Connect with us

Awareness

14 Common Reasons Why You’re Not Losing Weight

Published

on

I will admit to being reticent to tackle this subject. Our culture is obsessed with weight loss and infatuated with slimness, and I have no desire to perpetuate this machine fuelled on our own insecurities. In general, I prefer to talk about muscle gain than weight loss, and lifestyle changes rather than diet.

advertisement - learn more

But I would be lying if I said that nobody in the world needs to lose weight. We all know that carrying around excess weight leads to a whole host of health problems (I don’t need to describe them in detail). So I would like to frame this article in terms of working towards being healthier and fitter — whatever that looks like for you — rather than ways of getting to a size 0.

Because our environment really is against us — between the food-like objects being sold to us in grocery stores and the prevalence of sedentary desk jobs, amongst many other factors, staying within a healthy weight range is getting harder and harder. Below are some reasons why you might not be reaching your goals.

As with all things related to nutrition and fitness, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. What works for one person may not work for another, so take all of these tips with a grain of salt. Some people respond well to more cardio and some to less, etc. The important thing is finding what works for your unique body. 

1. Maybe You Are Losing Without Realizing it

Working out and eating healthily but your weight hasn’t budged? (Or worse, it has only increased?) You wouldn’t be the first one to complain of this problem, but it doesn’t mean you aren’t making strides towards your goal. The reality is, the number on the scale is not the only, or even the most reliable, measure of your progress.

First of all, our body weight tends to fluctuate by a pound or two each day. The foods you eat, the state of your hormones, and the amount of water you’re drinking AND retaining (particularly so for women) can all play a role here. You may find it more helpful to weigh yourself once a week rather than every day.

advertisement - learn more

When you weigh yourself is also important. It should be before you’ve eaten or had anything to drink and ideally after elimination. Had a glass of water? That’s going to skew things, and by a lot more than you’d think. I’ve weighed myself first thing in the morning and then again after having water and a coffee, and the difference was 2 pounds!

More importantly, it is possible to gain muscle while losing fat, particularly if you’ve just started exercising. And this is exactly what you want: a change in body composition, not simply body weight.

For a true measure of your progress, use something other than the scale. This can be as simple as considering how well your clothes fit — your jeans never lie! — or as precise as taking body measurements and getting your body fat percentage measured each month.

You can also try looking in the mirror. Do you see more muscle than there was before? Then well done!

2. You’re Not Keeping Track of What You’re Eating

This one is tough, I know. Nobody wants to feel like they’re on a schedule or have to count every calorie, and I don’t recommend doing this all the time, because it can be unnecessarily stressful. I’m a firm believer that you should be able to enjoy a dinner with friends and family every so often without having to agonize over calories or macros or any of that. Life just doesn’t work that way, and you will eventually fatigue if you never give yourself a break.

Tracking your food intake for one week really should be sufficient to give you a snapshot of how much food you’re actually eating, and you can do this every few months to check in and see where you’re at.

The reason this is so beneficial is that it creates awareness and it forces you to be accountable to yourself. Whether you’re trying to lose weight or not, being conscious of what you’re eating is always a good thing. And despite what we may think, most of us actually have no idea how many calories we’re consuming. Study after study has shown that people consistently underestimate how much they eat in a day, often by around 30%! That’s a huge margin of error. It happens for a number of reasons: we don’t actually know how many calories are in a food item; we forget about snacks in between meals (which are often the problem, not our meals themselves); we downplay unhealthy foods (and maybe are ashamed to admit to eating certain things, or in certain amounts); or we don’t consider the calories in beverages. All of these and more make food diaries unreliable, particularly in the long term.

But studies do show that keeping track of your diet helps with weight loss. People who use food diaries or track their meals in other ways consistently lose more weight than people who don’t. (12) Doing so forces you to take an honest look at your habits and to be conscious of what you’re actually putting in your mouth.

