Connect with us

Awareness

The Doctor Who Beat The British General Medical Council By Proving That Vaccines Aren’t Necessary To Achieve Health

Published

on

What happened when a UK doctor appeared as an expert witness to help two mothers prove in court that their children didn’t need to be vaccinated?

advertisement - learn more

A 3 year court case against the British General Medical Council that ended with the doctor accused having all allegations dropped.

Dr. Jayne Donegan, a UK GP, has lived a most fascinating story. It began with her originally being a very strong advocate for vaccinations, but fast forward quite a few years later, and she now not only speaks out against the dangers of vaccinations, but ended up being taken to the General Medical Council with some pretty serious claims by them regarding her professionalism.

After a few stressful years in court against them, Dr. Donegan won her case. But chances are, this is the first you’re hearing of it.

In order for you to get the full account of what happened, it’s best to read her full story. Dr. Donegan gave me her permission to use her account below:

Dr. Jayne Donegan’s Story

Having trained as a conventional medical doctor, qualifying from St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, in 1983, all of my undergraduate teaching and postgraduate experience in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Family Planning, Child Health, Orthopedics, Emergency Medicine and General Practice led me to be a strong supporter of the Universal Childhood Vaccination Program. Indeed, I used to counsel parents in the 1980s who didn’t want to vaccinate their children against whooping cough – which was regarded as the ‘problematic’ vaccine in those days.

advertisement - learn more

I used to tell them that there were, indeed, adverse reactions, associated with the vaccine – I was not one of those doctors who would gloss over such unpleasant details – but that we doctors were told that the adverse reactions that might occur after the pertussis vaccine were at least ten times less likely than the chance of getting complications from having the disease, and that, essentially, the point of giving their child the vaccine was to prevent them from getting the disease.

I Used To Think Parent’s Who Don’t Vaccinate Were Either Ignorant or Sociopathic

Indeed, I used to think that parents who didn’t want to vaccinate their children were either ignorant, or sociopathic. I believe that view is not uncommon among doctors today. Why did I have this attitude? Well, throughout my medical training I was taught that the people who used to die in their thousands or hundreds of thousands from diseases like diphtheria, whooping cough and measles – diseases for which there are vaccines – stopped dying because of the introduction of vaccines.

At the same time, I was taught that diseases like typhus, cholera, rheumatic and scarlet fever – for which there are no vaccines – stopped killing people because of improvements in social conditions. It would have been a logical progression to have asked myself why, if social conditions improved the health of the population with respect to some diseases, would they not improve their health with regard to them all, but the amount of information that you are required to absorb during medical training is so huge that you just tend to take it as read and not make the connections that might be obvious to someone else.

It was a received article of faith for me and my contemporaries that vaccination was the single most useful health intervention that had ever been introduced, and when my children were born in 1991 and 1993 I unquestioningly – well, that is to say, I thought it was with full knowledge backed up by all my medical training – had them vaccinated, up as far as MMR, because that was the right thing to do. I even let my 4-week-old daughter be injected with an out-of-date BGC vaccine at a public health clinic.

Out Of Date BCG Vaccine Injured My Child

I noticed (force of habit – I automatically scan vials for drug name, batch number and expiry date) that the vaccine was out of date and said, “Oh, excuse me, it looks like it’s out of date,” and the doctor answered matter-of-factly, “Oh don’t worry, that’s why the clinic was delayed for an hour – we were just checking that it was OK to give it, and it is,” and I said, “OK,” and let her inject it… my poor daughter had a terrible reaction, but I was so convinced that it was all for the best that I carried on with all the rest of them at 2, 3 and 4 months.

No Evidence Of Measles Epidemic

That is where I was coming from – even my interest in homeopathy didn’t dent my enthusiasm for vaccines; so far as I could see, it was the same process – give a small dose of something and it makes you immune – no conflict. So what happened? In 1994 there was the Measles Rubella Campaign in which 7 million schoolchildren were vaccinated against measles and rubella. The Chief Medical Officer sent out letters to all GPs, pharmacists, nursing officers and other healthcare staff, telling us that there was going to be an epidemic of measles.

First it was one MMR shot, then two not THREE?

First it was one MMR shot, then two, now THREE?

The evidence for this epidemic was not published at the time. In later years it seems that it was predicted by a complicated mathematical model based on estimates and so might never have been going to occur at all. We were told, “Everybody who has had one dose of the vaccine will not necessarily be protected when the epidemic comes. So they need another one.” “Well, that’s OK,” I thought, “because we know that none of the vaccines are 100percent effective.”

Alarm Bells: Now Three MMR’s Were Needed?

What did worry me, however, was when they said that even those who had had two doses of measles vaccine would not necessarily be protected when the epidemic came and that they needed a third. You may not remember, but in those days there was only one measles vaccine in the schedule. It was a live virus vaccine, so it was like coming in contact with the wild virus, just changed slightly to make it safer and leading to immunity. Since then, of course, the pre-school dose has been added because one dose didn’t work, but in those days there was just “one shot for life.”

And now we were being told that even two shots of a “one shot” vaccine would not protect people when the epidemic came. At this point I began to ask myself, “Why have I been telling all these parents that vaccines are safer than getting the disease and that basically, having the vaccine will stop their children getting the disease – with the risk of complications – it’s not 100 percent, but that’s basically what they’re designed to do – when it seems that they can be vaccinated, have whatever adverse reactions are associated with the vaccine, and still get the disease with whatever complications may be associated with that, even when they’ve had two doses of the “one shot” vaccine? So what was the point? This doesn’t seem right.”

If you are wondering how come anyone would have had two doses of the “one shot vaccine,” it is because when the MMR was introduced in 1988, many children had already been vaccinated against measles, but we were told that we should give them the MMR anyway as it would “protect them against mumps and rubella and boost their measles immunity.” We were also told that the best way of vaccinating was en masse, because this would “break the chain of transmission.” So I thought, “I wonder why we vaccinate all these small babies at 2, 3 and 4 months? Why don’t we just wait two or three years and then vaccinate everyone who has been born in the meantime, and ‘break the chain of transmission’.”

Things Just Didn’t Add Up

So some things just didn’t seem to quite add up. However, it is very hard to start seriously questioning whether or not vaccination is anything other than safe and effective, especially when it is something that you have been taught to believe in so strongly. The more medically qualified you are, the more difficult it is, as in some ways the more brainwashed you are. It’s not easy, or at least it wasn’t then, to start going down a path that might lead you in the opposite direction to all your colleagues and the healthcare system in which you work. I read some books that could be described as “anti-vaccination.”

