Every year, around the same time, the entirety of the Western population is subjected to the same propaganda surrounding the prevalence of the flu and its alleged severity. The problem, we are told, is that the flu is everywhere and that it is extremely deadly. The answer, of course, is always the same – the flu vaccine.
Implicit in the propaganda is the belief that flu vaccines prevent the contraction of the virus and that, if one submits to vaccination, you will subsequently be immune to the flu.
However, as I have demonstrated in my article, “The Antibody Deception,” there is no evidence to support the claim that vaccines are even effective, since immunization is measured by titer testing, an imprecise and inaccurate method of measuring immunity. In addition, in the article “The Influenza Deception,” I demonstrate how the levels of prevalence of the influenza virus repeated ad nauseum to the American public are nothing more than propaganda. Even more so, the flu is not only much more rare than we are lead to believe but it is also much less deadly.
Still, the medical and pharmaceutical industries insist upon the effectiveness of vaccinations regardless of whether or not the flu itself is a major threat and despite the fact that there is no accurate way to measure immunity and vaccine success. These industries push flu vaccination as if they have undeniable proof that the toxic injections actually work. However, when taking a closer look at flu vaccines, the evidence justifying their use appears even weaker than one may have previously thought.
Although the vaccine industry tends to avoid all opportunities to test the actual effectiveness of vaccines, particularly when it involves comparing vaccinated people against unvaccinated people, a thorough analysis of the available research has indeed been conducted regarding the flu shot. This analysis was conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration, an independent research organization, in two separate studies published in 2007 and 2010.
The second study, which is the most widely known, was entitled “Vaccines to Prevent Influenza In Healthy Adults,” and attempted to “Identify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults.” The researchers assembled a comprehensive collection of studies that included “Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally-occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16-65 years.” The project also included some comparative studies that claimed to analyze serious and rare harms.
The project included 50 studies, forty of which involved the study of over 70,000 people. “Eight were comparative non-RCTs and assessed serious harms. Two were reports of harms which could not be introduced in the data analysis.” The results of the Cochrane Collaboration’s analysis are those which the vaccine industry would never want to see the light of day.
The Cochrane Collaboration’s findings were multifaceted. First, in the extremely rare case of perfect matching between the viral component of the flu vaccine and the flu virus circulating in the population, the vaccine only had a 2-5% success rate. In the typical scenario in which there was imperfect matching between the virus contained in the vaccine and the one circulating in the population, the vaccine success rate was even lower, about 1-2%.
The Cochrane Collaboration results stated that the flu vaccine had only a modest effect on time off from work and had NO effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Although the Cochrane Collaboration stated that the evidence base was limited to assess harms, the research did demonstrate local harms and the presence of the risk for Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
In the end, the Cochrane Collaboration’s overall conclusions were that “Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”
Still, the Cochrane Collaboration added a “Warning” section to the published article stating that, in light of a previous study conducted by the organization, the positive aspects of the flu vaccine should essentially be taken with a grain of salt. This is because the previous study found a clear bias toward studies funded by the vaccine industry and research that presents favorable results as opposed to independent research or that which demonstrates negligible or negative aspects of the vaccine.
The previous study mentioned by the Cochrane Collaboration was indeed a 2008 published study written and conducted by the organization for the purposes of exploring “the relation between study concordance, take home message, funding, and dissemination of comparative studies assessing the effects of influenza vaccines.”
The study, entitled “Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review,” was even more comprehensive than the more recent study mentioned above. The 2008 project actually identified 259 primary studies and 274 datasets and analyzed them for the purposes of determining influenza vaccine effectiveness.
According to the abstract of the Cochrane Collaboration study as published by the British Medical Journal in 2008,
Higher quality studies were significantly more likely to show concordance between data presented and conclusions (odds ratio 16.35, 95% confidence interval 4.24 to 63.04) and less likely to favour effectiveness of vaccines (0.04, 0.02 to 0.09). Government funded studies were less likely to have conclusions favouring the vaccines (0.45, 0.26 to 0.90). A higher mean journal impact factor was associated with complete or partial industry funding compared with government or private funding and no funding (differences between means 5.04). Study size was not associated with concordance, content of take home message, funding, and study quality. Higher citation index factor was associated with partial or complete industry funding. This was sensitive to the exclusion from the analysis of studies with undeclared funding.Notice that the authors of the study state that higher quality studies were less likely to favor vaccine effectiveness. Likewise for government-funded studies. However, it was found that industry-funded studies were more likely to demonstrate vaccine effectiveness as well as be published in a medical journal.