3. You’re Not Eating Enough Protein

Protein is an essential nutrient for both weight loss and weight maintenance, as it helps to reduce cravings for sugary foods and promotes satiety, ensuring you don’t feel the need to snack constantly between meals. Protein is much more satisfying than carbohydrates in general, and it has the added bonus of working with appetite-regulating hormones, such as ghrelin, to keep you feeling fuller for longer. (89)

Deriving 25-30% of  the calories you eat from protein can boost your metabolism by 80-100 calories per day, and since you’ll be snacking less, you’ll be eating fewer calories, too.  (34567)

Protein is also, of course, essential for the building and maintenance of muscle mass, so getting enough of this nutrient will make your exercise regime more effective. It also helps prevent metabolic slowdown – a common side effect of losing weight – and weight regain. (111213)

The easiest way to include more protein in your diet? Switch our your carbohydrate-heavy breakfast for something more substantial. Studies have shown that people who eat a high-protein breakfast are less hungry and have fewer cravings throughout the day (10). (I can certainly attest to this fact from personal experience. Anytime I’ve ever had pancakes and maple syrup for a special breakfast or brunch, my sugar cravings for the rest of the day are noticeably more intense.)

4. You’re Eating Too Many Calories

Many people who struggle with losing weight are simply eating too many calories, and while this does not mean that calories should be your main concern — eating 500 calories of potato chips is not the same as eating 500 calories of vegetables — it does mean you should be mindful of what you’re eating, even if it is healthy.

I’m a big fan of almond butter, for example, but I know that a 2 tablespoon serving (very easy to make disappear in an instant) clocks in at around 180 calories. If I smother my apple in almond butter the way I’d like to, what should have been a healthy snack turns into a full meal — and not one that is satisfying like a true meal.

As I mentioned before, we tend to underestimate the calories we consume, consistently and significantly. (141516) So if you are eating healthy foods and exercising but still not losing weight, you might want try tracking your calories, just for a little while. You may be surprised by how much you’re actually eating.

Here are some helpful resources:

  • Calorie calculator – Use this tool to figure out how many calories to eat.
  • Calorie counters – This is a list of 5 free websites and apps that can help you keep track of your calorie and nutrient intake.

Tracking in this way is also beneficial when trying to reach a certain nutrient goal, like getting 30% of your calories from protein, as mentioned above. It’s really difficult to do this all in your head.

And as I mentioned previously, you only need to do this exercise for a short period of time to gain a sense of how much you’re actually eating.

5. You’re Not Eating Whole Foods

This may be the most important one of the list. The calories-in-calories-out theory is all well and good, but if your calories are nutritionally void, you aren’t going to lose the weight. More importantly, you will not achieve optimal health.

Eating healthy foods will make you feel and look better, regardless of your weight, and feeling this way can motivate you to make other changes in your life.

Eating healthy foods also helps regulate your appetite and reduces your craving for junk food, particularly as your palate adjusts to the taste of real food.

But keep in mind: “health foods” and healthy foods are not one and the same. Healthy foods are minimally processed and whole foods which contain as few ingredients as possible. Healthy foods require you to cook at home. “Health foods” are often quite unhealthy, full of sugar and processed ingredients disguised as beneficial ones.

6. You’re Not Lifting Weights

I cannot stress this one enough. The very best thing I ever did for myself — for my health, my physique, and my confidence — was take up weight training. It makes me feel so strong and so powerful, and I always walk away feeling like I can take on the world. That sense of empowerment affects every single area of my life, motivating me to work harder at everything that I do, including maintaining a healthy diet. And it makes working out fun, because seeing myself get stronger is more rewarding than spending an extra 5 or 10 minutes on the treadmill ever was.

Then of course there are the physical benefits. Muscle burns more calories than fat, meaning the more muscle you have, the higher your resting metabolic rate, so you’ll continue to burn calories even after you’ve left the gym. It can also help prevent metabolic slowdown. (18)

And let’s not discount how great muscle tone looks on the body. I would rather be muscular and weigh a little more than skinny for the sake of skinny, with no tone or strength.

