My friend Brad texted me during the Michigan-Michigan State football game yesterday telling me I have to read the flu shot article in the WSJ and write about it. Well, I got home from the BIG Michigan victory (Go Blue!) and promptly read the November 16, 2019 article. This article must have been supplied to the WSJ writer by Big Pharma as this was nothing more than a promotional spot for why we should be vaccinated against the flu. Fake News: The flu vaccine has NEVER been shown to protect those aged 65 and older. And, 79,000 dying from the flu last year? No way. The CDC annually gins up the number of deaths from the flu by reporting pneumonia and flu deaths as one number. Then, the CDC reports this number as the total dying from the flu. The number who die from the flu range from a few hundred to a few thousand per year. Since the flu vaccine does not prevent pneumonia, and pneumonia deaths vastly outnumber flu deaths sometimes 20-40x, there is simply no reason to lump the numbers together unless you want to unnecessarily scare the population into getting a flu vaccine. The flu shot has NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO REDUCE SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS SUCH AS PNEUMONIA OR HOSPTILIZATION FROM INFLUENZA INFECTION IN CHILDREN, HEALTHY ADULTS AND THE ELDERLY!
FDA Approves New High-Dose Flu Shot for Adults 65 Years of Age and Older with Many Side Effects and Unknown Efficacy
Earlier this month (November, 2019) the FDA approved the Fluzone® High-Dose Quadrivalent influenza vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur Inc. Fluzone is approved for adults 65 years old and above. The package insert for the new Fluzone®High-Dose Quadrivalent flu vaccine states that there was one clinical study conducted to evaluate the safety of this new high dose flu shot for seniors. The study did not compare the new flu vaccine to a placebo, but to previous versions of the Fluzone vaccine. Both study groups (the older flu vaccine and the newer one) suffered serious adverse events (SAEs). According to the package insert of the new Fluzone® High-Dose Quadrivalent influenza vaccine, there were no efficacy studies done on the new flu vaccine. The single study that was conducted compared the safety and immunogenicity of Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent to those of Fluzone High-Dose. For a measure of effectiveness, they simply quoted the results for the older Fluzone High-Dose vaccine. The relative efficacy of the older study for primary endpoints ranged from 11% to 27.4%. The secondary endpoint had an efficacy rate of 51%. Again, this study was not for the new flu vaccine just approved by the FDA, but for the older flu vaccine against specific virus strains. The new vaccine added a new strain, but this flu vaccine will not even be available until the 2020-2021 flu season. Everything here comes straight from the manufacturers package insert for the flu vaccine, a package insert you are not likely to have access to if you were to walk into a drug store like Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, and others and request to see before receiving a flu shot. And for simply printing facts like this that are easily found online (the FDA government website is required to have vaccine package inserts online), we have been branded by the corporate media watch dogs as "fake news." Health Impact News, and specifically our VaccineImpact.com website, generates a lot of traffic for readers searching for facts related to vaccines in general, and the flu vaccine specifically. If this particular article starts receiving too much traffic, Facebook and others will come in and label it as "fake news" to immediately reduce the amount of traffic it receives. This has already happened a few times during the current flu season.
Just as you can be sure that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, you can count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to encourage everybody to receive the flu vaccine. However, before you rush off to receive the flu vaccine, let me share some information with you. Last year, while the CDC was heavily promoting the flu vaccine for everybody, the flu vaccine was found to be ineffective for the vast majority who received it. But, that is not all. One study found children who receive the flu vaccine are at a 4.4x higher risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections—in other words, they are more susceptible to other common flu-like viral infections. And, to make matters worse, asthmatic children who receive the flu vaccine have been found to have a 3x significantly increased risk for hospitalization for the flu and flu-like illnesses. And, just a comment about pregnant women being recommended to get the flu vaccine. This is ridiculous!
The flu season is upon us, and Facebook is working hard to keep information from being shared on their platform educating people how to fight the flu using anything other than flu vaccines. A 2017 article written by Dr. Joseph Mercola that was republished on Health Impact News started going viral earlier this week: "Study: Vitamin D Is More Effective Than Flu Vaccine" When it had been shared on Facebook by about half a million people, it apparently kicked off a censorship alarm as being too popular to be allowed to have that many views. By mid-afternoon Friday we were alerted by some of our readers that they were being threatened by Facebook for "posting false claims" when they tried to share the story. Soon thereafter, traffic from Facebook leading to the story plummeted. By the CDC's own admission, the annual flu shot is seldom effective for the majority of the population, as they have to guess the correct flu strains each year. Also, as we report every three months when the DOJ issues their quarterly reports on vaccine injuries and death settlements in the Vaccine Court, the flu shot is the most dangerous vaccine in the U.S., accounting for the majority of vaccine death and injury settlements. Through August of 2019, the Government Vaccine Court has paid out over $206 million so far this year, and most of that is for the flu shot. I am not aware of even one single death due to overdosing on Vitamin D.
Last week, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that the new estimate for the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine during the second half of the 2018-2019 “flu season” was only nine percent. That’s pretty bad even by influenza vaccine standards, which are notoriously poor. Since the 2004-2005 season, the CDC has judged the influenza vaccine to be more than 50 percent effective only four times—52 percent in 2006-2007, 56 percent in 2009-2010, 60 percent in 2010-2011 and 52 percent in 2013-2014. In other words, the vaccine has been more than 50 percent ineffective nearly three out of every four years.
