No Flu Shot? You're Stupid!

More stupidity coming out of the flu shot camp this year.  Same old propaganda.  Here's the deal according to experts: You're an idiot if you don't get the flu shot.  All your reservations against getting the flu shot are false.  Not one thing you think negatively about the flu shot is proven, but get this...the flu shot is based on sound evidence.  Har, har, har.  Sounds like today's best political style--if they disagree, denigrate them.

According to a recent report, many Americans are planning to bypass the flu shot this year.  A survey conducted by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID) found that 43% of Americans will not be getting a flu shot this season.  Additionally, a second study found that one-third of American mothers said they have no plans to get a flu shot for their children.  Booyah!

I love it.  But the medical establishment doesn't.  They've been ramming the flu shot malarkey down our throats for years, and they are WRONG!  Wrong.  I've been reporting on this sham for the last four years.  Every year they say the same thing.  2007 saw record flu shots given, yet the incidences of flu were off the charts.  The shot gave little protection that year.  In 2008, people kept away from the bull shot.  Guess what?  Flu cases went down!  Get it?

I've said this before, getting the flu strains right* in any particular year is very much like predicting the weather--it's a crap shoot.  It's freakin' bogus.  But what really offends me is the arrogance by which the establishment belittles people who see this and choose not to swallow the BS being fed to them.

"Flu is serious. Every year millions of people get sick; more than 200,000 people are hospitalized and thousands of people die from influenza," Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Yes, sick people, unhealthy people, immunocompromised people and malnourished children.  My children have had the flu every year--they're alive.  God bless their immune systems.  If you want a flu shot--go get one; it's available.  We'll pass, though, thank you.  Are we stupid?  OK, I'll take that under consideration.

Flu expert Dr. Marc Siegel believes that many people who opt not to get a flu shot are falling prey to myths about the vaccine. "It's all because of this nonsense that's been circulating that somehow the flu shot is dangerous."

No doctor, listen up: It's because the seasonal flu shot is bogus.  Plain and simple.  Wake up.

And his thoughts on the belief of some people that hand-washing helps prevent spread of the flu: "The idea that you are not going to spread the flu by washing your hands has never been proven," Siegal noted.

And the sham that getting a flu shot prevents the flu has not only never been proven, it fails to do so many years--think 2007-2008.

I'll keep reporting on this nonsense every year until the numbers of rejecters reaches high eighty percent.  Until then, hats off dissenters.  Glad you recognize the agenda.

* This year's shot will contain the H1N1 strain...the same one they had to burn last season because nobody wanted.  Guess they found use for it.  How does it feel to be part of a massive public health experiment?

Flu Shot Study Update

Remember my post on the unplanned flu shot study? Remember how I pointed out that only 33% of the American population had received a flu shot as of December '08, and that only an estimated 17% more would be receiving the vaccine all season? Do you also recall how I pointed out that 80-90% of the population needs to be inoculated for protection to take place--at least theoretically?

OK, OK...you must remember all the other post of mine regarding the flu shot. Remember? You know, that I think it's the biggest scam of the last two centuries; that the flu shot doesn't protect against diddly (read this); that if you've bought into the flu shot hype, you've been duped royally. Well, let's add a little more fuel to the fire.

Experts now report that the flu may be off to a slow start--flu-like symptoms have been below normal all season. Well whaddaya know. Lets see, government agency sells public on shaky vaccine--one meant to combat rapidly mutating organism. Scientific community admits difficulty getting vaccine strain right, as whole process is guessing game as to which flu strain will rear its ugly capsid in any given year. Despite this, public still buys into flu shot BS.

Rewind to 2007: Record numbers of Americans go out and get the flu shot, yet we experience the worst flu season in three years. Now 2008: People say, "Up yours!" to the flu shot and stay away in record numbers, and to date...flu cases are down! Hmmm...does anybody else smell something fishy?

Well it's no surprise to me--I've been reporting this story for over two years. The flu shot is bona fide bovine scat. And you know what gives me gran satisfacción? People are getting it. Yes! But wait...is it possible that getting the flu shot, gulp, gives you the flu? Public health officials say, "Absolutely not!" But go ahead, read the side effects--sounds like flu to me. Okay...flu-like symptoms. Whatever. But check it: flu shots up...flu up. Flu shots down...flu down. Could it? Nah, it's just coincidence...right?!?!

