Connect with us

Health

Research Exposes New Health Risks of Genetically Modified Mosquitoes & Salmon

Published

on

This article was written By Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com. For more news from them, you can sign up for their newsletter here

advertisement - learn more

Just when genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes got their approval by the Cayman Islands and the government of Canada’s Prince Edward Island is trying to approve GM salmon, new research reveals unexpected and potentially dangerous effects of genetic engineering.

Unfortunately, neither the makers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) nor their regulators conduct the studies that are necessary to protect the public. Being bitten by GM mosquitoes and eating GM salmon remains a serious gamble.

The new discomfiting research published in Nature Methods examined the unintended impacts of gene editing on the DNA of mice. Gene editing is touted by its promoters as the safer, more precise version of genetic engineering. The earlier version that was used to create the GM crops we all know about (soy, corn, etc.) forced genetic material from bacteria or viruses into plant DNA. Gene editing, on the other hand, does not necessarily introduce genes from foreign species. Rather, it cuts the DNA in a predetermined location. The cell’s DNA repair mechanisms are then activated to repair the cut.

Of all the gene editing techniques, the one that is easiest, least expensive, and most popular is called CRISPR-Cas9. Proponents claim it is so safe and predictable, it should not be regulated. They want to put their gene-edited products on the market without informing governments or consumers. And they don’t even want it to be called genetic engineering, since consumers have largely weighed in against GMOs. That is why the recent research is so damning.

Gene Editing Creates Predictable Mutations

The tools used for gene editing are designed to recognize and make changes only on specific DNA sequences.  In the Nature Methods research, for example, the engineers designed their tools to fix a defective DNA sequence that could restore sight to blind mice. But the defective DNA sequence that governs sight is also repeated in other places throughout the mouse genome—unrelated to vision. Therefore, the gene editing tools can also make unintended changes in these “off-target” locations.

advertisement - learn more

The unwanted mutations do not come from cutting the DNA. Rather, they occur when the cut ends are rejoined by the cells’ repair mechanisms. It results in either the loss of some DNA base units or the insertion of a few base units at the cut site.

If the mutation occurs in the middle of a known gene (or in a portion of the DNA that controls a gene) it can severely disrupt its function. Gene editors, therefore, rely on computer models of the genome to identify where the similar sequences are that are likely to become mutated and to predict what level of collateral damage that could create. If the risk is considered low enough, they proceed with editing.

Widespread Unpredicted Mutations Discovered

There is a joke that says molecular biologists don’t understand just two things: molecules and biology. Too often, the complex 3-D world doesn’t cooperate with their computer model predictions. This was again confirmed by the work of Stamford’s Dr. Kellie Schaefer, along with her colleagues from Stamford, Columbia, and the University of Iowa.

Instead of letting the computer guess which off-target changes would take place, Schaefer’s team actually sequenced the genome of the two gene-edited mice after they had undergone CRISPR-Cas9. They did find insertions and deletions (indels), which is the type of mutation that the computer predicts. One mouse had 164 indels; the other 128. But of the top 50 sequences that a computer would identify as most likely to be mutated, none were changed at all. Far more importantly, however, the computer model would totally miss their other finding: point mutations throughout the genome. One mouse had 1,736; the other 1,696.

A point mutation is the replacement of a single nucleotide along the DNA. But don’t let its smallness fool you. These so-called single-nucleotide variants (SNV) can have huge consequences. They can lead to many types of changes, including disease.

According to Dr. Michael Antoniou, a London-based molecular geneticist who routinely uses genetic engineering in his research, “Many of the genome editing-induced off-target mutations [both the point mutations and the indels] . . . will no doubt be benign in terms of effects on gene function. However, many will not be benign and their effects can carry through to the final marketed product, whether it be plant or animal.”  This could translate into possible toxins, allergens, carcinogens, or other changes that could affect those eating a GMO.

Dr. Michael Hansen, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, wrote, “While genome editing has been portrayed in the media as an incredibly precise process, where one can go in and literally only intentionally change one or a small number of nucleotide bases, the reality is that there can be large numbers of off-target effects.” He says, “This study raises troubling concerns.”

Another recently published study in Nature Communications used CRISPR/Cas9 to make 17 edits in the mouse genome. They too sequenced the genome and found unexpected insertions and deletions in all 17 places. Whereas deletions of approximately 9 base pairs are predicted, the actual size of the deletions was as high as 600 base pairs. No computer model predicts DNA damage this extensive.

third study published this year also found deletions of more than 500 base units. The researchers also confirmed that proteins produced by these mutated sections were altered. Such changes could theoretically transform a beneficial protein to a harmful one.

Hansen says the long deletions of DNA material “may not be routinely identified without whole genome sequencing.” But whole genome sequencing is rarely done by gene editors. Instead, they rely on their computers.

