity. And don't freak if you get the flu, or the swine flu; same as usual, sleep, water, nourishing food--you'll be fine.

Flu Vaccine Wool Over the Eyes

What do you do when you're a pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacturer, and scientific data shows your product to be useless? You search hard for a rationalization and apply it to your MO in a stepped-up marketing campaign. That's exactly what flu vaccine maker Sanofi Pasteur is doing right now.

You may remember a story I reported in an earlier post in which elderly people who were given the flu shot did not have a lowered risk of dying from the flu. Well, that study didn't sit well with Sanofi Pasteur, so what was their recommendation? Give elderly people a massive dose of flu vaccine. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. Give grandma four times the usual dose to boost her immunity (four times the standard is what Sanofi now recommends). Think about it: with that much attenuated virus in your system, you'll no doubt have a measurably high immune response. No doubt. And as an added bonus you'll quadrupel your profits. That's called a win situation. Not win-win--just win...for Sanofi.

The reasons the flu vaccine works poorly remains the same: The influenza virus is a rapidly mutating organism. It's virtually impossible to create a vaccine that will be right-on in any given year. They may get lucky sometimes--every gambler hits paydirt now and again--but there just isn't now, nor will there ever be, an effective flu vaccine.

What makes this story especially frightening is that it's simply another example of a greedy pharmaceutical corporation manipulating the truth for their own end. And this public health BS is being perpetuated by our medical and public health industries. The data is there; the flu vaccine doesn't do much. Instead of making it the poster child of public health marketing, how about more studies? Not only studies done by the manufacturers of the drug itself (preliminary to FDA approval), but third party studies paid for by the manufacturer and regulated by a government agency too. You won't hear me suggest government getting involved very often, but in this case, I think it's crucial.

Flu Vaccine for Kids

Our daughter Violet had her first pediatric check up today. The pediatrician suggested that we all get a flu shot. I don't think she reads my blog.

If she did she'd know exactly why we wouldn't be interested. The flu shot is bunk, plain and simple. I have no reason to expose myself or my family to a flu we may never get. Nor do we fool ourselves into thinking that we'll have some sort of protection--we might just catch the flu one way or another. But the PED insists that we'll be doing ourselves a service, adding protection in case one of us brings home the bug and gives it to little Violet, who is only two and a half weeks old. Yawn...the story never gets any more interesting.

Here's the latest: A recent study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine showed that kids who were immunized against the flu did not have lower rates of contracting the flu than non-vaccinated kids. And even more eye-opening (I hope) for pediatricians is that kids who received the vaccination were just as likely to be hospitalized or visit the doctor than those who had not been vaccinated.

All I can ask is how long will this ruse continue? Probably indefinitely. It's hard to let go of a deep-rooted paradigm. Flu shot proponents in the medical community have thought it necessary to explain the result by saying that the development of the flu vaccine is not an exact science. They say it's like "forecasting the weather." Um hm...just what I want out of my vaccinations, comparisons to meteorology. According to Dr. Geoffrey Weinberg, professor of pediatrics at University of Rochester. "Sometimes we are right on, and sometimes we are off."

No kidding. I've been saying exactly that for a long time (and here, and here). The flu is one of the most rapidly mutating viruses there is. Preparing a inoculation to perfectly match a strain is like trying to pick a Superbowl winner in September. Sometime you will be right on, and sometime you will be off. And now they are even saying that perhaps children need to use a nasal spray to administer the vaccine. Yawn...on to the next round.

No we won't be getting the flu shot this year...or next year, or the next. We graciously thanked our pediatrician for the concern but told her we'd be okay. I've never had a flu shot and neither has Erika. We did not give it to our eldest Delilah, and we don't plan on giving it to Violet either. Although I'm certain this farce called the flu shot will not come to an end any time soon, I'm pretty sure the unflattering studies will continue to pour in on this bunk vaccination.

Flu Vaccine Farce

Well, well, well--you heard it here first: The flu vaccine isn't worth all that much. To be fair, the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) is finally fessing up. Yup, you heard right--CDC officials are admitting that more than 50% of the flu strains we are currently seeing in the U.S. are NOT included in this year's flu vaccine. But you knew that, right? You're a regular reader of this blog, god bless ya!

U.S. officials have reported that the number of states reporting widespread flu activity has increased from 11 to 31 in just one week. The severity of flu strains is often measured by the number of children it kills in any given year. This season the number is at six--low by public health standards--but people are still getting sick by the boatloads. Hmmm...weren't flu vaccinations way up this year? Crazy.