CDC Scandal: Committee that Withdrew Recommendation for Nasal Flu Vaccine Now Recommends it to Experiment on American Public
In June of 2016 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) admitted that the live attenuated nasal influenza vaccine known as “FluMist” was not effective, and was not recommended for the 2016-2017 flu season. It was also not recommended for the current flu season (2017-2018). The CDC's own data showed that the nasal vaccine was not effective. The CDC press release in 2016 stated, “This three percent estimate means no protective benefit could be measured.” Shortly after this announcement in 2016, a family in Utah went public with their story, explaining how their 8-year old daughter died from influenza, even though she had been vaccinated with FluMist. They had trusted the CDC and their flu recommendations, but now they have lost their daughter. Even though the CDC withdrew their recommendation for the failed nasal flu vaccine, FluMist retained its FDA approval and has been available to purchase the past two years. On February 21, 2018, the CDC's ACIP reversed its decision on FluMist, and voted 12-2 to add FluMist to the CDC’s list of recommended vaccines for the 2018-2019 influenza season. Stat News reports how members of the ACIP expressed concerns about deciding to reverse their decision and recommend it: "The motion to recommend FluMist passed by a surprising 12-to-2 vote, the outcome of which belies the unease that a number of members of the committee clearly felt about the decision they were making. They faced, in essence, a Catch-22: It has been impossible to generate the type of data that would normally be used to make a decision like this. The only way to see if the problem has been solved is to use the vaccine. But without an ACIP recommendation, the vaccine’s use in the U.S. would remain minimal." So the fact is that the effectiveness of FluMist is still not known, but the CDC has no qualms about testing it on the American public to find out.
After the recent media uproar about the CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald’s resignation, which focused on the inappropriateness of her ownership in tobacco stock, the WMP team decided to investigate further. What we uncovered is new technology that utilizes tobacco leaves to produce vaccines in a much shorter time frame and clinical trials are already underway using this new technology to produce flu vaccines here in the US. So maybe Fitzgerald’s stocks had nothing to do with smoking tobacco cessation and everything to do with vaccine production?
CDC’s strategy to use fear to ramp up flu vaccine sales requires the agency to exaggerate both flu risks and vaccine efficacy. Pharmaceutical companies and public health officials vastly overstate flu cases and deaths in order to market influenza “as a threat of great proportions.” Simple fact-checking shows that since October 2017, only 14.7% of the almost 447,000 “flu” specimens tested by clinical laboratories working with CDC have tested positive for influenza. This proportion has remained relatively constant for the past two decades. According to the British Medical Journal’s Peter Doshi, “Even the ideal influenza vaccine…can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza.” Actual influenza deaths not only rank lower than the major killers such as heart disease and cancer but also are lower down in the mortality rankings than ulcers and hernias. Incredibly, even though most “flu” is not influenza and flu vaccine effectiveness is as low as 10%, public health authorities keep telling everyone from six months of age on up (including pregnant women) that the flu shot is “better than nothing” and the “best tool we have.” However, there are many unanswered questions about influenza vaccines that warrant rigorous investigation. Recent peer-reviewed studies suggest that the shots may actually make people more susceptible to serious problems (as with the recently recalled dengue vaccine) and that getting flu shots year after year may be lowering subsequent vaccine effectiveness as well as drastically increasing risks for Alzheimer’s disease. Getting vaccinated against one strain of influenza may increase risks for other severe respiratory viruses. Unfortunately, most members of the public are not reading this alarming science. The public should make health decisions based on sound science, not scare tactics.
The U.S. is in the midst of one of the worst outbreaks of influenza in years, and in spite of the fact that the CDC is estimating that the flu vaccine is only about 10% effective, there are massive advertising campaigns in place to get the entire population vaccinated for the flu. Media reports are coming in reporting high rates of deaths due to the flu, and the majority of those dying from the flu have been vaccinated. The flu shot is not without severe risks, risks that are routinely censored in the corporate "mainstream" media, and include paralysis from Guillain-Barré Syndrome, chronic shoulder pain from SIRVA, and death. It is, by far, the most dangerous vaccine in America. Given the fact that health authorities themselves admit that the flu vaccine is not effective, the public should be made aware of these risks. The bigger question that needs to be considered is: could the lucrative mass flu vaccination program actually be a cause for more severe flu outbreaks, rather than a cure? Over 300 million doses of the flu vaccine are manufactured each season, representing a huge cash flow for the pharmaceutical industry that they would obviously be hesitant to give up simply because it is not effective, or even if it is an underlying cause of more severe flu outbreaks.
Retired Medical Doctor Exposes Deceptive Statistics Used to Justify Billion Dollar Flu Vaccine and Drug Market
A few years ago, there was a temporary media buzz generated by an article in The Lancet Infectious Disease journal. That highly respected medical journal is, as is true of most such journals, a pro-vaccine, pro-pharmaceutical medical industry publication that is published in London. The article’s principle author was Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, a widely published infectious disease researcher who, prior to his current faculty position at the University of Minnesota, had served in various capacities with the CDC and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), including a high-profile role as the MDH’s Chief of the Acute Disease Epidemiology Section. For 15 years of that association with the MDH he served as Minnesota state epidemiologist. Dr Osterholm, who is not a physician, has published over 300 articles and is highly respected in his field. The article showed that flu vaccinations were far less effective than had been previously believed. In fact, that particular study suggested that the trivalent flu vaccine currently being pushed at that time approached worthlessness.