IS FLU SEASON REALLY GOING TO BE EARLY THIS YEAR AND IS IT
REALLY GOING TO BE THE WORST FLU SEASON IN RECENT MEMORY?
The NewDaily said, "Early Flu Outbreak Could Signal the Worst Season on Record." Not to be outdone, The Telegraph carried this headline; "NHS Fears the Worst Flu Season in History." Just weeks ago, the Cape Cod Health News warned readers that "Flu Season is Here and it Could be a Nasty One." Out West, CBS Channel 2 warned its viewers that "Idaho's Flu Season Could be One of the Most Severe in Recent Memory." Oxford University Press (their motto is Academic Insights for the Thinking World) warned over two months ago that people should be, "Bracing for the Worst Flu Season on Record." Not wanting to be left out, the Daily Mail was even more dire in their warnings, saying that "America Faces One of the Worst Flu Seasons Ever as Doctors Warn the Vaccine is Only 10% Effective this Year..." And finally, Medical Express dot com revealed the not-so-hidden meaning behind these kinds of headlines; "With Severe Flu Season Lurking, Shots a Must."
An article from Tuesday's edition of MedPage Today by medical reporter Helen Branswell (Prepare for an Early Flu Season: Just in Time for the Holidays) is not much different. Take a gander at a few cherry-picked sentences from her article.
"If you have been planning to get a flu shot but just haven't gotten around to it yet, the time to act is now -- especially if you hope to be healthy at Christmas. Older adults may face double whammy. There are a number of different types of flu viruses, and they don't all hit equally hard. The type that is responsible for most of the illness, at least at the moment, is called H3N2. What makes that especially troubling is that the influenza B viruses currently making the rounds are also particularly hard on older adults. This year's flu shot isn't going to be ideal. A commentary published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine pegged the preliminary vaccine effectiveness estimate for the H3N2 component of the vaccine at 10%. Why bother getting the shot? ...some protection is better than none. Public health officials in U.S. and Canada have urged them [doctors] to prescribe antiviral drugs if that [flu] happens to a patient who has chronic illnesses. Flu infection can be very severe and even fatal in someone with heart or lung disease or who has a weakened immune system. Antiviral drugs should be taken within a 48-hour window of the onset of flu symptoms."
Branswell's piece is wrong on so many levels; so what I want to do now is show you why it's largely a propaganda piece as opposed to a solid reporting of the facts. Let's start with the end of her stament concerning the antivirals people are supposed to take. This is talking about a drug called Tamiflu / Oseltamivir. Not only did my brother, an ER physician at a large Midwest hospital, mention Tamiflu in a very cool letter he wrote to one of his professional journals (HERE is his very short article), but I've previously mentioned it as well (HERE). Why? Because it shortens the average course of the flu by (gulp) less than 10%.
Furthermore, Branswell specifically mentions older folks as being at heightened risk. She is correct here. The fact is, older folks are at a heightened risk for just about everything. And once they become what is known in the medical field as "the frail elderly," their chances of dying of the next infection they get, whether it be a cold, a cough, bronchitis, flu, or pneumonia, skyrockets. This is the main reason that the DEATH STATISTICS for flu (they are usually touted as between 36,000-52,000 annually) are little more than a scare tactic used by BIG PHARMA to sell more shots. How do we know this?
A few years back, COCHRANE, a loosely-knit group of thousands of physicians and researchers worldwide, who take studies on certain topics and crunch the data to make sense of it as a whole (they are almost universally considered to be the 'gold standard' of medical review), revealed something so shocking that few people --- especially our geriatric population --- are aware of it because it is not widely reported. The flu shot for the elderly population (over 65) is totally worthless / ineffective (HERE). And if this fact is reported, it is always with an addendum warning everyone else to get vaccinated to protect our vulnerable senior citizens (especially children). The problem is, according to another review by Cochrane, flu shots are no more protective against flu for the under-19 crowd than they are for the over-65 crowd (HERE).
One of the best proofs of this came by way of a study that was done by a group of public health officials and epidemiologists working in tangent with the CDC's Influenza Division down in Atlanta. The study (Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Community and the Household), published in one of the Oxford Journal's numerous peer-reviewed publications (Clinical Infectious Diseases) came to some conclusions that were so shocking that calling them shocking would be a major understatment. After looking at "328 households with 1441 members, including 839 children," for an entire year (2011) these authors determined that there was a difference of 4/10ths of one percentage point between those who received flu vaccine and those who didn't.
"Influenza was identified in 78 households and 125 individuals. The infection risk was 8.5% in the vaccinated and 8.9% in the unvaccinated. Substantially lower effectiveness was noted among subjects who were vaccinated in both the current and prior season. There was no evidence that vaccination prevented household transmission once influenza was introduced; adults were at particular risk despite vaccination. Vaccine effectiveness estimates were lower than those demonstrated in other observational studies carried out during the same season. The unexpected findings of lower effectiveness with repeated vaccination and no protection given household exposure require further study."
