Flu shot’s, it’s all about money…

Posted by: admin  /  Category: Health

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza  vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected  with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack  science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept  mainstream media as proof that “flu vaccines are 60% effective!”
This  absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days,  with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn’t even bother to read the study  itself (as usual).
NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these “scientific” studies and then reporting what they  really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to  say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to  get the real story.

The “60% effectiveness” claim is a total lie – here’s why

What we found  is that the “60% effectiveness” claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading.  For starters, most people think that “60% effectiveness” means that for every  100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won’t get the  flu!
Thus, the “60% effectiveness” claim implies that getting a flu  shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the  flu.
This is utterly false.
In reality — and this is spelled out  right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, “Efficacy and  effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis” —  only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu  in the first place!
See the abstract at: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/art…

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the  shots

Let’s start with the actual numbers from the study.
The  “control group” of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were  monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only  357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught  the flu in the first place.
The “treatment group” consisted of adults  who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine.  Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the  flu.
The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of  100.
So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all  the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly “scientific” conclusion from this is  rather astonishing:
Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out  of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!
Note that this  is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness  vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind  flu season vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_j…)
In  that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines  “don’t work on 99 out of 100 people.” Apparently, if you believe the new study,  I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more  discussion of effectiveness on children).

So where does the media get “60% effective?”

This is called “massaging  the numbers,” and it’s an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and  the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into  thinking their useless drugs actually work.
First, you take the 2.73% in  the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the  treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.
You can then say  that 0.43 is “43% of 2.73,” and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a  “57% decrease” in influenza infections. This then becomes a “57% effectiveness  rate” claim.
The overall “60% effectiveness” being claimed from this study comes from adding  additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned  higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data  for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in  influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.
So when the  media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are  “60% effective,” what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100  adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.
Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.
But you’ve probably  already noticed that the mainstream media won’t dare print this statistical  revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and  ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are “60% effective,” whatever that  means.

How to lie with statistics

This little statistical lying technique is  very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these “relative numbers” are  used to lie about all sorts of drugs.
You may have heard, for example,  that a breast cancer drug is “50% effective at preventing breast  cancer!”
But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2  women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1  woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown  to work on 1 out of 100 women.
But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will  spin the store and claim a “50% breast cancer prevention rate!” And most  consumers will buy into this because they don’t understand how the medical  industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, “Wow, if  I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer  for me!”
And yet that’s utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1%  chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the  study.

Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies

At the same time  the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to  make you think their drugs really work (even when they don’t), they will also  use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side  effects.
In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug,  let’s suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while  doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it.  The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the  following:
“This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only  causes side effects in 4%!”
You see how this game is played? So they make  the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality —  scientifically speaking — you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug  than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated  differently.)

How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?

Much the same is true  with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The  Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in  just 1.5 adults. But what they don’t tell you is the side effect rate in  all 100 adults!
It’s very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with  vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu  vaccines “work” better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological  side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer’s. This is an estimate, by the  way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.
So for every 100  adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of  them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means  you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by  it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on  the harm of vaccines.)
Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way,  which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).
Chemotherapy  is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may “shrink tumors” in 80% of those  who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those  people who describe themselves as “cancer survivors” are, for the most part,  actually “chemo survivors.”

Good news for children?

If there’s any “good news” in this study, it’s  that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than  on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines  are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100  children.
So the best result of the study (which still has many problems,  see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected.  But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of  the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine  / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and  financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which  relies on scientific lies to stay in business).

Guess who funded this study?

This study was funded by the Alfred P.  Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to  Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma  loyalists.
For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and  Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail  Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech  activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and  medical diagnostics. (http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)
The Alred P. Sloan  Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called  “Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine,” (http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/annual_rep…) which  features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine  Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none  other than the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.vppartners.org/sites/default/file…).

Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet study

Beyond all  the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven  significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed  out:
Problem #1) The “control” group was often given a vaccine,  too
In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the “control”  groups were given so-called “insert” vaccines which may have contained chemical  adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this  matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby  making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting  the data in favor of vaccines. The “control” group, in other words, wasn’t  really a proper control group in many studies.
Problem #2) Flu  vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy  children
It’s the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine  industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children.  It’s no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against  “never vaccinated” children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives.  That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test  conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by  comparison.
Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against  vitamin D
Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times  more effective than flu shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_vitamin_D_…). Read the  article to see the actual “absolute” numbers in this study.
Problem  #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of  vaccines
Vaccines are considered “effective” if they merely prevent  the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer’s two decades  later? Is that still a “success?” If you’re a drug manufacturer it is, because  you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer’s pills, too.  That’s probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term  testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to  observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.
Problem  #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this  meta-analysis
There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied  identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were  excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were  “selected” for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine  medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to  the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28  studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine  efficacy.
Remember: Scientific fraud isn’t the exception in modern  medicine; it is the rule. Most of the “science” you read in today’s  medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the  language of science.
Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in  this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine  manufacturers
I haven’t had time to follow the money ties for each  individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I’m willing to  publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these  study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The  corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in  “scientific” circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing  about vaccines who hasn’t been in some way financially influenced (or outright  bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up  study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don’t expect the  medical journals to print that article, of course. They’d rather not reveal what  happens when you follow the money.
Problem #7) The Lancet is,  itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine  industry!
Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet  to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon  to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think  we’re going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on  vaccine company revenues for its very existence?
That’s a lot like  listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your  rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for  the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be  good or evil, eh?
Just for fun, let’s conduct a thought experiment and  suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was  conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize  that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only  prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?
Or to put it another way,  even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by  pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort  into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100  adults.
Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent  reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be  even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a negative efficacy  rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza  to appear. That’s the far more likely reality of the situation.
Flu  shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people. That’s why the  people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people  who got flu shots! (Just ask ’em yourself this coming winter, and you’ll  see.)

What the public believes

Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu  shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in  conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots  are “70 to 90 percent effective.” This is the official propaganda on the  effectiveness of vaccines.
It is so pervasive that when this new study  came out reporting vaccines to be “only” 60% effective, some mainstream media  outlets actually published articles with headlines like, “Vaccines don’t work as  well as you might have thought.” These headlines were followed up with  explanations like “Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective,  it turns out they are only 60% effective!”
I hate to break it to ’em all,  but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up  with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Or,  put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to  receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting  their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot  chemical adjuvants.

Outright fraudulent marketing

Given their 1.5% effectiveness among  adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a  car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer  company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be  indicted for fraud by the FTC!
So why does the vaccine industry get away  with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine  statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?
It’s  truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit’s foot or wishing really hard. That this is what  passes as “science” today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs  hurt.
That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a  powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of  TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something  totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn’t difficult  these days. Just shroud it all under “science” jargon and offer prizes to the  pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it  works!

The real story on flu shots that you probably don’t want to know

Want to  know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren’t for halting the flu.  We’ve already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the  “science” on that.
So what are flu shots really for?
You  won’t like this answer, but I’ll tell you what I now believe to be true: The  purpose of flu shots is to “soft kill” the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_B…)  and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated “public health” message  that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged  in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and  genetic mutations.
Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To  permanently alter the human gene pool and “weed out” those humans who are  stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.
And for that nefarious  purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.
Also worth  reading: Flu Vaccines — The Mainstream Admits, We Want an  Epidemic! http://liamscheff.com/2011/10/flu-vaccines-t…
Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html#ixzz2i9cL4zaP

One Response to “Flu shot’s, it’s all about money…”

  1. mysticoaks.com Says:

    Howdy fantastic blog! Does running a blog such as this
    require a lot of work? I’ve absolutely no expertise in coding but I
    had been hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyway, should you have any recommendations or techniques for
    new blog owners please share. I know this is off subject nevertheless
    I simply needed to ask. Many thanks!

Leave a Reply