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).

Flu Shot Bull Shot

More BS exposed on the flu shot health watch. Despite proponents talking up the countless benefits, seems like research is proving otherwise. The latest study out of Alberta, Canada showed that elderly people getting the flu shot had no lowered risk of dying from the flu. That's right--no lowered risk of dying from the flu. If I'm not mistaken, that's always the reasoning behind the heavy marketing of this bogus vaccine.

Over 700 elderly people were followed, half receiving the flu shot. As it turns out, after adjusting for potential confounders, including functional and socioeconomic factors, no statistical significance was found between death rates of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated people. In other words, just as many flu-vaccinated elderly subjects died as non-vaccinated subjects. Now ain't that a...bleep.

Anyway, that's no surprise to me. I've been pounding out this story for well over a year, and have been screaming foul for the flu shot for as long as I can remember. Plain and simple: The flu shot is bunk! Thank you but no thank you. Even though flu vaccinations among the elderly have gone way up--from 15 to 65 percent--"there has been no commensurate decrease in hospital admissions or all-cause mortality," said one researcher. All this despite previous estimates that "50% of reduction in death from any cause had been noted in elderly people who got a flu shot.

Oh well, I guess even these results won't slow down the flu vaccine propaganda. I'll just keep saying it until it catches on: You've got to get sick! It's the only way your immune system keeps updated and ready to fight tomorrows invaders. The flu shot merely exposes you to a minuscule proportion of existing flu strains. The influenza virus mutates rapidly. Just keep yourself as healthy as you can, and you shouldn't have any problem beating the antigen off those little buggers.

Did You Get Flu Vaccine?

My daughter Delilah has been sick as Swiss measles outbreak--has a nasty cold, probably the same one you have. Hacking dry cough, lots of snot, fever--I've seen so many people in my practice with this nasty little bug, and even more that I've talked to. It's that time of year, all right.

Did you get a flu shot? I didn't. I was sick about a month ago--same thing that's going around now. I didn't get my daughters a flu shot either, despite massive pushing from our pediatrician. It got me wondering, why don't they have a vaccine for the common cold? It can't be because the rhinovirus is benign; I mean, my daughter has been nailed. After eight days of labored respiration and irrepressible cough, I think she's been through the ringer. So why no vaccine?

I wouldn't do it anyway, because I'm sure it wouldn't do squat. Just like the flu vaccine. As I reported back in December, very few Americans are getting the flu shot this year. And we haven't been hit yet with the massive flu epidemic that we've been told for years would happen unless everyone got their flu shot. Uh..told you.

Even better, doctors are now saying the flu shot doesn't prevent the flu, it only lessens symptoms. Ha, ha, ha...what a crock of sh*#! Last year it was, "The flu vaccine protects at risk people, like children or the elderly, from the flu." Today it's, "You can get the flu even if you've been vaccinated, and even if it hits the right virus, you just may not get as bad of a flu." Yeah...exactly what I've been saying.

To the credit of the flu shot pushers, the new word on the hospital floor is that people who haven't gotten flu shots should try to ride the season out. Bout time somebody started talking sense.

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.

Unplanned Flu Shot Study

We’ve got an interesting unplanned study underway in the U.S. this flu season. According to recent reports, only one third of Americans have received a flu shot this year. And based on a survey of 4,000 people, only seventeen percent more are planning on getting one. Nice--a fifty-fifty split.

So what’s the study? Well, public health officials at the U.S. Centers of Disease Control (CDC) recommend that 85% of the population (261 million people) get vaccinated against the flu to prevent pandemonium. The flu kills 36,000 people and sends 200,000 to the hospital in the United States annually.

If you’ve listened to my podcast on vaccinations (Dr. Nick Show, Episode 8) then you know all about herd immunity. Herd immunity is the protection an entire population receives from a certain number of the people getting vaccinated. This number is roughly 80-90%. So by 261 million Americans receiving the flu vaccine, we should in theory be “protected” against the devastation promised by the flu. Hmmmm….