Even if they did sequence the genome, science doesn’t yet have the capacity to predict what the real-life consequences of all the mutations would be. Therefore, according to Antoniou, “it is also essential to ascertain the effects of these unintended changes on global patterns of gene function.” For this, both Antoniou and Hansen (as well as the National Academy of Sciences and the international standard setting body Codex Alimentarius) agree that the scientists must also analyze the changes in RNA, proteins, and metabolites.

Armed with this data, certain problems would be obvious—an increase of a known allergen or toxin, for example. But even if no red flags are raised at this point, according to Antoniou, “it is still necessary to conduct long-term toxicity studies” using animals. That’s because, once again, science is still not competent to figure out the complex interactions and side effects that can occur.

Antoniou concludes, “In the absence of these analyses, to claim that genome editing is precise and predictable is based on faith rather than science.”

And it is mere faith that supports the claims that GM mosquitoes and salmon are safe. Although they were not produced by the CRISP-Cas9 technique, they are the product of earlier gene-insertion techniques, which are also fraught with unpredictable mutations and altered gene expressions.

Earlier Research Warnings Ignored by GMO Makers

Just because this year’s research on gene editing shows unintended and potentially dangerous side effects does not mean that companies using the technology will change the way they operate. Indeed, back in 1999, a study showed widespread changes in the DNA due to gene insertion; but many GMO companies conveniently ignored the findings and continue to do so.

In that study, scientists studying cystic fibrosis inserted a gene into human cells. Using a microarray, they discovered that the insertion “significantly affect[ed] up to 5% of the total genes in the array.” This means that the presence of a single foreign gene might change the expression of hundreds, possibly thousands of genes. In the case of the human cell being studied, the scientists were at a loss to determine the impact. “In the absence of more biological information,” they wrote, “we cannot discern which directions are better or worse, since any of these may have positive or negative effects.”

Just like the recent gene editing studies, this 1999 discovery contradicted the assumptions of an entire industry, which marched forward on the false assumption that their GMOs were predictable and safe.

The Untested Danger of a GM Mosquito Bite

In January 2014, I testified at the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District, opposing their planned release of GM mosquitoes. Also testifying was Derric Nimmo, a principal scientist at Oxitec, the UK company that produces the mosquitoes.

Oxitec had already conducted limited releases with millions of Aedis Aegypti mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Brazil, Panama, and Malaysia. The male insects were engineered to mate with natural females and produce offspring that die before reaching adulthood. Their plan was to reduce the population and thereby reduce the incidence of dengue and other diseases that this type of mosquito carries.

The company had widely publicized that they were only releasing males, which don’t bite. But it turns out that their method of sorting males from females is flawed, and thousands of biting female mosquitoes are released. In addition, their method to create non-viable offspring is also flawed. Between 3%-15% of the offspring survive and prosper. This can easily translate into millions of biting females, born from a genetically engineered family tree.

After the Florida hearing was over, I asked Derric if they ever analyzed the saliva from their GM mosquitoes, since the saliva enters the bloodstream of the people who are bitten. He said that they were just now doing research to see if the protein produced by the inserted gene was found in the saliva.

Realizing that they had already exposed the population of four countries to their mosquito saliva before doing this research, I was unimpressed. Then…

I explained to Derric the findings of the cystic fibrosis study, showing that a single inserted gene can create widespread changes, including new toxins, allergens, or carcinogens. Shouldn’t his company analyze everything in the saliva, I asked? Derric responded, “Good idea.”

ln Derric’s defense, Oxitec is not the only company that is tampering with nature’s gene pool in spite of the fact that it is wholly unprepared and unqualified to do so. Other GMO makers also fail to use the modern molecular profiling techniques that reveal unintended side effects. However, when independent scientists conduct that type of research on GMOs, the results are sobering.

For example, long after Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn had been consumed by hundreds of millions of people, a team led by Dr. Antoniou found more than 200 significant changes in its proteins and metabolites, compared to non-GMO corn of the same variety. Two of the compounds that increased are aptly named putrescine and cadaverine, because they produce the horrific smell of rotting dead bodies. More worrisome; they are also linked to higher risks of allergies and cancer. Another Monsanto GM corn has a new allergen and their cooked soy has up to seven times the level of a known soy allergen, compared to cooked non-GMO soy.

The Typical Biotech Response: Ignore or Attack

If regulators and medical authorities knew in advance that a proposed GMO contained new or higher levels of dangerous allergens, it is unlikely that the GMO would have been introduced. (I’m being optimistic.) But once a GMO variety is released, grown on millions of acres and eaten by millions of people, somehow the crop enjoys a bizarre immunity. Confronted with hard evidence of allergens, GMO makers and government regulators typically ignore the problem. The offending GMOs are still on the market, and they don’t carry any warnings on the package to protect those who might react.

If independent scientists discover an adverse finding that might threaten their bottom line, companies like Monsanto enlist a veritable army of supporters to drum up opposition—often using unscientific excuses that are repeated so often that they appear to be facts.

Two gene-editing companies whose stocks plummeted after the Nature Methods article came out quickly mounted their attack. But according to GMWatch.org, “the findings reported in the article, along with other recent research papers that also report unintended effects of CRISPR gene editing, show that the companies are arguing on the wrong side of the science.”