7. You’re Binge Eating (Even on Healthy Food)

We’ve all been there before. We were really ‘good’ for a whole week, or a month, eating only the foods we deem to be healthy. And then a special occasion comes up, or we simply decide we’ve earned the right to indulge a little. But we lose control, eating way more than we meant to or ever should in one sitting.

If we’re operating in a state of deprivation, binging is going to be the inevitable consequence. This is why diets don’t work. You need to think in terms of making a lifestyle change — something that is sustainable in the long term and allows you to feel like you’re still enjoying food and enjoying life.

8. You’re Not Doing Cardio

Cardio has gotten a bad rap in recent years, and I know I’m at least a little guilty of perpetuating that in my own life. I used to do tons of cardio and very little weight lifting, and accordingly saw negligible results at the gym. Lifting weights turned everything around for me, so the challenge now is finding the right balance between lifting and cardio. Because getting your heart rate up is still really important, both for weight loss and for achieving overall health.

And cardio can be great for burning belly fat, the harmful “visceral” fat that builds up around the organs and causes disease (1920).

Here is what an optimal and balanced training program which incorporates both weight lifting and cardio might look like, courtesy of Girls Gone Strong:

  • Strength training two to four times a week, generally lasting 45 to 50 minutes
  • High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)/Metabolic Conditioning one to two times a week, generally lasting five to 20 minutes
  • Moderate Intensity Cardio (MIC) one to two times a week, generally lasting about 30 minutes, with your heart rate at 120 to 140 bpm.
  • Low Intensity Steady State (LISS) Cardio, whenever possible. This is any kind of leisure movement you enjoy—from yoga to hiking to biking to walking—and should be restorative, not strenuous. Your heart rate should remain below 120 bpm, and this activity should be relaxing, and not stressful to your body. This also includes general human movement like taking the stairs, standing instead of sitting, etc.

Keep in mind that some of these days can be combined to allow for two to three full days off each week.

9. You’re Still Drinking Sugar

This one should be a no-brainer at this point, but unfortunately, many people still haven’t gotten the memo. Our brains don’t process liquid calories in the same way they do solid food, and so that soda, or fruit juice, or even your favourite green juice contributes to your daily caloric load without making you feel as if you’ve eaten any more. You therefore don’t compensate for these extra calories by eating less, and you certainly don’t feel any less hungry after consuming them. (2122)

And this says nothing of the terrible effects of processed sugars on the body.

Even fruit juices or green juices with fruit juice in them can cause problems, containing way more sugar than you’d ever imagine and contributing to an expanding waistline in the process.

The takeaway here is to be mindful of everything you drink and reduce where you can. A typical latte at Starbucks, unflavoured, can clock in at 100 calories or more easily, and this really does add up over time. One solution is to have a cappuccino, which has significantly less milk in it, and to do without the sugar, or work to slowly reduce the amount of sugar you include over time. A touch of cinnamon can go a long way here!

10. You’re Not Sleeping Well

Getting enough sleep is arguably the single most important thing you can do for your physical and mental well-being, and this includes managing your weight.

Studies show that poor sleep is one of the single biggest risk factors for obesity. Adults with poor sleep have a 55% greater risk of becoming obese, while children with poor sleep have an 89% greater risk of becoming obese. (23)

Sleep deprivation creates a cascade of reactions which all promote weight gain. Short sleep duration is associated with decreased leptin — the hormone which promotes satiety — and increased ghrelin, the hormone which promotes hunger. In other words, not getting enough sleep makes you feel hungrier and causes you to eat more food to feel satisfied, particularly foods with a high carbohydrate content — a double whammy.

Just one sleep deprived night also leads to raised levels of glucose in the blood and can increase our risk for type 2 diabetes:

Recent work also indicates that sleep loss may adversely affect glucose tolerance and involve an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

In young, healthy subjects who were studied after 6 days of sleep restriction (4 hours in bed) and after full sleep recovery, the levels of blood glucose after breakfast were higher in the state of sleep debt despite normal or even slightly elevated insulin responses.[3] The difference in peak glucose levels in response to breakfast averaged ±15 mg/dL, a difference large enough to suggest a clinically significant impairment of glucose tolerance.