Well it ain’t happening this year. Less than fifty percent of the population will be getting the vaccine. So what do you think? Death and pestilence to sweep through the nation? I guess we’ll see. That’ll be the study. If we experience mass devastation, then I’ll concede--I’ll stop bagging on the flu vaccine. But it’ll have to be a significant difference. Not the same numbers we see every year. I’m betting they’ll be pretty close to the same.

As I keep saying: it is nearly impossible to develop a flu vaccine that matches the current strains in the wild. They mutate too quickly. The influenza virus is the true Master of Disguises.

But I’m excited to see the upcoming results. Even though I think that if the pandemic doesn’t happen, public health officials will rationalize it in one way or another; they'll never let go of the flu shot fallacy. However, it’ll pretty much prove things to me. Combine it with last year’s flu vaccine debacle (massive illness despite record numbers of people vaccinated), and the flu shot might just be shot.

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!

Flu Shot Video

Think I'm making this stuff up? Watch this video showing exactly what I've been saying about the flu shot, the influenza virus and it's rapid mutation rate. Yes, this piece comes with the mainstream twist that the flu shot is good for you. Please see if you pick out the BS. As I always say: truth is a matter of perspective.

Swine Flu Vaccine

One of my intelligent and well-informed regular readers asked my opinion on a recent health piece on the swine flu vaccine. The article is written by Dr. Russel Blaylock, a prominent neurosurgeon and associate editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. His view: The upcoming swine flu vaccine might be more dangerous than the flu itself.

If you've been reading my blog, you know how I feel about the flu vaccine in general: um, useless. Aside from the fact that everyone has had the flu, 99.9999999% survive it, get well and get on with their lives, there is the simple little issue that the data doesn't support its widespread use. I've posted study after study showing the flu vaccines worthlessness. Why will the swine flu vaccine be any different? I even went so far as to point out that this past flu season had the lowest use of flu vaccine in years, and guess what...flu cases were down! Frickin' duh! Thank goodness people are waking up.

What the heck is the difference with swine flu? Should we be more scared? The government, WHO, and media are certainly trying to freak us out. It's not like I think there is a conspiracy--I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist--but there is some vested interest in drumming up a scare. I talk at length about this in my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health. Think about it: Can governments actually do nothing about an illness outbreak? No, they are ultimately responsible for their people. So that makes sense to me. Will the media ignore it? C'mon--that racket of power and mind manipulation wouldn't exist without sensationalism. Pharmaceutical companies? Cha-ching. Mainstream medical profession? No new diseases, no new business.

There is no evidence that the swine flu is any worse than the regular flu. Why panic? Doesn't mean you need the vaccine. And if, in fact, the material that is combined with the vaccine (called the adjuvant), is toxic, then obviously it's more than useless, it's dangerous. According to Dr. Blaylock, the adjuvant in the new swine flu vaccine is squalene. When injected, squalene, the doctor states, can trigger autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and multiple sclerosis (MS). He goes on to point out that squalene is also strongly linked to Gulf War Syndrome, Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS), polyarteritis nodosa, multiple sclerosis (MS), transverse myelitis (a neurological disorder caused by inflammation of the spinal cord), endocarditis (inflammation of the heart’s inner lining), optic neuritis with blindness and glomerulonephritis (a type of kidney disease).

So what do I think? Hmm...I don't know about all that stuff; but it really doesn't matter to me if it's filled with ambosia and nectar, I'm not going to take it, and I'm not going to give it to my children. If they start mandating it for schoolchildren--bye, bye school--I'll homeschool my kids. I'm not giving my family any flu shot crap, period. There David, that's my opinion.

*Thanks D.S. for posing the question; very relevant.

Do As Your Doctor Do

I don't know; what do you think? If 50% of health care workers would refuse the swine flu vaccine, do you think there might be something behind that? According to a recent study that polled 2,255 Hong Kong health workers, even during the height of global swine flu panic in May, less than half were willing to get vaccinated. You don't say...

According to the report, the workers cited being "afraid of side effects," and having doubts about, "how safe and effective it would be." Well, no Schlitz. Du-uh-uh-uh-uh.

But what is obvious to you and me, seems like a real head-scratcher for public health authorities, like the World Health Organization (WHO). Bioethicists are debating the ethics of health care workers protecting their patients by getting vaccinated to the pig flu. But if health care workers believe that it's bogus--as bogus as the regular flu shot (doctors read the data; they know: In the U.S., about 35 percent of health workers get a regular flu shot, while in Britain, only about 17 percent do), and even possibly dangerous--then good luck.

