DO YOU EVER GET TIRED OF BEING CALLED AN ANTIVAXXER SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU REFUSED THE FLU VACCINE?
THIS POST IS FOR YOU!
Whoisjohngalt
"This year’s shot isn't much help in protecting people from one of the most active, severe strains circulating: the H3N2 virus. Dr Michael Osterholm, who directs The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told Business Insider that the vaccine is, at best, around 10% effective on H3N2." Hilary Brueck for the December 8, 2017 issue of Business Insider (This Year's Flu Shot is Not as Effective Against One of the Nastiest Strains — But You Should Still Get it Anyway)
"A midseason glimpse of flu vaccine effectiveness in Canada shows that protection against the H3N2 strain is very low... Protection against H3N2 was even lower, at 10%." Yesterday's press release from the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (Canadian Data Show Low Flu Vaccine Protection Against H3N3)
"So the Flu Shot is Only 10 Percent Effective: 5 Reasons to Still Get It" The title of one of last week's articles from KevinMD that could not be described as anything other than a pure propaganda piece, with reasons that are excuses why it won't work, not reasons to get it.
"A midseason glimpse of flu vaccine effectiveness in Canada shows that protection against the H3N2 strain is very low... Protection against H3N2 was even lower, at 10%." Yesterday's press release from the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (Canadian Data Show Low Flu Vaccine Protection Against H3N3)
"So the Flu Shot is Only 10 Percent Effective: 5 Reasons to Still Get It" The title of one of last week's articles from KevinMD that could not be described as anything other than a pure propaganda piece, with reasons that are excuses why it won't work, not reasons to get it.
Back in September things were shaping up for this to be a bad flu season. No, not because of the MEDIA AND MEDICAL PROPAGANDA that we hear prior to every flu season. The experts predicted (correctly) this would be a bad year because Australia was at the end of a particularly nasty season. What were we told about this "Australian Flu"? Clear back on September 14, Susan Scutti wrote an article for CNN revealing what flu expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, had to say on the matter (What Australia's Bad Flu Season Means for Europe and North America).
"Does Australia's bad flu season bode ill for Northern Hemisphere nations, including the US, Canada and across Europe? In general, we get in our season what the Southern Hemisphere got in the season immediately preceding us. An intelligent guess, therefore, is that the north will probably have a bad flu season."
I'll not belabor the fact that something similar was run by each and every news outlet across the nation. The October issue of the medical journal Eurosurveillance (Low Interim Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness, Australia, 1 May to 24 September 2017) confirmed this warning, then revealed that, "Overall vaccine effectiveness was 33%. This estimate appeared to be skewed by the very low estimate for A(H3), which was 10%." That's why our own TRUST-US CDC (the governmental organization that's been warning that this year's virus is particularly nasty because it's an Influenza A, H3N2 strain) likewise warned citizens that "so far this flu season, influenza A (H3N2) viruses have been predominant in the United States -- a fact that is troubling because in previous flu seasons, H3N2-predominant seasons have been more severe. Vaccine effectiveness against H3N2 viruses also is typically lower... It's not uncommon for a flu shot to have an effectiveness of about 30 percent against H3N2 viruses."
I'll make you a promise that you can take to the bank. When the actual level of vaccine effectiveness is published sometime in June or July, it will be much lower than 30%. And as for the part of the vaccine that protects against the severe strain --- the H3N2 strain? The CDC has been talking out of both sides of their mouth, admitting in several other places that this year's H3N2 portion is no better than 10% effectiveness, confirming what Canada confirmed yesterday. So let's all be honest with ourselves for a moment. In light of what we know about the ineffectiveness of the FLU VACCINE in general (not according to me but according to mountains of peer-review), shouldn't we all have the right to decline it without being browbeat as "antivaxxers"? Seems not. A recent editorial in the Boston Globe (Mounting A Ground War Against Anti-Vaxxers) is just one more biased article in a long line of biased articles full of misinformation and outright deception.
The piece starts with the author picking on Brian Kilmeade for making a statement on Fox & Friends that would make you would think he was personally unleashing Black Death on the world. Kilmeade was accused of telling his 1.6 million viewers that not getting a flu shot is a great way of building their immune system. While this is not technically correct (not getting the flu shot is great way to keep from weakening your immune system), his overall point was spot on.
Kilmeade was put in somewhat of a pickle by an MD that was a guest on the show (THE 20 SECOND CLIP). After admitting that he had not been vaccinated, the good doctor sort of jokingly threatened to give Kilmeade a Flu Shot once they were off the air, telling him that he essentially needed take one for the Gipper (actually he chided Kilmeade, saying that he needed to get one because he could expose his daughters / wife). Kilmeade then uttered his now infamous response, "Right. Alright, but they’ve got to build up their immunity, too."
