vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season
with a good deal of education in scientific thinking and the scientific
method, I have put considerable effort into attempting to find any real
scientific evidence backing the widespread use of influenza vaccines (flu
season shots). Before learning about nutrition and holistic health, I was
a computer software entrepreneur, and I have a considerable scientific background
in areas such as astronomy, physics, human physiology, microbiology, genetics,
anthropology and human psychology. One of my most-admired thought leaders
is, in fact, the late physicist Richard Feynman.
speak from a "scientific" point of view on NaturalNews very often
because it's often a dry, boring presentation style. But I do know the difference
between real science and junk science, and I find examples of junk science
in both the "scientific" side of things as well as the "alternative"
side of things.
example, so-called "psychic surgery," as least in the way it has
been popularized, is nothing more than clever sleight-of-hand where the
surgeon palms some chicken gizzards and then pretends to pull diseased organs
out of the abdominal cavity of some patient. The demonstrations I've seen
on film are obvious quackery.
flu season vaccines are mainstream medicine's version of psychic surgery:
It's all just "medical sleight of hand" based on nothing more
than clever distractions and the obfuscation of scientific facts. Flu season
shots, you see, simply don't work on 99 out of 100 people (and that's being
generous to the vaccine industry, as you'll see below).
ago, I offered a $10,000 reward to any person who could find scientific
proof that H1N1 vaccines were safe and effective http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H1N1_vaccines_safety.html.
No one even made a claim to collect that reward because no such evidence
medicine, they say, is really "Evidence-Based Medicine" (EBM).
That is, everything promoted by conventional medicine is supposed to be
based on "rigorous scientific scrutiny." It's all supposed to
be statistically validated and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it
works as advertised. And in the case of flu vaccines, they are advertised
as providing some sort of absolute protection against influenza. "Don't
miss work this flu season. Get a flu shot!" The idea, of course, is
that getting a flu shot offers 100% protection from the flu. If you get
a shot, they say, you won't miss work from sickness.
implication is wildly inaccurate. In fact, it's just flat-out false. As
you'll see below, it's false advertising wrapped around junk science.
see, there was never an independent, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
study proving either the safety or effectiveness of the H1N1 swine flu vaccines
that were heavily pushed last year (and are in fact in this year's flu shot
cocktail). No such study has ever been done. As a result, there is no rigorous
scientific basis from which to sell such vaccines in the first place.
to excuse this, vaccine hucksters claim that it would be "unethical"
to conduct a placebo-controlled study of such vaccines because they work
so well that to deny the placebo group the actual vaccine would be harmful
to them. Everybody benefits from the influenza vaccine, they insist, so
the mere act of conducting a scientifically-controlled test is unethical.
smell some quackery at work yet? This is precisely the kind of pseudoscientific
gobbledygook you might hear from some mad Russian scientist who claims to
have "magic water" but you can't test the magic water because
the mere presence of measurement instruments nullifies the magical properties
of the water.
vaccine pushers often insist it's unethical to test whether their vaccines
really work. You just have to "take it on faith" that vaccines
are universally good for everybody.
I used the word "faith." That is essentially what the so-called
scientific community is invoking here with the vaccine issue: Just BELIEVE
they work, everybody! Who needs scientific evidence when we've got FAITH
about evidence-based medicine. Forget about any rational cost-benefit analysis.
Forget about the risk-to-benefit ratio calculations that should be part
of any rational decision making about vaccines. No, the vaccine industry
(and its apologist bloggers) already know that vaccines are universally
good for you, therefore no such rigorous scientific assessment is even required!
Scientific Method, in other words, doesn't really apply to the things they
already believe in. Faith can override reason in the "scientific"
community, if you can believe that! What's next, are they going to claim
vaccines work because some sort of "vaccine God" makes them work?
take your vaccine shot. And don't forget to pray to the Vaccine God because
that's how these things really work. Vaccine voodoo, in other words. (Hey,
that would have been a great title for the vaccine song, come to think of
to find out if they work?
I got to wondering about the whole explanation of how it would be "unethical"
to test whether the H1N1 vaccines actually work. This deflection strikes
me as particularly odd, because it comes with an implied follow-up statement.
Here's what they're actually saying when they invoke this excuse:
It is "unethical" to conduct placebo-controlled studies on seasonal
flu vaccines to find out if they actually work.