They contained graphs showing that the majority of the decrease in deaths from and incidence of the infectious diseases for which we have vaccines occurred before the vaccines were introduced in the 1950s and 60s, for example with whooping cough, and in the late 1960s with measles. I decided that I couldn’t just accept what these books were telling me, especially as the message was the opposite to what I had learned up until now. I needed to do some research. The graphs in my textbooks and the Department of Health Immunization Handbook (the Green Book) appeared to show that the introduction of vaccines caused precipitous falls in deaths from vaccinatable diseases.

Collating My Own Vaccine Charts – Why Was It so Hard To Obtain The Information?

I decided that if I were going to seriously question what I’d been taught at medical school and by my professors, I would have go and get the real data for myself. Accordingly, I called the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and asked them to send me the graphs of deaths from the diseases against which we vaccinate from the middle of the nineteenth century, when we started keeping records, until now.

They said, “We don’t have them – except for smallpox and TB; we suggest you try the Department of Health.’” Which I did. They didn’t have graphs from the nineteenth or early twentieth century either. They said, “You’d better try the Office for National Statistics.” “I’ve already tried them,” I said. “They were the ones who advised me to contact you.” It seems to be getting rather circular, so I called up the ONS once again and told them my problem. “Well,” they said, “we have all the books here from when the Registrar General started taking returns of deaths from infectious diseases in 1837; you can come along and look at them if you like.” There was nothing for it.

I had to go the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in Pimlico, London, with my two young children aged 6 and 4 in tow, to extract the information myself. The girls were very good – they were used to traveling/following me around – and the library staff were very nice; they kindly gave my daughters orange juice to drink, and paper and crayons to draw with and amuse themselves, while I pulled out all the mothy old books from 1837 until 1900, after which, thankfully, there was a CD ROM that could be bought at vast expense and taken home.

It was the most user-unfriendly piece of data storage that I have ever come across, but it was better than having to physically be there day after day. So I went home with all my notes and the CD Rom and eventually produced my own graphs. I was startled to find that they were similar to the graphs in some of the books that I had recently read.

us-uk-pertussis-1901-1965

In both the UK and USA, Whooping cough was on the decline (very steadily) before the vaccine was introduced

People Stopped Dying of Whooping Cough Long Before Vaccine Was Introduced

I was astonished and not a little perturbed to find that when you draw a graph of the death rate from whooping cough that starts in the mid nineteenth century, you can clearly see that at least 99 percent of the people who used to die of whooping cough in the nineteenth and early twentieth century had stopped dying before the vaccine against whooping cough was introduced, initially in the 1950s and universally in the 1960s.

I also realized that the reason the Department of Health’s graphs made the vaccine appear so effective was because they didn’t start until the 1940s when most of the improvements in health had already occurred, and this was before even antibiotics were generally available. If you selected only deaths in under-15-year-olds, the drop was even more dramatic – by the time whooping cough vaccine was part of the universal immunization schedule in the early 1960s all the hard work had been done.

Department of Health’s Own Charts: Not A Good Way Of Showing Changes in Mortality and Disease

I now began to realize that graphs such as those featured in the Department of Health Green Book were not a good or clear way of showing the changes in mortality (death) and morbidity (incidence of disease) that occurred before and after vaccination was introduced against these diseases.

Measles is similar: the Department of Health Green Book features a graph that does not start until the 1940s. There appears to be great drop in the number of cases after the measles vaccine was introduced in 1968, but looking at a graph which goes back to the 1900s you can see that the death rate – death being the worst-case complication of a disease – had dropped by 99 percent by the time the vaccine was put on the schedule.

measles-graph

Measles declined naturally before vaccine was introduced

100% Decline In Measles Deaths Three Years Before Vaccine Was Introduced

Looking specifically at under-15-year-olds, it is possible to see that there was a virtual 100 percent decline in deaths from measles between 1905 and 1965 – three years before the measles vaccine was introduced in the UK. In the late 1990s there was an advertisement for MMR which featured a baby in nappies sitting on the edge of a cliff with a lion prowling on the other side and a voice-over saying, “No loving parent would deliberately leave their baby unprotected and in danger.”

I think it would have been more scientific to have put one of the graphs using information from the ONS in the advert – then parents would have had a greater chance of making an informed choice, rather than being coerced by fear. When you visit your GP or Health Visitor to discuss the vaccination issue, and you come away feeling scared, this is because you are picking up how they feel.

If all you have is the “medical model” for disease and health, all you know is that there is a hostile world out there and if you don’t have vaccines, antibiotics and 100 percent bactericidal hand-wash, you will have no defense at all against all those germs with which you and your children are surrounded. Your child may be OK when they get the measles, but you can never tell when disaster will strike, and they may be left disabled or dead by the random hand of fate.

Healthy-Family-Meals-52ba3a07

Health comes from nutrition plus other common sense measures

Health Is the Only Immunity

I was like that myself, and when the awful realization began to dawn on me that vaccines weren’t all they were cracked up to be, I started looking in a panic for some other way of protecting my children and myself – some other magic bullet. My long, slow journey researching the vaccination disease ecology involved learning about other models and philosophies of health and the gradual realization that it was true what people had told me all along, that “health is the only immunity.”

We don’t need to be protected from “out there.” We get infectious diseases when our body needs to have a periodic clean-out. Children especially benefit from childhood spotty rashes, or “ex anthems” as they are called, in order to make appropriate developmental leaps. When we have fevers, coughs, rashes, we need to treat them supportively, not suppressively.

Standard Medical Treatment Suppresses Symptoms And Causes The Most Harm

In my experience, the worst complications of childhood infections are caused by standard medical treatment which involves suppressing all the symptoms. What is the biggest obstacle to doctors even entertaining the possibility that the Universal Childhood Vaccination Program may not be the unmitigated success that it is portrayed to be? Or that there may be other ways of achieving health that are better and longer lasting? Possibly it is the fear of stepping out of line and being seen to be different – with all the consequences that this can entail, as I know from personal experience.

As George Bernard Shaw says in his preface to “The Doctor’s Dilemma,” 1906 :

Doctors are just like other Englishmen: most of them have no honor and no conscience: what they commonly mistake for these is sentimentality and an intense dread of doing anything that everybody else does not do, or omitting to do anything that everybody else does.