This is interesting because numerous studies have shown the very same thing --- that not only is the effectiveness of flu vaccines in the toilet across the board (HERE), if you got a flu shot last year, this year's shot is going to be even less effective (HERE). In other words folks, these vaccines against flu virus admittedly do not do what they continue to be touted to do --- prevent the flu. Back to Branswell's previous quote. Despite the 2017-2018 flu vaccine's efficacy estimate being admittedly crappy, she hits readers with another statement that we've gotten used to hearing every year. 'Hey, the vaccine might only be X% effective, but at least it's better than nothing' ("some protection is better than none").
Once you understand the way these shots actually work; via purposefully-driven inflammatory responses created by aluminum adjuvants (HERE), you might start singing a different tune --- especially if nasty little diseases like ALZHEIMER'S or AUTISM concern you at all. That's right folks, the flu vaccine has an accumulative effect, mostly due to the aluminum salts used as adjuvants. In case you think that I'm blowing smoke, take a listen to this short little video from expert on the effects of aluminum on biological systems; Professor Chris Exley.
DR. CHRIS EXLEY
CARGO OF ALUMINUM
Dr. Exley, a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University in Staffordshire, England, is one of the world's foremost experts on the many ways that aluminum screws up living systems --- particularly neurological tissues, and most particularly the brain (his Ph.D is in aluminum excitotoxicology from Scotland's University of Stirling, and he has been researching the subject for 35 years). Just a couple of short weeks ago, the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology published a study by Exley and his team of researchers called Aluminum in Brain Tissue in Autism. Here are some of the cherry-picked results that were determined after measuring the aluminum content of samples of brain tissue of autistics (ages 15-50) obtained from the Oxford Brain Bank.
"Autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder.... suggested to involve both genetic susceptibility and environmental factors including in the latter environmental toxins. Human exposure to the environmental toxin aluminum has been linked, if tentatively, to autism spectrum disorder. The aluminum content of brain tissues from donors with a diagnosis of ASD was extremely high. The mean aluminum content for each lobe across all individuals was towards the higher end of all historical measurements of brain aluminum content, including dialysis encephalopathy. We recorded some of the highest values for brain aluminum content ever measured in healthy or diseased tissues in these male ASD donors. What discriminates these data from other analyses of brain aluminum in other diseases is the age of the ASD donors. Why, for example would a 15 year old boy have such a high content of aluminum in their brain tissues? There are no comparative data in the scientific literature, the closest being similarly high data for a 42 year old male with familial Alzheimer’s disease."
On a related note, I find it "interesting" that in June of 2012, about the same time that Exley was embarking on this line of research, a freezer malfunction at Harvard University destroyed a significant part of the world's largest collections of autistic brains. According to CBS News (Freezer Malfunction Thaws 150 Brains at Harvard Research Hospital), "An official at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., discovered that the freezer had failed in late May without triggering alarms. Inside, 150 thawed brains had turned dark from decay. About a third of them were part of a collection of brains of people with autism. Dr. Carlos Pardo, an associate professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, tells the paper that the damage could slow autism research by a decade." Honest accident? I wasn't there so don't really know. What I do know is that the sort of work Exley and others like him are doing is not allowed / heavily discouraged in the States. Furthermore, if there is any way to "slow down" or stop this sort of research from taking place or being published, BIG PHARMA will be all over it.
Before winding things up, I want to briefly discuss a topic that Dr. Exley talks about on some of his numerous YouTube videos --- excitotoxicity (the subject of his doctorate). When I hear the word excitotoxicity or "EXCITOTOXIN," I automatically think of Dr Russell Blaylock, the Mississippi neurosurgeon who wrote the book on ASPARTME and MSG around 1990, Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills. If you want to understand how aluminum in vaccines is causing MICROGLIAL ACTIVATION and subsequent MITOCHONDRIAL DYSFUNCTION, be sure to read Blaylock's short article on the subject called Dr. Blaylock on Mitochondria and Vaccines. By the way, expert in the field of mitochondrial function and dysfunction, Dr. Chandler Marrs, is working on a guest post for my site that will help shed some light on why mitochondrial function is of critical importance to health.
The bottom line is that what the media is telling you about the flu and the many VACCINES AGAINST THE FLU is hype. And if we really do run into a flu epidemic / pandemic, which sooner or later is going to happen (HERE), it's HEALTH BY HYGIENE that is going to save us; not a vaccine. Be sure to stay tuned because some time before the new year I am going to do a post showing you why rampant mutation of flu viruses means flu vaccines are a pipe dream, as well as the fact that despite what your doctor may have told you, you can get the flu from the flu shot --- something I hear people complaining about regularly / frequently.