When it comes to vaccinations, freaky side effects usually come about after 1 million inoculations. This was the case in 1976 when a swine flu vaccine was produced then; and the poor suckers who got the stab developed Guillain-Barre syndrome, a temporary paralyzing disorder that can lead to death; however, the numbers were a bit less than one in a million. But I'll bet you those one in million were none too happy with the results. Add in that pharmaceutical developers will be immune to any lawsuits, and scheiße, who the hell is gonna take the chance.

George Annas, a bioethecist at Boston University says of this recent finding, "Like the lay population, [health care workers] assume they won't need the shot because they don't think they will get the flu." Uh...noooo....since health care workers have a basic understanding of the health sciences, they know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. Face the facts.

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.

Swine Flu Bait and Switch

Ever hear of the ol' bait and switch? That's where a company advertises an amazing deal--let's say top of the line laptop computers--and when customers come in looking for the item, they are told they've been sold out...we do, however, have these lesser brand laptops at a comparable price. Doh!

Well, bait and switch is exactly what I think of when I see the latest report on seasonal flu vaccine. According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), seasonal flu vaccine was doled out in record numbers this past season, with 40% of the population getting inoculated. Suckers! The jump was most dramatic in children but increased in healthy adults under 50 as well.

What led to this massive increase following a year (2008) of record low seasonal flu shot inoculations? Experts believe the jump was attributable to fears over the swine flu. Gary Euler, one of the authors of the study looking at last years flu vaccination numbers, said, "We do have a pandemic driving that." Uh huh. No kidding.

Let's see...what's the best way to revamp a flaccid flu vaccination program? Let's scare the s#!t out of the public with news of a "new" form of flu. Let's remind them of former flu pandemics that claimed thousands of lives. Let's show a real concern for the safety of people by recommending mass inoculations for the public. If it fails, at the very least a renewed vigor in seasonal flu might be stimulated. Hmmmm.

Now do I think there is some conspiracy of old white men sitting in their arctic fortress plotting world domination through dissemination of bio-warfare? No. But I do think it is too easy to overreact to a situation that is probably harmless. But how can you be sure? Because hordes of people get regular flu every year; they rest, drink fluids, moan and groan, and eventually get better--every year, without exception. I think inoculating for flu is necessary only under extreme circumstances. I believe it is much more important to build natural immunity, that way, we evolve along with the microorganism.

But there is certainly benefit to spreading panic--governments look like they care (there'll be no Katrina for this administration), pharmaceutical companies turn massive profit, doctors/public health officials are needed, and other waning fears get a recycle. With that much to gain in spreading fear, why wouldn't several groups participate, even if unintentionally?

Why it matters is because this type of sickness/fear agenda is precisely what is wrong with the health paradigm in the western world. Pushing the notion that we need outside elements--drugs, vaccinations, the government--to experience health and well being, and not our own Innate Intelligence, is absurd. And using tactics like fear, or bait and switch, doesn't muster any more trust in Big Brother for me.

At least this is how I feel with regard to flu and swine flu. Come the day we see swine malaria...well, maybe then I'll be a little scared.

I'm Done With Swine Flu

Anybody else thoroughly over hearing about the swine flu? I know you are, but I thought I'd wrap it up (I vow to lay off the story from this point forward) by sharing a chuckle about this completely over-hyped mass hysteria. Reports coming off the news wires have been mixed regarding H1N1 infections; some have them labeled as disastrous, others as no big deal. Let's check a few out:

On the-worst-thing-since-Typhoid-Mary scene, deaths from swine flu are up everywhere--U.S., India, Israel, California--madness. Many groups are supposedly at increased risk--Native Americans and Eskimos (not kidding), new mothers, children, seniors, and people with chronic lung disorders like asthma and COPD.

However, despite the massive danger to most everyone but people living in plastic bubbles--the public isn't buying into the hysteria (thank goodness). According to a report last week, the number of Americans getting tested for swine flu has decreased by 75%. Awesome! And the number of tests coming back positive has dropped from 44% in November to only 21% for the two weeks ending Dec. 9. Nice!