Dr. Jayne L. M. Donegan MBBS DRCOG DCH DFFP MRCGP MFHom

Holistic GP and Homeopathic Physician

general-medical-council.png

The British General Medical Council Court Case

Here is some very interesting information regarding Dr. Donegan, and why her authority on vaccines should be paid attention to, simply because the medical world actually did. In 2002 Dr. Donegan went to the High Court, as she was involved in a case where two mothers were fighting their ex-partners about their children’s vaccinations. The mothers did not want them to be given to their children –  under any circumstances – for fear of causing irreversible harm, but the fathers did, so a controversial court case ensued.

Dr. Donegan had been writing and speaking publicly about vaccinations and natural ways of keeping children healthy so she was asked to be an expert witness by the two mothers. Dr. Donegan gave her professional opinion that the safety and efficacy of vaccines has not been well studied and that there were other ways of achieving health than vaccination for these children.

walker

The case proved very long and extremely stressful. At times it was under very unfair circumstances where she would be given hardly any time to get documents together, despite the opposition having double the time to prepare theirs.

Junk Science Accusation

Due to the information she was providing in court (which went straight against the typical mainstream medical advice), the Appeal Judges called her evidence “Junk Science” and the GMC (General Medical Council) –  the organization that regulates doctors and tells them how to practice – targeted the doctor herself.

Dr. Donegan ended up being accused of “serious professional misconduct” which could have eventually ended her entire medical career. They served her official papers in 2004, but it took three long years of writing reports and going through hundreds of medical documents and studies before the case was finally heard in 2007. The allegations are below:

“That you (Dr. Donegan):

6a. Gave false and/ or misleading impressions of the research which you relied upon, 6b. Quoted selectively from research, reports and publications and omitted relevant information, 6c. Allowed your deeply held views on the subject of immunisation to overrule your duty to the court and to the litigants, 6d. Failed to present an objective, independent and unbiased view;

7. Your actions in head 6. above were, 7a. Misleading, 7b. In direct contravention to your duty as an expert witness; unprofessional, 7c. Likely to bring the profession into disrepute; And that in relation to the facts alleged by you have been guilty of serious professional misconduct.”

As I am sure you can appreciate reading this, these allegations were incredibly serious. They basically said that the testimony Dr. Donegan provided in court was made up, that she was giving harmful advice, which could damage the entire medical profession and had allowed her personal views to come into the case.

Over the next three years Dr. Donegan had to prepare her defense, answer letters, go through stacks of evidence and collate documents which made it very difficult to look after her family or carry on her professional life as a doctor. She also had to cope with having her legal team withdraw from the case, six weeks before she was originally due in court.

Scientific “Proof”: Very Different From “Proof” In A Court Of Law

Dr. Donegan then managed to find Mr. Clifford Miller, a lawyer who was exceptionally well-read on the subject of vaccination. Not only was Mr. Miller very good with the law, he was also a scientist, having attained a BSc in physics. He had an in-depth knowledge of the scientific method, what constitutes scientific “proof,” and how this is very different from what is accepted as “proof” in a court of law.  

Dr Donegan and Mr Miller, were very careful of using only medical journal reports and studies as their evidence to support what they were saying. This is very important to remember.

They only used information from respected medical sources.  

This case had started out with almost impossible odds, yet after almost three years of legal wrangling and a three-week hearing by the GMC panel in Manchester, the GMC came to this conclusion:

The Panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the court and to the litigants.

You demonstrated to the Panel that your reports did not derive from your deeply held views and your evidence supported this.  You explained to the Panel that your approach in your report was to provide the court with an alternative view based on the material you produced in your references.  That material was largely drawn from publications that were in fact in favor of immunisation.

It was clear from your evidence and the evidence of your witness that your aim is to direct parents to sources of information about immunisation and child health safety to help them to make informed choices.

You told us that there are many books by doctors and others in this and other countries who seriously question vaccination and they cite a lot of history, proofs, and medical papers to support their arguments. You did not use any of those publications because you did not think that the GMC would regard those as satisfactory support or references for your recommendations. You largely used what was available in refereed medical journals.

The Panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent, and unbiased.

Accordingly, the Panel found that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The case between Dr. Donegan and the GMC was very much like that of David and Goliath, and was another rare example of David actually winning.

GMC Agreed: Children Do Not Need Vaccines To Be Healthy

I would like you to have a really serious think about this trial – the claims that were made – the eventual outcome and what it might mean about the entire vaccine industry:

  • Dr. Donegan was called upon as a witness to provide evidence that children do not need vaccines to be healthy and that many are unnecessary and unsafe.
  • This brought unwanted attention to her from the British General Medical Council who then took her to court.
  • During this 3 year trial, she presented her evidence against a very tough opposition involving many QCs and a very expensive legal team, yet Dr. Donegan and her much smaller team WON the case.
  • What do you think it means about the evidence she provided and the fact that this medical council could not prove her wrong?
  • What does this cause you to think about vaccines now?
  • And what does it make you think about the actual science when presented in a court of law?

Case Results Kept Quiet In The Media

This shocking outcome with its unlikely win – surprise surprise, never really made it into the media.  It should have been on every front page of each newspaper in the world, but of course it wasn’t. With the media being owned/funded by Pharmaceutical companies who have the ability to put pressure on Governments to do what they want, it’s no wonder this landmark win was kept out of the publics view.

When Dr. Donegan was first accused of serious professional misconduct it did of course make it into the papers, but after she won, there was hardly any media attention at all. Yet wouldn’t you think the public deserves to know this outcome?  Wouldn’t you have liked to know about this?  Wouldn’t you also like to know about the dirty tactics used in court against Dr. Donegan?

Dr. Donegan was asked after her GMC enquiry ended, what had she learned from this experience:

Perhaps it is that if a parent says, “I’m worried about the safety of vaccination,” they are told, “You don’t understand, you’re not a doctor.”  However if a doctor says, “I’m worried about the safety of vaccination,” they are told, “We’re charging you with serious professional misconduct… “

Please visit Dr Donegan’s website: 

Dr. Jayne L. M. Donegan MBBS DRCOG DCH DFFP MRCGP MFHom

Holistic GP and Homeopathic Physician

Dr Donegan tours the UK giving lectures to parents about vaccines and how to create health with nutrition, supplements, and homeopathy.