But at the same time, it is entirely ethical to give these shots to hundreds
of millions of people, even while lacking any real evidence that they are
safe or effective.
words, it's unethical to conduct any real science, but entirely ethical
to just keep injecting people with a substance that might be entirely useless
(or even harmful). That's just a hint of the kind of warped logic and failed
ethics that typify our modern vaccine industry.
advocates claim that H1N1 vaccines are so effective that NOT giving vaccines
to a placebo group would "put their lives at risk." That alone
is apparently enough reason to avoid conducting any real science on these
I'm not buying this. I think it's just a cover story -- an excuse to avoid
subjecting such vaccines to rigorous scientific inquiry because, deep down
inside, they know vaccines would be revealed as an elaborate medical fraud.
poked around to see if there were other randomized studies being conducted
that might actually put people's lives at risk. It didn't take long to find
some. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine recently published
two studies regarding post heart-attack patient cooling which seeks to minimize
brain damage by physically lowering the temperature of the brain of the
heart attack patient until they can reach the acute care technicians at
a nearby hospital.
studies, researchers who already knew that "cooling" would save
lives nevertheless subjected 350 heart attack patient to a randomized study
protocol that assigned comatose (but resuscitated) patients to either "cooling"
temperatures or normal temperatures.
study, while half the cooled patients recovered with normal brain function,
only a quarter of those exposed to normal temperatures did. In other words,
patient cooling saved their brains. And yet the importance of knowing whether
or not this procedure really worked was apparently enough to justify withholding
the treatment from over a hundred other patients, most of whom suffered
permanent brain damage as a result.
see, when scientists really want to know the answers to questions like,
"Does this brain cooling work?" they have no qualms about subjecting
people to things like permanent brain damage in a randomized clinical trial.
The knowledge gained from such an experiment is arguably worth the loss
of a few patient brains because, armed with scientific evidence, such procedures
can be rolled out to help save the brains of potentially hundreds of thousands
of patients in subsequent years.
when it comes to testing vaccines like the recent H1N1 variety, the official
explanation is that it's too dangerous to withhold vaccines from a treatment
group. They say it's not really important to determine if vaccines are statistically
validated, and it's not worth the "risk" of withholding vaccines
from anyone in a randomized clinical trial.
sure, there have been some clinical trials done on many different vaccines
over the years, but most of those are industry funded, and there are almost
never rigorous trials conducted on each year's seasonal flu vaccines before
they are released for public consumption. As a result, each year's vaccine
is a brand new experiment, carried out across the guinea pig masses of patients
who just do whatever they're told without questioning whether it's backed
by real science.
of course, it isn't. And I'm not the only one who recognizes this inconvenient
Cochrane Collaboration, as described on its own website, is, "...an
international, independent, not-for-profit organization of over 28,000 contributors
from more than 100 countries, dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information
about the effects of health care readily available worldwide."
are world leaders in evidence-based health care," the site goes on
to say, followed by a quote from The Lancet which states, "The Cochrane
Collaboration is an enterprise that rivals the Human Genome Project in its
potential implications for modern medicine."
for the Cochrane Collaboration, an epidemiologist named Dr. Tom Jefferson
decided to take a close look at the scientific evidence behind influenza
vaccines (seasonal flu vaccines).
objectives of the study were to: "Identify, retrieve and assess all
studies evaluating the effects of vaccines against influenza in healthy
Search Criteria: "We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2010, issue 2), MEDLINE (January
1966 to June 2010) and EMBASE (1990 to June 2010)."
Criteria (for inclusion in the study): "Randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention
in naturally-occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years.
We also included comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms."
Total Scope of the study encompassed over 70,000 people. And just so you
know, these the results may strongly favor the vaccine industry. The author
even went out of his way to warn that "15 out of 36 trials [were] funded
by industry (four had no funding declaration)."
words, close to half of the studies included in this analysis were funded
by the vaccine industry itself, which as we know consistently manipulates
data, bribes researchers or otherwise engages in scientific fraud in order
to get the results they want.
author even goes on to warn how industry-funded studies always get more
press, saying, "...industry funded studies were published in more prestigious
journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological
quality and size."
the study detail page at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001269/frame.html
results show influenza vaccines are nearly worthless
here comes the interesting part: Even though nearly half the studies were
funded by the vaccine industry itself, the study results show that in most
circumstances, influenza vaccines are virtually worthless:
corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine
matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)" say the study authors.
And by "poor vaccine matching," they mean that the strain of influenza
viruses in the vaccine are a poor match for the strains circulating in the
wild. This is usually the case in the real world because the vaccine only
incorporates last year's viral strains and cannot predict which strains
will be circulating this year.
words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people
showing influenza symptoms by just one. For ninety-nine percent of the people
vaccinated, the vaccine makes no difference at all!
"best case" scenario when the viral strain in the influenza vaccine
just happens to match the strain circulating in the wild -- a situation
that even the study authors call "uncommon" -- the results were
as follows: "4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people
developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval
(CI) 2% to 5%)."
words, the matching vaccine (which is uncommon in the real world) reduced
influenza infections in 3 out of 100 people. Or, put another way, 97%
of those injected with the vaccine received no benefit (and
no different outcome).
the study's conclusions go on to state:
had... no effect on hospital admissions
or complication rates."