What's not mentioned in the Globe's article is that not two seconds before the sentence above, Kilmeade was starting to give the Doctor Siegel some statistics. He got as far as "only 30 percent" before being cut off. Haley Miller of HuffPo (Fox And Friends Host Goes Anti-Vaxxer Amid Deadly Flu Epidemic) described this exchange thusly. "Kilmeade dismissed the medical professional’s advice, instead echoing a debunked talking point of conspiracy theorists known as anti-vaxxers." Both articles went on to talk about the NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO DIE EACH YEAR FROM THE FLU, with the Globe discussing everything from measles to Robert Kennedy (the ANTI-POLLUTION / ANTI-MERCURY & ALUMINUM ADJUVANT activist), referring to both Kilmeade and Kennedy as "anti-vax luddites".
The Globe stopped just short of saying that 20th century mass vaccination campaigns (they started around 1960) were responsible for a greatly reduced death rate due to microbial infections. But then again, if the Globe would have made that sort of allegation even the CDC may have been forced to admit the story was an exaggeration (SEE CDC GRAPH). As far as exaggerations and half-truths are concerned, Haley has this fun little paragraph in her story.
"Vaccines boost your immune system ― not weaken it. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, vaccines help your immune system fight infections 'faster and more effectively.' They also often provide 'long-lasting immunity to serious diseases without the risk of serious illness,' the HHS website reports. So it’s important to get a flu shot every year."
Firstly, vaccines (including the flu vaccine) unarguably "boost" your immune system. But in our modern age of rampant and runaway autoimmunity, I've warned people repeatedly that REPEATEDLY "BOOSTING" THE IMMUNE SYSTEM is, in many cases, the absolute last thing you want to do. Secondly, the part of the vaccine that actually does the "boosting" is not the antigen (the germ component) but the adjuvant (the part included for the express purpose of causing an inflammatory reaction), which in most vaccines (INCLUDING THE FLU VACCINE), is NEUROTOXIC ALUMINUM. Thirdly, studies show time and time again that if you get a flu shot this year, next year's shot won't work (stick around because at the bottom of the page I'll show you yet another example of this phenomenon), and that the immunity provided by the Flu Shot is anything but "long-lasting," usually lasting a grand total of about six weeks (HERE and HERE). And lastly, who really trusts what our government's alphabet soup of regulatory agencies say anymore anyway? For Pete's sake, it was just 16 short months ago that one of the most prestigious journals on the planet, the British Medical Journal, accused the FDA of having a "REVOLVING DOOR" between it and BIG PHARMA.
What other business / industry could create a product that was only 10% effective at whatever it was advertised to do, yet have the media eating out of their hands, warning everyone and their brother to purchase their product anyway. Hey we know that product X sucks, but you and your family should rush right out and buy, buy, buy. By definition, this is propaganda, and it's exactly what's happening in our nation's influenza paranoia-driven media coverage. No thought process or logic in the reporting, just knee jerk reactions. It's Big Pharma's wet dream come true. Speaking of Big Pharma, how about another flu / vaccine study?
"Does Australia's bad flu season bode ill for Northern Hemisphere nations, including the US, Canada and across Europe? In general, we get in our season what the Southern Hemisphere got in the season immediately preceding us. An intelligent guess, therefore, is that the north will probably have a bad flu season."
I'll not belabor the fact that something similar was run by each and every news outlet across the nation. The October issue of the medical journal Eurosurveillance (Low Interim Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness, Australia, 1 May to 24 September 2017) confirmed this warning, then revealed that, "Overall vaccine effectiveness was 33%. This estimate appeared to be skewed by the very low estimate for A(H3), which was 10%." That's why our own TRUST-US CDC (the governmental organization that's been warning that this year's virus is particularly nasty because it's an Influenza A, H3N2 strain) likewise warned citizens that "so far this flu season, influenza A (H3N2) viruses have been predominant in the United States -- a fact that is troubling because in previous flu seasons, H3N2-predominant seasons have been more severe. Vaccine effectiveness against H3N2 viruses also is typically lower... It's not uncommon for a flu shot to have an effectiveness of about 30 percent against H3N2 viruses."
I'll make you a promise that you can take to the bank. When the actual level of vaccine effectiveness is published sometime in June or July, it will be much lower than 30%. And as for the part of the vaccine that protects against the severe strain --- the H3N2 strain? The CDC has been talking out of both sides of their mouth, admitting in several other places that this year's H3N2 portion is no better than 10% effectiveness, confirming what Canada confirmed yesterday. So let's all be honest with ourselves for a moment. In light of what we know about the ineffectiveness of the FLU VACCINE in general (not according to me but according to mountains of peer-review), shouldn't we all have the right to decline it without being browbeat as "antivaxxers"? Seems not. A recent editorial in the Boston Globe (Mounting A Ground War Against Anti-Vaxxers) is just one more biased article in a long line of biased articles full of misinformation and outright deception.