Dr Jayne Donegan - the UK Doctor Who Battled The GMC and WON

Dr Jayne Donegan – the UK Doctor Who Battled The GMC and WON

 

Suggested further reading and to get a copy of the transcripts from the GMC enquiry: 

Details of what was brought up in court

More interesting info about the case

 

If you’d like to learn more about vaccines please watch Vaccines Revealed a 9 part Documentary series

 

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Roll Up Your Sleeves Folks: 271 New Vaccines in Big Pharma’s Pipeline

Published

on

“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” – President Ronald Wilson Reagan, as he signed The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, absolving drug companies from all medico-legal liability when children die, become chronically ill with vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders or are otherwise disabled from vaccine injuries. (That law has led directly to an expected reckless, liability-free development of scores of new, over-priced, potential block-buster vaccines, now numbering over 250. The question that must be asked of Big Medicine’s practitioners: How will the CDC, the AMA, the AAFP and the American Academy of Pediatrics fit any more potentially neurotoxic vaccines into the current well-baby over-vaccination schedule?)

PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America),  the pharmaceutical industry’s trade association and powerful lobbying group, says that 

“today, more than 7,000 medicines are in development globally, all of which have the potential to help patients in the United States and around the world.  According to another data source, there are 3,400 medicines in development today just in the United States, an increase of 40 percent since 2005.” (http://phrma.org/pipeline#sthash.TnxVihsT.dpuf)

PhRMA also says that today 

“the 271 vaccines in development span a wide array of diseases, and employ exciting new scientific strategies and technologies. These potential vaccines – all in human clinical trials or under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – include 137 for infectious diseases, 99 for cancer, 15 for allergies and 10 for neurological disorders.” (http://phrma.org/press-release-medicines-in-development-vaccines#sthash.rI4cQ6Tg.dpuf)

Whenever the FDA signals that it is ready to grant marketing approval for a new vaccine or drug, the first step for the pharmaceutical company’s marketing department is to promote an “educational” advertising campaign designed to instill fear in parents (and their pediatricians) about the horrible illnesses (albeit previously unknown, benign or rare) that even us doctors hadn’t yet recognized as being significant up until recently, most of us physicians have gone along with the fear-mongering that makes our practices busier while it also makes billions of dollars in profits for some unworthy CEO or Wall Street investment banker, hedge fund manager or mutual fund investor – all at the expense of America’s precious and vulnerable children who are at high risk of being sickened along the way.

advertisement - learn more

The TV commercials, medical journal articles and drug representatives will be trying to educate us about a new, unaffordable vaccine that will somehow be squeezed into an already crowded and potentially deadly group of shots that America’s already at-risk-of-vaccine-injuries infants will now be receiving at their next well-child (perhaps soon to become chronically ill).check-up.

 Recognizing this, and so as not to overload the already over-loaded well-child inoculation schedule, perhaps he CDC (the Big Pharma-subsidized and vaccine cheerleader Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) will be adding shots to the in-hospital and irrational Hepatitis B shot that it recommends be given on day one – when vulnerable mothers are too exhausted and emotionally confused to give truly informed consent.

Many state legislatures are, as we speak, considering (or have already passed laws) criminalizing the previously legal parental right of refusing vaccinations on the basis of religious or philosophical beliefs. That is happening right now in Wisconsin’s Republican-dominated legislature, Minnesota’s split GOP/DFL legislature, and California’s Democratic Party-dominated legislature – where it is already signed into law by Democrat Jerry Brown. These poorly informed – and heavily bribed politicians don’t realize that their legislative efforts will be blindly forcing unsuspecting patients to submit to every new blockbuster vaccine that successfully emerges from the pipeline. Talk about making decisions on the basis of partial information or propaganda from sociopathic corporate entities! Attention, Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar and other assorted legislators. Are you listening to the real science or to the corrupted, pseudoscience of Big Pharma?

Below is a list of 146 new vaccines that were in the pipeline as of 2010. The list, PhRMA proudly tells us, is now up to 271 new vaccines as of 2013. For a full listing of these vaccine trials, go to: http://phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/infectiousdiseases2010%20%281%29.pdf

For parents whose infants’ brains and bodies are immunologically and developmentally immature, be aware that your children may be forced to suffer untested-for and therefore unacknowledged long term neurological, autoimmune and chronic illness adverse effects. Parents need to be aware that if their infant dies, is sickened or is made chronically ill by vaccine ingredients, they, as protective parents, will be forbidden to sue the guilty drug company (or the doctor that administered them) for appropriate damages.

Parents and grandparents of children need to be aware of the fact that many of these new vaccines will be containing contaminants (such as unfilterable viral particles, bacterial particles, monkey kidney cell fragments, human fetal cells, squalene (in anthrax and some experimental swine flu vaccines), peanut oil (a likely cause of the epidemic of peanut allergies), formaldehyde and even foreign DNA fragments) as well as known neurotoxic additives such as formaldehyde and aluminum (and perhaps even mercury), all of which are known genetic toxins and known causes of  (sometimes subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle – but always preventable) brain damage, vaccine-induced epilepsy, autoimmune disorders, the so-called, but erroneously labeled “shaken baby syndrome” (now increasingly understood to represent a vaccine-induced encephalitis), SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), dementia, autism spectrum disorders, mitochondrial toxicity, damage to the brain’s microglial and astroglial cells (the brain’s immune system), etc.

NOTE: Much of the information in this column is derived from easily accessible books and websites, including Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child by Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH; The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination is Not Immunization, by Tim O’Shea,  DC; Screening Sandy Hook, Causes and Consequences by Deanna Spingola (an online e-book); the writings and lectures of Russell Blaylock, MD; Immunologist J. Barthelow Classen, MD; Harold E Buttram, MD, Dr Sherri Tenpenny, Dr Suzanne Humphries, Dr Kenneth Stoller, Dr Andrew Wakefield, Dr Mark Geier, and Dr Joseph Mercola, and the following two articles: http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdfhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccine-induced-immune-overload-and-the-epidemic-of-chronic-autoimmune-childhood-disease/5431013.