So the swine flu epidemic has been more hype than headache. In fact, the actual cases of swine flu reported may be grossly over-exaggerated. Check out this piece by CBS news showing the CDC stopped counting actual swine flu cases individually back in July. Now why would they do that? The piece does a good job of explaining the rationale behind the decision, and if you've got a few minutes, check the video below to get an outstanding account of the chronology of the swine flu hysteria. This is CBS News not Natural Health News; just investigative reporting uncovering what I've suspected and have written about all along in this blog. Hysteria, that's all it is.

Nevertheless, our President Barack Obama showed the country he was leading the charge against the swine flu by getting vaccinated yesterday. Bravo! I applaud his taking charge and diving in--'bout time. But I'm certain it's not necessary, because as I've said from day one--flu is flu is flu is flu. But if you want to follow Barry's lead and get the shot, go ahead, you'll be fine.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

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.

Vitamin D Better Than Flu Shot

Health care trumps sick care again, but this time on the road. That's right, health care traveled to sick care's arena--the illness center--and beat sick care at its own game. Booyah!

A recent Japanese study showed that children taking 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplements daily during the winter and early spring helped prevent seasonal flu and asthma attacks. A timely victory in my analysis of true health care versus government-championed sick care.

Sick care pushes the seasonal flu shot, which my regular readers might recall has been fingered by experts as inconclusive in its effectiveness. Proponents of health care, on the other hand, myself included, really push upping the vitamin D intake. I think 1,200 IU is pretty good for children, and most adults need much more, like 5,000 IU per day. As we become more aware of the pervasiveness of vitamin D insufficiency in all Americans, including children, getting adequate sunlight and supplementing becomes paramount.

The study conducted at Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo showed that children taking the vitamin D supplements were almost half as likely as catching the flu as those taking placebo. And as an added benefit, children taking vitamin D were almost six times less likely to suffer an asthma attack. Holy inhalers! That's quite a hit to pharmaceutical manufacturers. You mean, that a simple $8 bottle of vitamin D can prevent what a $30.00-$60.00 Albuterol inhaler treats. Well bless my Obamacare--I wonder if vitamin D is covered on the plan.

According to Dr. Adit Ginde, of University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study, told Reuters Health: "This is the first time a study has been done that rigorously shows that vitamin D supplementation can reduce a type of influenza in a dedicated clinical trial." Ginde and colleagues published a study a year ago showing that asthmatics with lower vitamin D levels were at five times the risk for colds and flu.

Take that, sick care. Another victory in the arena of truth in health. I'll keep 'em coming.

Family Abuse in New Jersey

I reported last year on the totalitarianism being practiced in the State of New Jersey with regard to mandatory flu vaccinations. Well, this story ain't over...

Last December New Jersey's Public Health Council passed a policy that all children aged 6 months to 5 years were mandated to receive the flu shot (along with the pneumococcal vaccine) in order to enter preschool or day-care centers. The policy takes effect this fall: parents have until December 31st to inoculate their children.

Well, if you read my post on the subject last year, you know that I find this mandate a blatant violation of civil rights. It's downright disgusting. Vaccinating children with the useless flu vaccine (or with any vaccine, for that matter) should be a parent's choice, not the state's. And hundreds of parents and activists in New Jersey agree with me. A crowd of them congregated outside the Jersey Statehouse yesterday denouncing the mandate and supporting a bill that would allow a conscientious objection option to opt out of giving the vaccine to their children.

I have to ask one question: Is this country going frickin' crazy? I hope this insanity is confined to the Garden State only and doesn't catch on elsewhere. I fully support the citizens over there, subjects of the Fourth Reich. When our medical institutions get so powerful that they become the authority on all things, including our personal lives, then you know it's damn well time to create change.

We are hearing so much about change right now as a result of the Presidential elections, but my guess is that change will not come quickly from that office. Change has to come from us, the people, the citizens of this country. And we need to put our feet down and stop this mandating health policy stuff, especially when it comes to vaccinations. Don't give me that "public health at risk" nonsense: If the damn flu vaccine works so well, then the people who choose to receive it and to give it to their children have nothing to worry about. They're protected, right? Isn't that the point? It's all political and financial BS--better believe that.