The piece starts with the author picking on Brian Kilmeade for making a statement on Fox & Friends that would make you would think he was personally unleashing Black Death on the world. Kilmeade was accused of telling his 1.6 million viewers that not getting a flu shot is a great way of building their immune system. While this is not technically correct (not getting the flu shot is great way to keep from weakening your immune system), his overall point was spot on.
Kilmeade was put in somewhat of a pickle by an MD that was a guest on the show (THE 20 SECOND CLIP). After admitting that he had not been vaccinated, the good doctor sort of jokingly threatened to give Kilmeade a Flu Shot once they were off the air, telling him that he essentially needed take one for the Gipper (actually he chided Kilmeade, saying that he needed to get one because he could expose his daughters / wife). Kilmeade then uttered his now infamous response, "Right. Alright, but they’ve got to build up their immunity, too."
What's not mentioned in the Globe's article is that not two seconds before the sentence above, Kilmeade was starting to give the Doctor Siegel some statistics. He got as far as "only 30 percent" before being cut off. Haley Miller of HuffPo (Fox And Friends Host Goes Anti-Vaxxer Amid Deadly Flu Epidemic) described this exchange thusly. "Kilmeade dismissed the medical professional’s advice, instead echoing a debunked talking point of conspiracy theorists known as anti-vaxxers." Both articles went on to talk about the NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO DIE EACH YEAR FROM THE FLU, with the Globe discussing everything from measles to Robert Kennedy (the ANTI-POLLUTION / ANTI-MERCURY & ALUMINUM ADJUVANT activist), referring to both Kilmeade and Kennedy as "anti-vax luddites".
The Globe stopped just short of saying that 20th century mass vaccination campaigns (they started around 1960) were responsible for a greatly reduced death rate due to microbial infections. But then again, if the Globe would have made that sort of allegation even the CDC may have been forced to admit the story was an exaggeration (SEE CDC GRAPH). As far as exaggerations and half-truths are concerned, Haley has this fun little paragraph in her story.
"Vaccines boost your immune system ― not weaken it. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, vaccines help your immune system fight infections 'faster and more effectively.' They also often provide 'long-lasting immunity to serious diseases without the risk of serious illness,' the HHS website reports. So it’s important to get a flu shot every year."
Firstly, vaccines (including the flu vaccine) unarguably "boost" your immune system. But in our modern age of rampant and runaway autoimmunity, I've warned people repeatedly that REPEATEDLY "BOOSTING" THE IMMUNE SYSTEM is, in many cases, the absolute last thing you want to do. Secondly, the part of the vaccine that actually does the "boosting" is not the antigen (the germ component) but the adjuvant (the part included for the express purpose of causing an inflammatory reaction), which in most vaccines (INCLUDING THE FLU VACCINE), is NEUROTOXIC ALUMINUM. Thirdly, studies show time and time again that if you get a flu shot this year, next year's shot won't work (stick around because at the bottom of the page I'll show you yet another example of this phenomenon), and that the immunity provided by the Flu Shot is anything but "long-lasting," usually lasting a grand total of about six weeks (HERE and HERE). And lastly, who really trusts what our government's alphabet soup of regulatory agencies say anymore anyway? For Pete's sake, it was just 16 short months ago that one of the most prestigious journals on the planet, the British Medical Journal, accused the FDA of having a "REVOLVING DOOR" between it and BIG PHARMA.
What other business / industry could create a product that was only 10% effective at whatever it was advertised to do, yet have the media eating out of their hands, warning everyone and their brother to purchase their product anyway. Hey we know that product X sucks, but you and your family should rush right out and buy, buy, buy. By definition, this is propaganda, and it's exactly what's happening in our nation's influenza paranoia-driven media coverage. No thought process or logic in the reporting, just knee jerk reactions. It's Big Pharma's wet dream come true. Speaking of Big Pharma, how about another flu / vaccine study?
ANOTHER "PESKY" FLU STUDY
Just a few weeks ago, the journal PNAS published a study called Infectious Virus in Exhaled Breath of Symptomatic Seasonal Influenza Cases from a College Community. The nine authors (all from the University of Maryland), along with 29 collaborators, tested the microscopic particles in the vapor of people's breath to see if it was possible that flu could be spread not only by touch or coughing / sneezing, but by simply breathing the same air that someone with flu had breathed. After undergoing a thirty minute breath test on people with confirmed flu, the authors "recovered infectious virus from 39% of the fine aerosols." Among other interesting conclusions, the authors stated "Fine-aerosol viral RNA was also positively associated with having influenza vaccination for both the current and prior season." Let's talk for a moment about what this really means by looking at a cherry-picked paragraph from the study.
"Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples. Vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models. In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. Cough was not necessary for infectious aerosol generation in the fine aerosol fraction."
Did you catch that? They sort of brushed right over it even though the vaccinated population shed virus at a whopping 630% greater rate than the unvaccinated population --- after adjusting for confounders. Do you grasp the implications of what these government authors (that's right folks; PNAS stands for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) are saying? The people spreading flu are not necessarily doing it via coughing, but simply by breathing. The 630% means that the "Typhoid Marys" actually spreading flu virus are the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated. And remember that I just showed you how getting immunized against the flu last year means that this year's immunization won't work properly? Like numerous other studies before it --- confirmed yet again.
"The association of current and prior year vaccination with increased shedding of influenza A might lead one to speculate that certain types of prior immunity promote lung inflammation, airway closure, and aerosol generation. This first observation of the phenomenon needs confirmation. If confirmed, this observation, together with recent literature suggesting reduced protection with annual vaccination, would have implications for influenza vaccination recommendations and policies."
Unfortunately, this last sentence inadvertently shows what and how massive the problem really is. How so? No matter how many studies are published SHOWING JUST HOW CRAPPY THE FLU SHOT REALLY IS at protecting virtually every single "at risk" group (not to mention average citizens), the evidence continues to be ignored, and people like Miller continue to refer to those waving red warning flags as conspiracy theory kooks ("Luddite" was the word she actually used).
It's not really any different than what we continually see in politics or other large industries (oil, coal, food, tobacco, etc, etc). When there is this much money at stake, you don't have to look very far to find "conspiracies". In fact I've collected A FAIR NUMBER OF THE MORE ABSURD EXAMPLES of this phenomenon taking place all around us on a daily basis. It's business as usual, with the media outlets mentioned today playing the part of the industry lackey simply because they failed to do their own research, trusting instead on industry PRESS RELEASES or "experts" who are nothing more than shills.
Honestly, what we really need is a public debate --- maybe myself, MY BRO, and DR. ERIC, taking on whoever (DR. MONTO would be a nice choice). On a slightly different note, if you want to get healthy and stay that way, I have a completely FREE PROTOCOL to help you do it. I won't promise you that you won't get the flu because like they say, stuff happens. What I will promise is that if you'll start taking some baby steps concerning your health, you're less likely to end up a government statistic!
"Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples. Vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models. In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. Cough was not necessary for infectious aerosol generation in the fine aerosol fraction."
Did you catch that? They sort of brushed right over it even though the vaccinated population shed virus at a whopping 630% greater rate than the unvaccinated population --- after adjusting for confounders. Do you grasp the implications of what these government authors (that's right folks; PNAS stands for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) are saying? The people spreading flu are not necessarily doing it via coughing, but simply by breathing. The 630% means that the "Typhoid Marys" actually spreading flu virus are the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated. And remember that I just showed you how getting immunized against the flu last year means that this year's immunization won't work properly? Like numerous other studies before it --- confirmed yet again.
"The association of current and prior year vaccination with increased shedding of influenza A might lead one to speculate that certain types of prior immunity promote lung inflammation, airway closure, and aerosol generation. This first observation of the phenomenon needs confirmation. If confirmed, this observation, together with recent literature suggesting reduced protection with annual vaccination, would have implications for influenza vaccination recommendations and policies."
Unfortunately, this last sentence inadvertently shows what and how massive the problem really is. How so? No matter how many studies are published SHOWING JUST HOW CRAPPY THE FLU SHOT REALLY IS at protecting virtually every single "at risk" group (not to mention average citizens), the evidence continues to be ignored, and people like Miller continue to refer to those waving red warning flags as conspiracy theory kooks ("Luddite" was the word she actually used).
It's not really any different than what we continually see in politics or other large industries (oil, coal, food, tobacco, etc, etc). When there is this much money at stake, you don't have to look very far to find "conspiracies". In fact I've collected A FAIR NUMBER OF THE MORE ABSURD EXAMPLES of this phenomenon taking place all around us on a daily basis. It's business as usual, with the media outlets mentioned today playing the part of the industry lackey simply because they failed to do their own research, trusting instead on industry PRESS RELEASES or "experts" who are nothing more than shills.
Honestly, what we really need is a public debate --- maybe myself, MY BRO, and DR. ERIC, taking on whoever (DR. MONTO would be a nice choice). On a slightly different note, if you want to get healthy and stay that way, I have a completely FREE PROTOCOL to help you do it. I won't promise you that you won't get the flu because like they say, stuff happens. What I will promise is that if you'll start taking some baby steps concerning your health, you're less likely to end up a government statistic!
RSS Feed