A List of 146 of the 271 Vaccines in Big Pharma’s Developmental Pipeline (as of 2010)

 (NOTE: The corporations that have the largest financial interest in the success of the trials is listed in bold letters.)

sanofi pasteur prevention of Clostridium difficile

ACE BioSciences prevention of traveler’s diarrhea caused by Campylobacter jejuni

ACE BioSciences prevention of traveler’s diarrhea caused by Escherichia coli

sanofi pasteur diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis Phase III DTP vaccine

Aeras Global tuberculosis

Novartis Vaccines prevention of influenza A infection (H5N1 subtype)

Antigenics treatment of herpes simplex virus

BioSante Pharmaceuticals anthrax Phase I/II vaccine

Intercell USA anthrax

KaloBios Pharmaceuticals Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections

Aduro BioTech treatment of hepatitis C 

Emergent BioSolutions anthrax vaccine

AlphaVax prevention of influenza virus infections in the elderly

DynPort Vaccine botulism vaccine

Inviragen Chikungunya virus vaccine

Celldex Therapeutics cholera vaccine (live attenuated)

ChronTech Pharma hepatitis C (DNA vaccine)

Virionics prevention and treatment of hepatitis C

Vical prevention of cytomegalovirus (DNA vaccine)

AlphaVax prevention of cytomegalovirus infections

Hawaii Biotech prevention of dengue fever

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of dengue fever (tetravalent)

Acambis mild to severe dengue fever

sanofi pasteur DTP-Hep B

sanofi pasteur diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, hepatitis B, polio, Hib

Dynavax treatment of hepatitis B

Crucell prevention of Ebola virus infections

Vical prevention of Ebola virus infections

GenPhar Ebola virus vaccine

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of infectious mononucleosis (Epstein-Barr virus)

BioSolutions Escherichia coli infections

Celldex Therapeutics prevention of cholera, Escherichia coli infections

Protein Sciences prevention of influenza virus infections in adults and children

sanofi pasteur influenza virus infections (new mass production method)

sanofi pasteur prevention of influenza virus (intradermal micro-injection)

Protein Sciences influenza virus infections

GlaxoSmithKline rotavirus infections in infants

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of cytomegalovirus (recombinant vaccine)

GlaxoSmithKline influenza virus (trivalent, thimerosal-free) for children ages 3-17

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza virus

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Streptococcus pneumoniae

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilus infections, hepatitis B, meningococcal group C infections, poliomyelitis (infants)

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Haemophilus and pneumococcal infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Haemophilus and pneumococcal infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza virus infection in children

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype) for children and infants

GlaxoSmithKline staphylococcal infections 

MedImmune influenza A virus (H5N1 subtype) intranasal

Novavax prevention of influenza A virus infection

Hawaii Biotech prevention of West Nile virus infection

Novartis Vaccines helicobacter pylori

Pfizer hepatitis B (DNA)

Emergent BioSolutions hepatitis B

GenPhar hepatitis B

Novartis Vaccines treatment of hepatitis C

GlaxoSmithKline hepatitis E (recombinant)

Dynavax prevention of hepatitis B

Pfizer treatment of herpes simplex virus infections (DNA vaccine)

AuRx prevention and treatment of herpes simplex virus infections

sanofi pasteur diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio, Hib

Intercell prevention of influenza virus seasonal influenza

Novartis Vaccines prevention of herpes simplex virus infections

Acambis prevention of encephalitis virus

Bavarian Nordic smallpox vaccine

sanofi pasteur influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype) in adolescents, children and infants

CSL Behring prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype) for the elderly

Baxter Healthcare prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype)

Vical prevention of influenza A virus (DNA – H1N1 subtype)

Baxter Healthcare prevention of influenza A virus (H5N1 subtype)

DynPort Vaccine influenza virus

Antigen Express influenza virus infections H5N1 vaccine

Novavax prevention of influenza virus (particle vaccine)

Dynavax prevention of influenza virus infections

Vaxin influenza virus infections (intranasal)

Abbott Laboratories prevention of influenza virus (cell culture-derived)

Intercell prevention of Japanese encephalitis in children

Novartis Vaccines malaria vaccine (U.S. Naval Medical Research Center)

Vical malaria vaccine

BioSante Pharmaceuticals prevention of malaria (U.S. Naval Medical Research Center)

GenVec malaria vaccine (U.S. Naval Medical Research Center)

Crucell malaria vaccine 

Sanaria malaria vaccine

GenPhar Marburg virus (DNA vaccine)

MedImmune parainfluenza virus infections in children and infants

MedImmune prevention of respiratory syncytial virus infections in infants

MedImmune prevention of parainfluenza virus infections in children and infants

MedImmune prevention of influenza virus (quadrivalent) for adolescents and children

sanofi pasteur Neisseria meningitidis A, C  in toddlers 9 months-12 months

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Neisseria meningitidis groups C and Y, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and tetanus toxoid

sanofi pasteur meningitis in infants

Novartis Vaccines meningococcal group B infections vaccine group B

Novartis Vaccines meningococcal group A, C infections in children

Novartis Vaccines meningococcal group A, C infections in infants

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of malaria (recombinant vaccine)

NanoBio prevention of influenza virus (intranasal)

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza virus inactivated split-trivalent vaccine

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of Neisseria meningitidis groups A, C in children

LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals norovirus infections (intranasal)

Novartis Vaccines prevention of influenza virus

Protein Sciences prevention of influenza A pandemic (H5N1 subtype)

Meridian Biosciences parvovirus infections

Crucell prevention of influenza virus infections

Pfizer meningococcal group B infections (meningococcal “plague” vaccine)

DynPort Vaccine Yersinia infections (injectable)

Baxter Healthcare prevention of seasonal influenza virus

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of influenza A virus (“pre-pandemic”)

Pfizer prevention of pneumococcal infection in the elderly (Prevnar 13 Adult™)

sanofi pasteur rabies vaccine

BioSante Pharmaceuticals ricin poisoning (“biodefense” vaccine)

Soligenix ricin poisoning

sanofi pasteur prevention of rotavirus infections

Bharat Biotech prevention of rotavirus infections

Emergent BioSolutions anthrax (Fast Track) “protective antigen” vaccine

Inhibitex staphylococcal infections

Vical prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus infections

Emergent BioSolutions shigella infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of herpes simplex virus infections

PharmAthene anthrax (“protective antigen” – rPA)

BioSante Pharmaceuticals staphylococcal infections (“biodefense” vaccine)

Nabi Biopharmaceutical prevention of staphylococcal aureus infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of staphylococcal aureus infections

Nabi Biopharmaceutical prevention of streptococcal B infections

Emergent BioSolutions prevention of streptococcal infections

Novartis Vaccines prevention of streptococcal infections

sanofi pasteur prevention of meningitis and pneumonia (tetravalent)

Inviragen treatment of dengue fever

Intercell USA prevention of traveler’s diarrhea due to E. coli (“patch” technology)

GlaxoSmithKline tuberculosis

Aerus Global TB prevention of tuberculosis in young children

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of  tuberculosis in adults

sanofi pasteur prevention of tuberculosis

DynPort Vaccine tularemia

Emergent BioSolutions prevention of typhoid (live typhoid organisms – oral vaccine)

Novartis Vaccines prevention of typhoid fever

Celldex Therapeutics typhoid fever

Merck prevention of herpes zoster (shingles)

Merck hepatitis B in infants

Merck human papillomavirus infections

Merck staphylococcal infections

GlaxoSmithKline prevention of varicella zoster virus

VaxInnate prevention of influenza A virus

VaxInnate influenza A virus infections in elderly patients

VaxInnate prevention of influenza A virus (H1N1 subtype)

Inovio Pharmaceuticals human papillomavirus infections

Inovio Pharmaceuticals prevention of influenza A virus (H5N1 subtype)

Xcellerex prevention of yellow fever


Dr Gary G. Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. In the decade prior to his retirement from medicine, he had spent the last decade practicing what could best be described as “holistic (non-drug) mental health care”. Dr Kohls has been actively involved in peace, justice and nonviolence issues for much of his adult life and, since he retired, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine (www.readerduluth.com). His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, psychiatry and other movements that threaten American democracy and civility.