Thus, the conclusions of the scientists who took part in the performance of the review and the publication of the study were that “Publication in prestigious journals is associated with partial or total industry funding, and this association is not explained by study quality or size.”
The Cochrane scientists also add, at the end of the study, a section entitled “What is already known on this topic,” where they state “Study sponsorship is associated with optimistic results” and that Influenza vaccination continues to be recommended globally, despite growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning policy recommendations.”
In addition, in the section entitled “What this study adds,” the authors state that “Evidence is of poor quality, and studies with conclusions in favour of vaccines are of significantly lower methodological quality” as well as that “Influenza vaccines studies sponsored by industry are published in journals with higher impact factors and are cited more but are of similar size and quality to the others.”
Further backing up the conclusions of the Cochrane Collaboration’s work, Dr. Tom Jefferson, one of the leading scientists involved in the analysis, later stated that:
After reviewing more than 40 clinical trials, it is clear that the performance of the vaccines in healthy adults is nothing to get excited about. On average, perhaps 1 adult out of a 100 vaccinated will get influenza symptoms compared to 2 out of 100 in the unvaccinated group. To put it another way we need to vaccinate 100 healthy adults to prevent one set of symptoms. However, our Cochrane review found no credible evidence that there is an effect against complications such as pneumonia or death.Of course, the nature of the experiments conducted on flu vaccines as well as vaccines in general is also highly questionable. For instance, the very act of comparing a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated one is often compromised in the experiment itself due to the lack of a true placebo. Although placebo-based experiments are quite rare in and of themselves, the fact is that, in many vaccine trials, the “placebo” is actually a vaccine or a substance containing the same ingredients as the vaccine. This means that the evaluation of the dangers of the vaccine are very difficult to determine since all of the participants received a vaccine, thus making the control group as much at risk as the test groups.
As Dr. Russell Blaylock has stated,
Anyone analyzing the “vaccine safety studies” done by vaccine makers and vaccine proponents can see that they were purposely designed to show safety by omitting people in the study who truly reflected the population being vaccinated and who were, by all standards of science, at risk of harm by the vaccines.
They do studies that use as placebo controls people injected with a vaccine adjuvant. Placebos are supposed to be completely inert. The evidence shows that the greatest danger from vaccines is from the vaccine adjuvant — so, how can they use adjuvant-injected people as controls? Yet, all of their studies used such vaccinated controls — this is blatantly manipulated, and they know it.
The studies that are quoted endlessly by these elite members of academia and government agencies and used to close the door on the vaccine connection to neurodevelopmental problems are purposefully designed so as to suggest no link between vaccines and any complication.These studies, of course, are only the ones that have disclosed what was used as a placebo in the first place. The overwhelming majority of studies simply do not reveal whether the placebo was a truly innocuous substance, a vaccine, or something else entirely.
In a study entitled, “What’s In Placebos: Who Knows? Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials,” published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2010, a group of researchers set out to “To assess how often investigators specify the composition of placebos in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.” The researchers examined 176 trials which had been published in reputable medical journals in order to determine whether or not the disclosure of the placebo was a common practice since, currently, there are no regulations in this regard.
The researchers found that “Most studies did not disclose the composition of the study placebo” and that “Disclosure was less common for pills than for injections and other treatments.” For trials involving injections, placebos were disclosed approximately 26% of the time while, in trials involving pills, the placebo was disclosed only 8% of the time. Taking this information into consideration, it is advisable for anyone, when researching the effectiveness of vaccination, to exercise a sizeable amount of caution even when examining the official scientific literature. Clearly, the studies that have been presented as undeniable proof that vaccines can prevent disease have themselves been heavily skewed in favor of the vaccine industry and the medical establishment that wishes to continue pushing them. In combination with the fact that antibody science is not exact and may, in fact, mean nothing in terms of immunity, as well as the fact that many diseases are themselves more hype than harm, it is also advisable to stay as far away from the vaccine needle as possible.
Recently by Brandon Turbeville:
- Walmart Manual Teaches Managers to Spot Disgruntled Employees
- Big Pharma and Corporate Media Team Up For Pro-Vaccine Propaganda
- Syrian 'Inflammatory Rhetoric' Charges West With Supporting Terror
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.