Listen to concerned mom, Barbara Majeski of Princeton, N.J., who says, "Mother Nature designed our bodies to be able to fight off infections through natural means — you need to be exposed and develop immunity. We've just gotten a little too overprotective with our children."

Amen, sister. Fight on, New Jersey--lots of us support you.

Message From Mother Nature: WAKE UP!

Prick up your ears medical science, Universal Intelligence speaks again. This time via the pneumococcal bacteria which has a nasty little evolutionary habit of adapting to stressors (in this case the pneumococcal vaccine) by changing the makeup of its outer coat. The bug, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or pneumococcus, known to cause childhood pneumonia and meningitis has been a major player in worldwide illness and death since the late 19th century. It is thought to kill over a million young children around the world each year.

According to research conducted at the University of Oxford, the bacterium carries out a little genetic presto-chango by recombining with other, slightly different bacteria, so that the vaccine no longer recognizes it. Nice. Natural selection at its finest, and it shows the incredible intelligence that has permeated life from the start.

The pneumococcal vaccine works by eliciting antibody production against the polysaccharide coating of the bacteria. By recombining its genes with that of other pneumococcal serotypes, the bacteria successfully renders the vaccine less effective. And this is exactly what happened in Great Britain after it adopted an American formula in 2000 that targeted seven serotypes (different varieties) and was highly effective in preventing transmission from children to adults.

Researchers sought to find the answer to the vaccines reduced effectiveness, and through cutting-edge genetic analysis they were able to uncover the mystery. The vaccine has since been replaced with a newer and wider acting one targeting 13 serotypes, but it does show some potential problems of the future.

I respect the medical innovation that has led to the development of such useful drugs and vaccines that have provided us with so much protection over the last century. But if I've said it once I've said it a million times, we rely far too heavily on drugs and vaccines, and not enough on strengthening the human constitution. Antibiotic resistant bugs are directly related to antibiotic overuse--prescribing them for every cough and runny nose "that just won't go away" is ludicrous.

I still hear numerous people report that they run to the doctor after being sick for "one whole week," and the doctors give them the drugs. Listen people, let your body do the job! It should be strong enough to handle most routine bugs; but I know the medical profession, pharmacies and drug companies push the idea that this year will be the year that we all die from the flu unless we get coveted flu shot. WAKE THE EFF UP! Listen to Mother Nature. She's telling you that all life forms evolve, including microorganisms. We can slow down the need to develop new drugs by not medicating every physical challenge people have. Duh! Everybody has a responsibility on this one.

Health and Evolution

If you've been reading this blog, you know how I feel about getting sick--it's absolutely essential. Protecting yourself against all illness is not only impossible, it's dangerous. We need to get sick from time to time because encountering microorganisms upgrades our immune system in the same way updating your computer's virus scan does: it protects you from future illnesses that might be strong enough to kill you. We evolve along with microorganism--and they with us. There's no such thing as solitary evolution.

Case in point: Scientist have recently discovered the bacteria responsible for tuberculosis (TB) in 9,000 year old human bones submerged in waters off of Israel's coast. It was previously thought that Mycobacterium tuberculosis was younger by about 3,000 years, but these findings show the incredible co-evolution of TB and man.

What I find interesting is that in our attempt to eradicate certain microorganisms, and thus certain diseases, we may actually be making said microorganisms stronger, tipping the balance in their favor for awhile. The widespread use of antibiotics and other drugs has led to the emergence of drug-resistant strains that are sturdier and tougher to treat. Take multi-drug resistant TB, or methicillin-resistant Staph aureus (MRSA), or now drug resistant HIV. We've created these superbug monsters, and are we more advantaged as a result?

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take antibiotics, or HIV infected people shouldn't take their drugs, but taking antibiotics for every sniffle or sore throat is absurd. Please let me inform you that sniffles and sore throats ARE good health! They are our bodies ways of fighting infection.

I bring this up because we are entering "flu season" and millions of people will be running for their flu shots, and millions more to their doctor for antibiotics because, "I've been congested for three days." Just understand that on the one hand you are living an illusion to think that if you get a shot, you'll avoid getting sick. You'll get sick again, one day. And that you are actually getting protection from the flu (read last post)...you're not. On the other hand, by running to the doctor for antibiotics to fight your viral infection, you are just adding to the probability of even stronger superbugs in the future.