This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission and request of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Click here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Las Vegas Man Unable to Speak, Walk, See or Breathe Just Days After Getting Flu Shot

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A few days after getting a flu vaccine, Shane Morgan fell ill with a disease in which a person’s nerves are attacked by the immune system, causing paralysis and, in extreme cases, death.

  • Reflect On:

    How much 'evidence' do we need that the Pharmaceutical Industry is not an advocate for human health? Can we see our way out of this system of deception?

It is starting to seem like we can write a new story every few days about someone having an adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. As I mentioned in an article from last week, ‘After Getting Flu Shot, New York State Senator Gets Sick For Two Weeks, Then Dies,’ the latest flu vaccine is being suspected of actually delivering a dangerous strain of the flu that is resistant to vaccines.

And whether or not Las Vegas’ Shane Morgan had a highly adverse reaction to the vaccine itself or actually contracted this strain of flu, it is very clear in his and his wife’s mind that his adverse reaction was caused by the flu shot. Here’s what happened, according to this Las Vegas Review-Journal article:

On Nov. 2, Shane and Monique, 31, who live in North Las Vegas and are new parents to 8-month-old Briar, got their flu shots. They were planning to see Shane’s 23-year-old daughter, Sidnee Nutter, and her 4-month-old, and Nutter requested the whole family get vaccinated to protect her infant. They typically didn’t get vaccinated, but they happily obliged.

“The only reason I took this was because I didn’t want to lie to my daughter,” Shane said. In the days that followed, Shane fell ill. He was weak and achy; he had a fever and a sore throat. By Nov. 14, he asked his wife to take him to the hospital. “That’s when we really started getting worried,” Monique said. His arms and legs were going numb.

Soon after he was admitted to the hospital, he ‘was sedated and intubated, unable to breathe on his own.’ Now, two weeks later he still ‘can’t walk. His left eye is paralyzed and shut. Tubes protrude from his neck.’

Diagnosis

The doctors have made a diagnosis of ‘Guillain-Barre syndrome.’ More on this disease from the article:

advertisement - learn more

He may have months of recovery left from the rare disease, in which a person’s nerves are attacked by the immune system, causing paralysis and, in extreme cases, death. The cause of the disease that affects one or two in a million isn’t known, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the disease can creep up after a bout of diarrhea, a respiratory infection or an infection from Campylobacter jejuni bacteria.

In rare cases, people come down with Guillain-Barre after having the flu or getting a flu shot, though the CDC can’t show a causal effect.

So let’s go over this slowly. The Western Medical Establishment has put a fancy name to a symptom, a person’s immune system going out of whack, and called it a disease. Of course, the CDC will say it doesn’t know what causes this disease; they are only willing to offer a few conditions which precede the onset of the disease, including having the flu or getting the flu shot. Again, this admission with the disclaimer that ‘the CDC can’t show a causal effect.’ And why? Is it perhaps because that would give someone direct grounds to sue Big Pharma?

What has the CDC really done here? They have concocted a fancy hyphenated name to de-couple immune system degradation from the introduction of pathogens into the body that would seem logically to be the cause of that immune system degradation. For an organization that prides itself on their research and commitment to objective science, they certainly pull the ‘we don’t know the cause’ rabbit out of the hat whenever it serves the purposes of Big Pharma.

Are Anti-Viral Vaccines Actually Delivering A Toxic Virus?

You may have seen in my earlier article ‘Researcher Jailed After Uncovering Deadly Virus Delivered Through Human Vaccines‘ that respected researcher Dr. Judy Mikovits had isolated a murine leukemia virus, essentially a mouse virus, in examining patients who had a variety of serious diseases such as cancer, motor-neuron disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). It was later suggested that this mouse virus likely had been transmitted to these people through vaccines. She explains how vaccines could become infected by this mouse virus when the vaccines are being made:

What we were doing to attenuate, to make the virus less pathogenic, less toxic, is we were passing them through mouse brains, so we were passing them through the brains of mice, and every scientist who works with these viruses, and worked at the National Cancer Institute recognized the possibility that if you put human tissue and mouse tissue together the possibility is that you’re going to pick up a virus that is silent, in the mouse, that is it doesn’t hurt the mouse, but it kills the human, or causes serious disease in the human.

As discussed in that article, the very possibility that people could start to believe that vaccines are transmitting a toxic virus to those who are injected with the vaccine was such a threat to the Big Pharma’s vaccine industry that she was immediately pressured into discrediting her own study, and in refusing to do so she was immediately jailed, and told that she would be ‘destroyed.’ Such is the fate of people who look too deeply and honestly into the true causes of many of our diseases and illnesses.

Flu Strains Getting More Dangerous

The business of vaccination is certainly a huge money-making venture, such that Big Pharma continues to be willing to put out the many fires that are brought on by honest researchers as well as a population getting more sick and diseased in lock step with the increase in the proliferation of vaccines. One of those fires is the clearly documented notion that the ubiquity of the flu vaccine is the actual cause of new deadlier strains of the flu that are more resistant not only to vaccines but to the protective mechanisms of our immune system.

If you consider the fairly straightforward idea that vaccines are working against our immune system and thus are degrading our natural immunity to diseases, then it stands to reason the logical step to take would be the complete cessation of all flu vaccination in our society. My bet is that it would not be long before we would see an increase in the health in the general population, the dying off of many strains of the disease, and an increase in ‘natural immunity’ to diseases in general that parents are able to pass on to their offspring. In the video below, researcher Dr. Andrew Wakefield explains the idea of ‘natural herd immunity’ very cogently:

As far as vaccines go, I would not argue that there is absolute, definitive proof that vaccines are harmful to the average person–and that is because proper, objective testing is not being undertaken. But far more sinister than proper testing not being undertaken due to costs or proper scientific mechanisms is the indisputable fact that Big Pharma, with the CDC in their pocket, care absolutely nothing about human health. Everything they do is based on the metric of profit. They do not want the causes of human disease to be found whenever that would force them to remove pharmaceuticals from human consumption, and are willing to try to convince us that they simply ‘don’t know’ the cause of certain diseases, that they are complicated, mysterious. It’s an embarrassment.