Because the composition of the flu vaccine is decided nine months earlier than it is actually made available to the public--an eternity in light of the influenza virus' ability to mutate--it is often impossible to match exactly the strains that might make their appearance on any given year. To add insult to injury, one influenza expert has disclosed that we are now even seeing some strains developing resistance to Tamiflu, a popular anti-viral used frequently to fight the symptoms of the flu (which is supposed to be prevented through the vaccine--anybody else see a glitch in this reasoning?). According to Dr. Joe Bresee of the CDC's influenza division, "a less-than-ideal virus match between the viruses in the vaccine and those circulating viruses can reduce vaccine effectiveness." OK, thank you; finally, some sense. So why bother?

I know a lot of people who are battling the flu right now. Hang in there; you'll get better. And then you'll develop your own immunity, which will strengthen your system. Of course, that is until next year, when a new strain will then come around and we'll get to do it all over again. Boy, ain't health fun?

New Use for Flu Vaccine

At the dawn of a looming bird flu pandemic, researchers say they have found a new use for the standard flu vaccine. Scientists at the National Institute for Infectious Diseases Lazzaro Spallanzani in Rome, have found that some volunteers inoculated against the seasonal influenza virus showed antibody protection from the bird flu. Although preliminary, experts are using these results as a way to step-up yearly influenza vaccinations.

It's no secret how I feel about the flu vaccine--pretty useless as far as I'm concerned; but I will not discount the possibility of cross-over immunity. If, indeed, the annual flu vaccine provides a progressive tolerance to a more virulent viral strain like H5N1 (the nefarious bird flu virus) the more often it is used, then it would certainly warrant mass use. But what I can't ignore is the convenient opportunity to use fear as a foolproof method of mass marketing.

As I point out in my upcoming book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, public fear is often exploited as a way to pass legislation or sell product. The greater the threat, the more insidious the exploitation. Remember when North Korea had a nuclear bomb pointed at the West Coast? In L.A. it was used to scare locals into buying duct tape, plastic sheeting and other survival gear in the event of a nuclear blast. Now we'd better prepare for--gulp--the bird flu!

No doubt, an infectious pandemic is long overdo; the world hasn't seen a bona fide one since 1968. But didn't we hear the same things about e-bola, hanta virus, and the West Nile virus too? Just think about how many threats we'd have to protect ourselves against every year if we were to allow our fears to get the best of us. We might have to sit through a few more Dustin Hoffman duds at the very least. So why is this one any different?

The truth is that, just as experts believe that each successive flu inoculation adds strength to the vaccinated person's growing immunity, wouldn't it be just a likely that catching the flu every year or so would also add to one's protection? Uh, now let's just think about that for a minute.

One of my strongest arguments in The Six Keys to Optimal Health is to focus on strengthening our internal defenses--the immune system among other things. Only in this way can we increase our chance of surviving any catastrophe. It almost seems counterproductive to rely on the supply of vaccine and antidote for our continued survival; however, I guess it could happen. But I need way more, by way of information, than what we've got now to jump on that train. Until we know more--like does the annual flu vaccine provide protection for a large percentage of people, and can one develop an equal amount of immunity, naturally, through routine exposure and fighting off illness every year--then I'll avoid the flu vaccine for now. Prove its need beyond a reasonable doubt, and you might just see me standing in the flu-line one day, after all.

Mandatory Flu Vaccinations

Jawohl! You've got it--National Socialism is alive and well in the good ol' US of A. Seems like one state is making flu vaccination mandatory for preschoolers. New Jersey State Health Commissioner Dr. Fred M. Jacobs has approved the requirement that all children attending preschool or licensed day care centers will need to get an annual flu shot. Heil, Herr Commandant!

You all know my feelings on mandatory vaccinations in general, and you definitely know how I feel about the flu shot--it's pure bunkum! I get the concept of public health; but the flu shot hasn't been proven to protect anybody, except maybe the manufacturers of the vaccine.

According to recent reports, preschool children are "being targeted because their developing immune systems make them as susceptible to flu complications as senior citizens, and because they are more likely than older kids to spread the virus." Uh, let me see here....don't we need to encounter microorganisms to develop immunity? There is no long lasting immunity derived from the flu vaccine anyway, since the virus mutates rapidly and new strains pop up every year. So why force it upon the public? Isn't it better for kids to contract the flu and strengthen their systems? I just don't get it.

One thing I do get is the concept of herd immunity. Herd immunity is the protection of non-vaccinated individuals by the large number of vaccinated people in a population. The idea is that an illness has less of an opportunity to spread as there are not enough links in the chain (non-vaccinated people) to create a full blown epidemic. So if people want to vaccinate (and, of course, many will) then, by the process of herd immunity, the population as whole will be safe. Go ahead, give 'em out like candy. There'll be plenty of takers. There is enough fear of illness to make the flu vaccine business boom. Why make it mandatory for everyone to subject their children to a questionable substance?