Poor sleep also affects digestion. As someone who has struggled with IBS for a number of years, I can say confidently that inadequate sleep worsens my symptoms significantly. So not only am I hungrier when I don’t get enough sleep, I am more bloated and less able to eliminate regularly, too.

11. You’re Not Cutting Back on Carbohydrates

And you’re not eating the right kinds. You might think that by avoiding sugary treats you’re in the clear, but most breads and pastas do just as much damage, causing blood sugar spikes and raising cortisol, both of which lead to increased belly fat.

Focus on eating unprocessed whole grains like oats, millet, and brown rice (not whole wheat or even whole grain bread, which is still full of starchy flours) and eating them in small portions. This may require you to measure out your servings for a while, but eventually you should be able to visually determine what a proper serving looks like.

Whole grains won’t create blood sugar spikes the way refined carbohydrates will, and they help promote satiety.

How you prepare your grains is also important. Most people don’t realize that it is necessary to break down whole grains (and beans, nuts, and seeds) before consuming them by soaking them in water. For thousands of years, traditional cultures have practiced sprouting grains, somehow knowing that cooking simply isn’t enough to render them digestible. Grains on their own are dormant seeds, with all their nutrients waiting to be ‘activated’ by water. They contain anti-nutrients such as phytic acid which bind to minerals in the gastrointestinal tract, preventing the body from absorbing them, which can lead to mineral deficiencies. Unsoaked grains are also much more difficult for the body to digest; a lifetime of eating grains in this way can lead to a whole host of digestive problems. Simply by soaking your grains in warm water overnight, preferably with a splash of something acidic, like vinegar, you make the nutrients in the grains more bioavailable and make their digestion much easier on the body.

12. You’re Not Drinking Water

Drinking water is incredibly important for maintaining optimal health in general, and for achieving weight loss.

In one 12-week weight loss study, for example, overweight people who drank half a liter (17 oz) of water half an hour before before meals lost 44% more weight (32) than people who did not. One reason for this could be that they needed to eat less during the meal in order to feel full.

Drinking water has also been shown to boost the amount of calories burned by 24-30% over a period of 1.5 hours. (3334)

Ever stand up too quickly and feel dizzy or lightheaded for a minute? That’s your body telling you to drink more water.

Feeling hungry is often the first sign that you’re thirsty, too. The next time you feel like you need a snack or are ready for your next meal, try drinking a glass of water first. You may be surprised to find out that you weren’t hungry after all!

13. You’re Drinking Too Much Alcohol

Alcoholic beverages are notoriously high in calories, particularly when combined with sugary mixers to make our favourite cocktails. Beer, wine, and sugary mixed drinks and liquors are the worst culprits here, almost inevitably leading to bigger bellies when consumed regularly or in excess.

Because alcohol is a liquid calorie, we also tend to underestimate how much we’ve ingested. One night of heavy drinking really can undo a week’s worth of efforts in the kitchen and in the gym. And it’s no secret that we tend to eat more after a night of drinking, and pick the worst foods, too. So not only are we consuming extra calories from the alcohol, we’re compounding the problem by eating greasy, fried foods afterwards.

If you want to enjoy the occasional drink while still maintaining or losing weight, stick to pure spirits like vodka or gin, and skip the sugary add-ins, opting instead for sparkling water and a splash of lemon or lime.

14. You’re Too Focused on “Dieting”

As I mentioned previously, diets are rarely, if ever, successful in the longterm. If anything, they actually cause people to gain more weight over time, and yo-yoing between between weights puts a major strain on the body, too. (42)

Putting all your attention on the foods you can’t have will only make you crave them more. It’s like telling yourself not to think about elephants. You can’t think about anything other than elephants now, can you?

Focus instead on the new, healthy lifestyle you are cultivating. Think about all the foods you get to include in your diet — more vegetables, whole grains, and healthy fats — rather than the ones you must exclude. Let weight loss be the natural and happy side effect of nourishing your body properly.

Do you have any other weight loss tips you’d like to share? Please post in the comment section below!

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.