Hypothetical Statement

Doctors and advocates in the mainstream will continue to say whatever they can, spin things in whatever way necessary, to make it seem like, despite the evidence, it’s still a good idea to take the flu vaccine. In fact, their continued livelihood depends on it. Here is the typical example from that same article:

While adverse reactions to the flu vaccine happen, it’s still considered the standard to protect against the flu, which can be dangerous and deadly, said Dr. Fermin Leguen with the Southern Nevada Health District. “The likelihood of people developing Guillain-Barre after the flu shot are very small compared to the risks of developing the flu itself,” Leguen said. “Events like this are unfortunate … but it’s a very rare condition.”

So rather than saying, ‘Shane Morgan had a serious adverse reaction to the flu vaccine and we are going to find out why so it doesn’t happen again,’ the medical establishment would hypothetically say something more like this:

‘Shane Morgan has somehow contracted Guillain-Barre syndrome. We don’t know how it got it, maybe he always had that condition and it just got triggered somehow. While sometimes people come down with Guillain-Barre after having the flu or getting a flu shot–in rare cases, it must be noted over and over again–we can’t show a causal effect. So we will treat his Guillain-Barre syndrome using our pharmaceutical wizardry, and if he survives, we expect to be treated as heroes for saving him.’

Suffice it to say that, simply on the basis of their motives and those of the industry, nothing they say can really be trusted, including the fact that they can’t show a causal effect.

The Takeaway

I personally became much healthier and much more resistant to illness when I consciously moved away from allowing pharmaceutical products to enter my body. My 4-year old son is bright, healthy, energetic, and has neither taken any vaccines nor has ever been seen by a Western doctor. And I am soundly convinced that this is a part of the reason for his good health. When we see that the Western Medicine Establishment has overly complicated and obfuscated ‘health’ to suit their own nefarious agenda and purposes, then we come to realize that completely stepping away from this industry and their synthetic products is what is really best for our health.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

CDC Caught Spreading Misinformation About The Flu Shot: Here Are The Details

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The CDC declares to the public that the flu vaccine greatly reduces the risk of elderly people dying of the flu as though it was a scientifically proven fact. Yet, the reality is that the CDC’s bold claim has been thoroughly discredited.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we bombarded through mass marketing and media to support and get the flu shot every year, without no mention of all of the scientists and doctors that are creating awareness about why we shouldn't. What is going on here?

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that everyone aged six months and up, including pregnant women, get an annual influenza vaccine. The two fundamental assumptions underlying the CDC’s policy are that vaccination reduces transmission of the virus and reduces the risk of potentially deadly complications. Yet multiple reviews of the scientific literature have concluded that there is no good scientific evidence to support the CDC’s claims.

Notwithstanding the science, to increase demand for the pharmaceutical companies’ influenza vaccine products, the CDC makes use of fear marketing, asserting as fact that tens of thousands of people die each year from the flu, even though the CDC’s numbers actually estimate that are controversial because they are based on dubious assumptions that appear to result in a great overestimation of the negative impact of influenza on societal health.

The primary justification for the CDC’s flu vaccine policy is the assumption that it significantly reduces the mortality rate among people aged 65 and older, the group at highest risk of potentially deadly complications from the flu. The CDC declares to the public that the vaccine does so as though this was a scientifically proven fact. Yet, the reality is that the CDC’s bold claim that the vaccine greatly reduces the risk of death among the elderly has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community.

… contrary to the CDC’s claims of a great beneficial effect on mortality, influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80s and 90s, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.

The Implausibility of the CDC’s Claims

Concerns about the CDC’s mortality claim were raised by researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a study published in April 2005 in Archives of Internal Medicine (now JAMA Internal Medicine). Their concern was prompted by the observation that, despite a considerable increase in vaccination coverage among people aged 65 or older—from at most 20 percent before 1980 to 65 percent in 2001—pneumonia and influenza mortality rates had actually substantially risen.

That is to say, to quote a review published in Virology Journal in 2008, contrary to the CDC’s claims of a great beneficial effect on mortality, “influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80s and 90s, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.” (Emphasis added.)

As the authors of the 2005 NIH study commented, this result was “surprising” since vaccination was supposed to be “highly effective at reducing influenza-related mortality”—an assumption underlying CDC policy that “has never been studied in clinical trials”.

advertisement - learn more

Relying instead on post-marketing observational studies of the general population, the CDC has claimed that vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-related deaths is as high as 80 percent. Furthermore, to support its claim of an enormous benefit, the CDC has relied on a meta-analysis of observational studies that concluded that vaccination reduces the number of flu-season deaths from any cause among the elderly “by an astonishing 50%.”

In their own study, however, the NIH researchers found that, over the course of thirty-three flu seasons, influenza-related deaths were on average only about 5 percent and “always less than 10% of the total number of winter deaths among the elderly.”

The obvious question was: How could it be possible for the influenza vaccine to reduce by halfdeaths during winter from any cause when no more than one-tenth of deaths in any given flu season could be attributed to influenza?

The most obvious answer was that it couldn’t, and so the researchers examined more closely the methodology of the observational studies that the CDC was relying upon. The conclusion they drew from doing so was that the CDC’s implausible numbers were due to a systemic bias in those studies. There was a “disparity among vaccination” in these studies between cohorts that received a flu vaccine and those that didn’t.

Specifically, it wasn’t that vaccinated individuals were less likely to die, but that sick elderly people whose frail condition made them more likely to die during the coming flu season were less likely to get a flu shot.

Faced with this identification of a systemic bias in their methodology and despite the obvious implausibility of its own claims, the CDC’s response was to question the methodology of the NIH researchers’ study while reiterating its unshaken faith in the studies it was relying upon to promote the flu vaccine.

Notwithstanding the lack of science to support the statement, and no doubt prompted by the need for government agencies to show solidarity on public vaccine policy, the CDC and NIH subsequently published a joint statement claiming that the seasonal flu shot was the best way to protect old people from dying.

The sharp decline in influenza-related deaths among people aged 65 to 74 years in the years immediately after A(H3N2) viruses emerged in the 1968 pandemic was most likely due to the acquisition of natural immunity to these viruses.