Bugs evolve. Man evolves. We typically evolve together. Sometime man has the advantage, and sometimes microorganisms have the advantage. If I'm going to be the master of my health, I'll take my chances and meet these little buggers head-on. Better believe that if I encounter something super-virulent, I'll take the drugs. But not for the sniffles, I won't. For that I'll tough it out.

Health Care Oversight

President Obama and his crew have got this health care thing all wrong. Socializing--damn it, I mean universalizing--health care isn't the answer. And the data they're using to come to their conclusions is convoluted.

Take the latest report from the Business Roundtable, a gathering of U.S. CEOs from major companies that provide health insurance to their employees. This meeting produced the usual appeal from American businesses to get medical spending under control. Yeah, no kidding--if you're footing the bill for hundreds of thousands of people, you'll want costs to come down significantly. But having the taxpayer pick up the tab isn't going to change the facts. And the facts are what's under contention.

The conventional wisdom is that medical care in the U.S. is too expensive. The numbers show that Americans spend $1,928 per capita on health care. That's two grand a person per year on average. This number is then compared to what's spent in G-5 countries (Canada, Germany, Great Britain, France and Japan), all with government-funded systems, albeit different from each other. In these countries, the per capita health care spending is $1,100 (all data is from 2006). In the emerging competitive economies, the BIC group--Brazil, India and China--per capita health care spending is about $290. Looking at these numbers, I guess you would conclude that our health care is more expensive and burdensome.

But I think these numbers only tell part of the story. To begin with, I don't find the BIC group worth comparing. These three countries have huge populations, large numbers of poor people, and they still lag behind the more developed countries in quality of life amenities that we take for granted in the modern western world. This includes health care. In fact, I am certain that hoards of people in those countries have no health care available whatsoever. This isn't the case in the U.S. where we have free clinics and laws against turning away patients from emergency care.

So, in my opinion, the only worthy comparison is G-5 countries. The only way to know if our care in the U.S. is too costly is to have comparative pricing--that is, we've got to know how much mending a fracture is, not only from country to country, but from hospital to hospital. Without that information, we're shooting blindly in the dark. And how about an overnight hospital stay, or a shot of morphine, or how about a simple doctor's visit--you know, those useless physicals or whatever it is that we get duped into every year. Without that information, there is simply no way to know what's too expensive.

Then there is the issue of comfort. Some people demand that their hospital room resemble a suite at the Ritz Carlton. Hey, I've got no problem with that concept--money talks and BS walks, so they say (check out how this Japanese mobster got a liver transplant and five-star service in the U.S. for one reason only--cha-ching!). So lowering cost will invariably lower comfort (which I believe will lead to high-priced boutique medical care and private hospitals, and then you'll really hear the masses scream).

Finally, by the sheer fact that everyone has government-funded insurance, I'm certain that things get pret-ty busy in those G-5 hospitals, probably similar to any big city's general hospital--you know what I mean, looooong wait times. Swollen elbow? You're sitting in the waiting room for nine hours, Laddy. My guess is that this keeps only the most critical emergencies from going into the ER. Anything of a lesser severity has to wait for a doctor's appointment. There you go: controlled visits, controlled costs.

Here's the real problem as I see it: Americans have been brainwashed--OK perhaps spoiled is a better word--into believing that you run to the doctor for any minor ailment. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to in the last month who have gone to the doctor for antibiotics for that miserable cold and flu that has come upon us--the same one my daughter and I had, and got over with zero medication, just sleep, water and lots of TLC. Listen up people: antibiotics don't do diddly against the common cold OR the flu--both viruses. So how many of you ran up the nation's health care costs this month?

And also Americans have immediate access to medical care at any time. Call it an emergency and you can't be turned away, or the hospital will liable. Can't pay the bill? Most hospitals have charity plans--they'll write off your care if you can't afford it. So add the notion that you've got to run to the fancy schmancy hospital or doctor in Century City (Upper East Side, UCSF, whatever) whenever you have a boo boo; and you have the ability to do so no matter what your income level, and what do you think the result will be? You think we might spend a little more money than the Euros who are sitting at home nursing their own colds and flu?

I actually hope we do nationalize the system, because I think it's the only way Americans will see that it's their lifestyles that lead to their poor health.