- Gold Compounds Which Are Caffeine-based Could Help Fight Against Cancer
- Just Part Of A Healthy Approach To Life For Most Users: Supplements
- This Is Brilliant!: You’ve Been Cleaning Your Oven The Wrong Way
- Study: Unvaccinated Children Proven To Be Without Doubt Far Healthier
- HPV Vaccines on French Soil
Is it wise to have the flu vaccine, or Tamiflu, or would you get better protection just from taking vitamin D? Having a vaccine should be a matter of personal choice; we don't think that government or insurance companies or medical societies should be telling you what to do. If you're bothering to read this then you're clearly smart enough to make your own decisions about your own health. While you are deciding, here is a second opinion. A major review appeared in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases in October (principal author Prof. Michael Osterholm, a respected researcher into infectious diseases). The paper, which found only 31 studies worthy of inclusion out of a massive 5,700 screened, concluded that there was only good evidence for moderate flu vaccine efficacy in healthy adults, and no real evidence of protection in those over 65 years, or for that matter in children. Of course it is the elderly, and particularly the frail elderly, that doctors are more concerned about – and in whom 90% of flu cases occur – and there was no evidence that flu vaccine prevents flu infection in this group. The pooled effect in those healthy adults, aged 18 to 65, is reported as 57%, which means the vaccine roughly halves your chances of getting flu. What is well known about placebo effects can account for most of that 57% effect. If you know you've had a shot for the flu you think you're invincible. But since the chance of getting flu in that age group was less than 3% to begin with, that's really only about a 11/2 percent reduction. Rounding the figures off, if you're a healthy adult, the flu vaccine will reduce your risk of actually getting the flu from 1 in 36 to 1 in 83. These are figures that are not offered in any of these studies.
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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.
As you now are familiar with faulty research designs falsely concluding vaccines are safe for your children and protect your children from illness you may want to question the entire notion of vaccination. Many parents to vaccinated and non-vaccinated children will attest to the fact that the non-vaccinated child claims superior health to the vaccinated child. If large and correctly designed studies were conducted it is likely that pediatricians, health officials, government and pharmaceutical companies would derive at the same conclusion. This of course would expose them and therefore those choosing to vaccinate their children will have to continue to rely on studies proving a pre-determined outcome.