- "Vaccine use
did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost."
- "The review
showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there
is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions..."
- "There is no
evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia,
or transmission." (Got that? Vaccines do not affect transmission
of the disease, yet that's the whole reason vaccines are pushed so heavily
during pandemics -- to block disease transmission.)
- "In average
conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated
to avoid one set of influenza symptoms."
finally, the study author's summary concludes with this whopper of a statement:
"Our results may be an optimistic estimate
because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results
favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried
out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms
evidence base is limited."
words, taking into account the industry bias, the actual results may be
that vaccines prevent influenza symptoms in only 1 out of 1,000 people.
it in perspective
let's put all this in perspective in a rational, intelligent way. This far-reaching
analysis of influenza vaccine trials shows that under common conditions,
seasonal influenza vaccines have no benefit
for 99 out of 100 people.
even this result is describe as being "an optimistic estimate"
because nearly half of the vaccine trials were funded by the vaccine industry
which tends to "produce results favorable to their products."
some of the studies were carried out in "ideal" viral matching
scenarios that rarely happen in the real world.
finally, some evidence of harm from vaccines was simply thrown out of this
analysis, resulting in a "harms evidence base" that was quite
limited and likely doesn't reveal the full picture.
you getting all this? Even with industry-funded studies likely distorting
the results in their favor, if you take a good hard look at the scientific
evidence surrounding the effectiveness of vaccines, you quickly come to
realize that influenza vaccines don't work
on 99 out of 100 people. (And the real answer may be even
that's a far cry from the false advertising of the vaccine industry, which
implies that if you get a shot you're "protected" from influenza.
They claim you won't miss work, you'll stay well, and so on. Through these
messages, they are cleverly implying that vaccines work on 100% of the people.
based on the available scientific evidence, these are blatantly false statements.
And the wild exaggeration of the supposed benefits from vaccines crosses
the threshold of "misleading advertising" and enters the realm
of "criminal marketing fraud." Where is the FTC or FDA on speaking
out against this quackery?
marketing is, essentially, scientific fraud.
To claim that vaccines protect everyone when, in reality, they may reduce
symptoms in only one out of 100 people is intellectually dishonest and downright
simply put, just pure B.S. quackery.
imagine if an herbal product were advertised on television as offering some
health benefit, but it turned out that the product only worked on 1 out
of 100 people who took it. That herbal product would be widely branded as
"quackery" and the company selling it would be accused of false
advertising. The company owners might even be charged with criminal fraud.
vaccines get a free pass on this issue. While an herbal product might be
heavily investigated or even confiscated by the FDA, vaccines that only
work on 1% of the people receive the full backing of the FDA, CDC, WHO,
FTC and local hospitals and clinics to boot. The fact that the vaccine is
pure quackery apparently doesn't matter to any of these organizations: It's
full speed ahead, regardless of what the science actually says.
you understand all this, you now understand why it is an accurate statement
to say "The FDA promotes medical fraud."
"The CDC promotes medical fraud." As does the WHO.
are scientifically accurate statements, assuming you agree that a product
that only works on 1 out of 100 people fits the definition of "fraud"
when it is marketed as if it helped everyone. And most people would agree
with that reasonable definition of fraud.
a totally different story if the efficacy ratio is higher. If influenza
vaccines actually produced some benefit in 25 out of 100 people, that might
be worth considering. But it's nowhere near that.
FDA, by the way, will often approve pharmaceuticals that only produce results
in 5 percent of the clinical trial subjects.
The world of modern medicine, in fact, is full of pharmaceuticals that simply
don't work on 95% of the patients who take them.
the Cochrane summary yourself at:
entitled, "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults"
"Tom Jefferson, Carlo Di Pietrantonj, Alessandro Rivetti, Ghada A Bawazeer,
Lubna A Al-Ansary, Eliana Ferroni"
the vaccine zombies!
these study results in mind, take a look at some of the lyrics in my recent
hip hop song, "Vaccine Zombie" watch
the vaccine zombie music video
forgot how to think for myself
I don't understand a thing about health
I do the same as everyone else
I'm a vaccine zombie, zombie
you can see where these lyrics come from. If influenza vaccines are worthless
for 99 percent of those who receive them, then why are people lining up
to get injected?
