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.
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.
Dr. Brownstein: Another Study Showing Influenza Vaccine Failure – Flu Vaccine Fails 98% of People Who Receive It
The flu and cold season is upon us. I have already seen numerous patients suffering with upper respiratory illnesses and even weathered my first bout. The CDC and the Powers-That-Be would have you believe that you should receive the influenza vaccine on a yearly basis. They claim that the flu vaccine can save thousands of lives. Of course, I have written to you many times that there is not a single study that has ever supported the claim that the flu vaccine saves any lives. In fact, the history of the flu vaccine shows clearly that it fails nearly all who take it.
Conventional health authorities claim getting a flu shot each year is the best way to ward off influenza. But where's the actual science backing up that claim? If you've repeatedly fallen for this annual propaganda campaign, you may be surprised to find the medical literature suggests vitamin D may actually be a FAR more effective strategy, and the evidence for this goes back at least a decade. Dr. John Cannell, founder of the Vitamin D Council, was one of the first to introduce the idea that vitamin D deficiency may actually be an underlying CAUSE of influenza. His hypothesis was initially published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection in 2006. It was subsequently followed up with another study published in the Virology Journal in 2008. The following year, the largest nationally representative study of its kind to date discovered that people with the lowest vitamin D levels indeed reported having significantly more colds or cases of the flu. In conclusion, lead author Dr. Adit Ginde stated: "The findings of our study support an important role for vitamin D in prevention of common respiratory infections, such as colds and the flu. Individuals with common lung diseases, such as asthma or emphysema, may be particularly susceptible to respiratory infections from vitamin D deficiency." Since then, a number of studies have come to similar conclusions. Most recently, a scientific review of 25 randomized controlled trials confirmed that vitamin D supplementation boosts immunity and cuts rates of cold and flu. Overall, the studies included nearly 11,000 individuals from more than a dozen countries.
Foxnews.com (February 17, 2017) posted a story titled, “Flu Vaccine is only moderately protective this year, CDC says.” (1) The article stated, “Overall, getting a flu shot cut one’s risk of contracting flu and needing to see a doctor by 48 percent this season, when the effectiveness of the various components of the vaccine were assessed together, according to the report published in the CDC’s online journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).” This story is a perfect example of fake news. The flu vaccine is a toxic mess that can contain mercury and other unwanted substances that should never be injected into any living being.
Nurses in both the U.S. and the U.K. are coming under increased pressure to get the flu shot as a condition of employment. One nurse regrets her decision to receive the flu shot while she was pregnant. Her child was born with serious medical conditions, and upon admitting him to the hospital she was accused of abusing her child, as was the child's father. They were later both cleared of any wrongdoing, but they lost custody of their son.
It is beyond belief that I have to continue to write about the problems with the flu vaccine. The flu vaccine has a long history of not protecting the vast majority who receives if from becoming ill with the flu. Nor does it change mortality rates. Nor does it change hospitalization rates. The flu vaccine is ineffective for the elderly—the most susceptible group recommended to receive annual injections. Although the Powers-That-Be will say the flu vaccine is approximately 50% effective, the real data provides a different picture.