Ironically, and tellingly, while commenting on the lack of evidence that the vaccine was preventing deaths among the elderly and the observed increase in mortality, the NIH researchers in their 2005 study had also acknowledged the effectiveness of naturally acquired immunity at reducing mortality (emphasis added):

“The sharp decline in influenza-related deaths among people aged 65 to 74 years in the years immediately after A(H3N2) viruses emerged in the 1968 pandemic was most likely due to the acquisition of natural immunity to these viruses. Because of this strong natural immunization effect, by 1980, relatively few deaths in this age group (about 5000 per year) were left to prevent. We found a similar pattern in influenza-related mortality rates among persons aged 45 to 64 years, an age group with substantially lower vaccine coverage. Together with the flat excess mortality rates after 1980, this suggests that influenza vaccination of persons aged 45 to 74 years provided little or no mortality benefit beyond natural immunization acquired during the first decade of emergence of the A(H3N2) virus.”

The way the NIH’s joint statement with the CDC contrasted with its own research findings is a remarkable illustration of the institutionalized cognitive dissonance that exists when it comes to public vaccine policy.

The CDC’s Mortality Claims Further Debunked

Numerous additional studies have since been published highlighting the lack of credibility of the CDC’s claims about the vaccine’s effectiveness. A systematic review published in The Lancet in October 2005 found a “modest” effect of the vaccine on mortality, but its authors—which included lead author Tom Jefferson, a top researcher for the Cochrane Collaboration—cautioned that this finding must be interpreted in light of the apparent systemic bias of the observational studies. They likewise attributed the perceived effect of the vaccine to a difference in vaccination rates among the cohorts “and the resulting selection bias”.

Randomized controlled trials could minimize any such bias, they observed, but the evidence from such studies was “scant and badly reported.” Hence, placebo-controlled trials were needed to “clarify the effects of influenza vaccines in individuals”. The problem was that such studies were considered impossible “on ethical grounds” due to the fact that mass vaccination was already recommended as a matter of public policy.

In other words, the science wasn’t done before the CDC made its universal vaccination recommendation, and now they refuse to do the science on the grounds that government technocrats have already made up their minds that everyone aged six months and up should get an annual flu shot.

The lead author of the 2005 NIH study, Lone Simonsen, was also coauthor with W. Paul Glezen of a commentary in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2006 that reiterated the problems with the CDC’s claims. Although the vaccination rate for elderly people had increased by as much as 67 percent from 1989 to 1997, there was no evidence that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or deaths. On the contrary, “mortality and hospitalization rates continued to increase rather than decline”. The studies the CDC cited to support its claim of a dramatic reduction in mortality suffered from a selection bias that resulted in “substantial overestimation of vaccine benefits.”

study in the International Journal of Epidemiology also published in 2006 confirmed the systemic selection bias of the observational studies. Its authors concluded that not only had the results of those studies indicated “preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors”, but that the magnitude of this demonstrated bias “was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed”. (Emphasis added.)

Not only is the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination lacking, but there are also reasons to doubt conventional estimates of the mortality burden of influenza.

Influenza vaccine researcher Peter Doshi followed up with a letter to the BMJ published in November 2006 under the headline “Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence”. As he summed up the situation, “Not only is the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccination lacking, but there are also reasons to doubt conventional estimates of the mortality burden of influenza.”

Furthermore, “influenza vaccines impose their own particular burden—to the tune of billions of dollars annually.”

Indeed, the very high cost of yearly vaccination for large parts of the population was among the considerations of a 2014 Cochrane meta-analysis that concluded that the results of a systematic review of existing studies “provide no evidence for the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.”

A randomized controlled trial studying the cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination in healthy adults under aged 65 and published in JAMA in 2000 found that this practice “is unlikely to provide societal economic benefit in most years”—when, according to their data, it generated greater costs than to not vaccinate.

Peter Doshi followed up in 2013 with another BMJ commentary. After all those years, the CDC was still sticking to its claims. And yet, if the CDC’s claims were true, it would mean “that influenza vaccines can save more lives than any other single licensed medicine on the planet. Perhaps there is a reason CDC does not shout this from the rooftop: it’s too good to be true. Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.”

Despite scientists pointing out the “healthy user bias” inherent in the observational studies that the CDC relied on to support its bold claims, “CDC does not rebut or in any other way respond to these criticisms.”

“If the observational studies cannot be trusted,” Doshi asked, “what evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people—the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none…. This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes.” (Emphasis added.)

“Perhaps most perplexing,” Doshi added, “is officials’ lack of interest in the absence of good quality evidence.”

He further observed how government agencies promote the flu shot by claiming it’s been proven safe. He cited the example of a YouTube video produced by the NIH in which the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, declared that it was “very, very, very rare” for a serious adverse event to be associated with the influenza vaccine.

Yet, “Months later, Australia suspended its influenza vaccination program in under five year olds after many (one in every 110 vaccinated) children had febrile convulsions after vaccination. Another serious reaction to influenza vaccines—and also unexpected—occurred in Sweden and Finland, where H1N1 influenza vaccines were associated with a spike in cases of narcolepsy among adolescents (about one in every 55,000 vaccinated). Subsequent investigations by governmental and non-governmental researchers confirmed the vaccine’s role in these serious events.”

The NIH’s presenter in the video, Anthony Fauci, also happened to be among the opponents of conducting randomized, placebo-controlled studies to determine the safety of the influenza vaccine. “The reason? Placebo recipients would be deprived of influenza vaccines—that is, the standard of care, thanks to CDC guidelines.”

“Drug companies”, Doshi continued, “have long known that to sell some products, you would have to first sell people on the disease.” Only, in the case of the influenza vaccine, “the salesmen are public health officials”.

Conclusion

In summary, there is no good scientific evidence to support the CDC’s claim that the influenza vaccine reduces hospitalizations or deaths among the elderly. The types of studies the CDC has relied on to support this claim have been thoroughly discredited due to their systemic “healthy user” selection bias, and the mortality rate has observably increased along with the increase in vaccine uptake—which the CDC has encouraged with its unevidenced claims about the vaccine’s benefits, downplaying of its risks, and a marketing strategy of trying to frighten people into getting the flu shot for themselves and their family.

By Jeremy R. Hammond, Guest Contributor, Children’s Health Defense

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

We Need Your Support...

 

With censorship, things have become tough. If just 5% of people seeing this today supported CE, we'd be able to fund a TRUE investigative team INSTANTLY. Your support truly matters and goes a long way! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.