answer is because they fail to think critically about vaccines and their
health. They don't understand health, so they just go along with everybody
else and do what they're told. Hence their earning of the "Vaccine
song goes on to say:
a sucker for the ads, a sucker for the labs
A sucker for the swine flu jabs
and I don't mind followin' a medical fad
Cause livin' without a brain ain't half bad
people who line up for influenza vaccines are "suckers" who have
been bamboozled by fraudulent vaccine propaganda. But they're following
a "medical fad" and it's easier to just do what you're told rather
than engage your brain and think critically about what you're doing.
without a brain ain't half bad" because it takes the burden of decision
making out of the loop and allows you to just rely on whatever the doctors
and health officials tell you to do.
the scientific community lost touch with real science
what if they were all lying to you? Or what if they, themselves, were ignorant
about the fact that influenza vaccines are worthless on 99% of those who
receive them? (Very few doctors and scientists, it turns out, are aware
of this simple truth.)
if the vaccine pushers had all convinced themselves of a falsehood? What
if they truly believed that vaccines were really, really good for everyone
but that belief was based on wishful thinking rather than rigorous scientific
that, my friends, is exactly what has happened. We have an entire segment
of the scientific community that has been suckered into vaccine propaganda.
They've convinced themselves that seasonal flu shots really work and that
virtually everyone should be injected with such shots. And they believe
this based on irrational faith, not on scientific thinking or rigorous statistical
are, in other words, pursuing a vaccine religion (or cult). The is especially
curious, given that most vaccine pushers don't believe in God or any organized
religion -- except for their own vaccine religion, where real scientific
evidence isn't required. All you gotta do is believe in vaccines and you
can join their religion, too.
so all across the 'net, so-called "science bloggers" embarrass
themselves by promoting near-useless influenza vaccines as "evidence-based
medicine," apparently unaware that the evidence shows such vaccines
to be all but worthless.
might as well say they support vaccines "Just 'cuz."
"just 'cuz" is no reason to inject yourself with a chemical cocktail
that even the industry admits causes extremely dangerous neurological side
effects in a small number of vaccine recipients.
D would actually make vaccines work better
top this all off, here's the real kicker of this story: You can beat the
minimal protective benefits of vaccines with a simple, low-cost vitamin
D supplement. Vitamin D, you see, is the nutrient that activates your immune
system to fight off infectious disease. Without it, vaccines hardly work
the very low rate of vaccine efficacy (1%) is almost certainly due to the
fact that most people receiving the vaccines are vitamin D deficient. (Anywhere
from 75% - 95% of Americans are deficient in vitamin D, depending on whom
the way to make vaccines work better would be to hand out vitamin D supplements
to go along with the shots! Even more hilariously, if people were taking
vitamin D supplements, they wouldn't need the vaccine shots in the first
vaccines, in other words, have no important role whatsoever in preventing
influenza infections. This goal can be accomplished more safely, reliably
and at far lower cost by promoting vitamin D supplements for the population
we really need to see from the scientific world is a study comparing vitamin
D supplements to influenza vaccines (and using realistic vitamin D doses,
not just 200 or 400 IUs per day). I have absolutely no doubt that healthy-dose
vitamin D supplementation (4000 IUs a day) would prove to be significantly
more effective than influenza vaccines at preventing flu infections.
such a study will almost certainly never be done (at least not anytime soon)
because it would expose the false propaganda of the vaccine industry while
giving consumers a far better way of protecting themselves from influenza
that doesn't involve paying money to vaccine manufacturers.
as in war, truth is often the first casualty. And when the lies are repeated
with enough frequency, they begin to be believed. The flu shot lie has been
repeated with such ferocity and apparent authority that it has snookered
in virtually the entire "scientific" community.
even rational-minded scientists can be so easily hoodwinked by the vaccine
industry is causing more and more people to question the credibility of
not just modern medicine, but the entire scientific community as well.
if so-called "rational" scientists and thought leaders can be
so easily suckered into an obvious falsehood, what other fictions might
they be promoting as fact?
you see, makes all the other sciences look bad. The obvious scientific fraud
going on in the name of "science" in the pharmaceutical industry
makes a mockery of real scientific thought. The ease of which medical scientists
have been hoodwinked by the drug industry calls into question the rationality
of all sciences.
in doing so, it brings up an even bigger question: Is science the best path
to gaining knowledge in the first place? This is obviously a philosophical
question, not a scientific question, and it's beyond the scope of this article,
but it's one I will likely visit here on NaturalNews very soon in an upcoming
are many paths to truth, you see. Science -- good science -- is one of them,
but it is not the only one. Any scientist who believes that science has
a monopoly on all knowledge is himself a fool. Just read a little Feynman
and you'll quickly come to discover that the very brightest minds in the
history of science consistently recognized there were other pathways leading
if Feynman were alive today and saw the vaccine propaganda taking place
in the name of "science," he would respond with something like,
"Surely you're joking."