I wouldn't want to give my child the flu vaccine (and believe me, our pediatrician tries; oh boy, does she try). Thank goodness California isn't yet a part of the Third Reich. Put simply--the flu just isn't a menacing enough illness for me to go there. What's next? Chicken Pox. Oh, they try that one too. Haven't most adults alive today had the chicken pox? But the powers that be are trying to sell us on that nonsense as well. Can't wait till they come up with the vaccination for stupidity.

And to top it all off, that glorious Reichian state New Jersey has recently had a recall on one of its most common children vaccines. Ah very good, you guessed it, the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine. Granted this is the vaccine for the bacterial flu strain and not the viral one, but it's still a recall. Appears that 14 million doses of the vaccine produced by Merck (them again?) were contaminated. Contaminated? Scary, man. According to the report, "It was unclear how many of the 1.2 million doses [that got out] were administered to children." Yikes!

The report goes on to say, "Should the vaccine later prove contaminated, health officials believe most children will experience, at worst, skin irritation around the shot site. Problems could be worse for children with weakened immune systems (emphasis mine)." Isn't that the group they are supposedly protecting? That really scares heck out of me.

Here's my advice: Stay up on this story, and any story like it; do whatever you can to prevent its passage in your state. And if you live in New Jersey, get out as fast as you can. Heil Hib-ler!

Sham of the Century

Pssst. Hey Buddy. Wanna buy a bridge? How about a flu shot? Yeah?...thought so sucker.

Alright, alright, maybe I'm being a little hard--most people don't know. They only know what the authorities tell them.

Get your annual flu shot. Prevent the flu. Save your life. Isn't that the mantra?

Recent reports show that the distribution of flu shots in the U.S. this year is at 103 million--an all time high. Well, I've got some bad news for ya--the flu shot is a scam. No, no--it's not a conspiracy; your doctor really believes in it. And a couple hundred bucks a shot doesn't hurt the believing process, either.

So how is it a scam? First off, it's not 100% protection. That is, you can get a flu shot, and...still get the flu. How's that? Well, according to the Centers of Disease Control (CDC), "It takes about two weeks after vaccination for antibodies to develop in the body and provide protection against influenza virus infection. In the meantime, you are still at risk for getting the flu (emphasis mine)." Furthermore, you can still get the flu due to the variability in flu strains--that is, the current flu vaccine protects (however questionably) against a particular strain, not all of them (also from the CDC; read here). And your protection also depends on the age and health status of the person getting the vaccine (more on this in a second).

Second, the flu virus is one of the most highly mutating organisms there is, so strains change all the time. That's why you have to get a new shot every year (and don't forget, a couple hundred bucks a shot also helps with this category). The bottom line is this: you don't know which flu strain you'll encounter, and even if it's "this year's strain", you still don't have total protection.

Lastly (and this is my favorite one), even though the flu shot is an inactivated virus (i.e. it has been killed), it still has potential side effects, and they are:

• Soreness, redness, or swelling where the shot was given
• Fever (low grade)
• Aches

And if you use the spray mist:

• runny nose
• headache
• sore throat
• cough

And the mist in children:

• runny nose
• wheezing
• headache
• vomiting
• muscle aches
• fever

Call me crazy, but...ain't that the flu?

So let me put this into perspective: You go to your doctor every year and pay good money for a vaccine that doesn't work all that well, only protects you from a small faction of microorganisms that can cause the flu, and which actually causes flu-like symptoms. Uh...can I ask a question? WHY NOT JUST GET THE DAMN FLU?!?!

I know, I know, the authorities tell us that it's for the protection of the elderly, the immunocompromised, and children. However, in the same breath they tell us that the effectiveness of the vaccine is age dependent; and I highly doubt that 20 to 60-year-olds are at the highest risk.

All I can say is this: I've never had a flu shot; I've had the flu plenty of times; I've had the runs, fever, and body aches; and I didn't want to do anything. So I drank lots of water, and I slept a bunch. I got better, and I developed natural immunity--so, ultimately, I got stronger. Hey, listen--if you feel safer with a flu shot, then go ahead. And when you're ready, I've got an excellent multi-level marketing business opportunity for you...and a bridge.

If you want to read more on this sham, here is an excellent piece published in the British Medical Journal.

And comments to that piece from skeptical MDs in the U.K. (read this because this is from the guys who are administering the shots, so perhaps they have some insights you and I do not have--please scroll down to read the comments).