The main argument used by the company Intellia was that the mutations were not from the gene editing at all. They claim that “the more plausible conclusion is that the genetic differences reflect a normal level of variation between individuals in a colony.” But the scientific literature does not support this conclusion, given that:

  1. Most of the mutations (117 indels and 1397 SNVS) were exactly the same in the two mice. According to GMWatch.org, “This indicates a targeted and non-random process.” If it were “a normal level of variation,” as Intellia insists, there would be much greater difference between the mice.
  2. Another study looked at the genomes of 36 different strains of mice. None of the point mutations that were found in the gene-edited mice were in any of these strains. Thus, they don’t appear to be naturally occurring at all.
  3. In fact, the sheer number of mutations in the edited mice was higher than scientists find among natural strains.

Perhaps the most strained logic used by Intellia to attack the research was that “there is no known mechanistic basis for Cas9 to induce SNVs.” In other words, the journal should not have published research showing unpredicted changes in the DNA simply because no one yet has figured out why those changes take place.

But if these widespread mutations exist in Crispr-Cas9 edited organisms, according to Antoniou they are likely happening with all the new gene editing techniques, which haven’t yet been studied in such detail.

Real Dangers and Perceived Dangers are Both Dangerous

If we apply these lessons to GM mosquitoes, there are serious consequences. If the saliva contains a new toxin or allergen, it might elicit mild or even deadly reactions. Since there are no human clinical trials and no public health surveillance related to the mosquito, the cause of any associated health problems could go unnoticed. It would require a large-scale outbreak of a serious reaction for health authorities to even mount an investigation, let alone consider the mosquito as a potential source.

Whether or not the GM mosquito causes harm, there is another problem that the Cayman authorities have surely overlooked. Suppose a girl who is vacationing on the island has a sudden onset of a serious health issue without an apparent cause. And suppose that her parents notice that she has also been bitten by mosquitoes. Now suppose that they draw the conclusion, correctly or incorrectly, that her condition is caused by the bite of a GM mosquito and that story is picked up by the media.

It doesn’t have to be a prominent media source for it to inspire some supermarket tabloid to dream up alarming headlines about the serious threat to American tourists by deadly engineered mosquitoes. The results could be disastrous for Cayman tourism.

The Cayman government is not only gambling that GM mosquitoes are safe (which cannot be guaranteed at this point), but also that no one draws the conclusion that they got harmed from being bitten by one. Who would want to vacation on an island where a mosquito bite could lead to who knows what?

It’s the who-knows-what that is the main point here. No one knows. But now that we understand that the generic genetic engineering process that created the mosquito also creates unpredictable and potentially dangerous changes, who in their right mind would release them? Oxitec would, obviously. And they still haven’t published any research on the composition of their GM mosquito saliva.

Oxitec is also planning to release genetically engineered moths in upstate New York. The male moths, like the mosquitoes, mate with natural females and produce larvae that don’t make it to maturity. But that larvae will inevitably be deposited into cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli. What if the genetic engineering process alters the larvae and creates a toxin or allergen? Eating that vegetable might trigger a reaction. And just like the mosquito bite, it would be hard to trace, and the perception of harm (real or unreal) could damage produce sales from regions near the moths’ release.

Oxitec is owned by Intrexon, which also owns AquaBounty—the maker of GM salmon. The research on the salmon did show indications of off-target effects, with higher amounts of a cancer promoting hormone (IGF-1) and larger allergenic potential. But the number of fish used in the study was so small that the changes were not statistically significant. On behalf of Consumers Union, Hansen wrote to the FDA, “Because FDA’s assessment is inadequate, we are particularly concerned that this salmon may pose an increased risk of severe, even life-threatening allergic reactions to sensitive individuals. Instead of approving this product, FDA should be requiring studies with data from many more engineered fish, not the tiny sample of six fish on which it currently bases its conclusions. Unfortunately, even the data from those six fish raises concerns.” The FDA did not heed Hansen’s warning and instead approved the salmon for consumption.

At this point, there are no comprehensive analyses or feeding studies on any of these Intrexon GMOs. Their release might not only affect human health, they can permanently alter the gene pool. If the salmon escape confinement into the ocean, if the surviving GM mosquitoes or moths persist, there is no technology on earth to recall them. Any side effect can be with us for generations.

Although GMO companies like to argue that GMOs with built-in sterility will not persist in the environment. Given the fact that a percentage can survive, however, their argument is deceptive. In addition, studies confirm that after several generations, genetically engineered traits in insects can fail. A recent study, for example, showed that newly introduced traits in engineered mosquitoes failed in just 25 generations.

Intrexon can’t pretend it doesn’t know about the dangers and problems with genetic engineering technology, both real and perceived. Robert Shapiro has been on their board since 2011. He was the CEO of Monsanto who arranged to fast track the release of GMOs into the food supply. Monsanto inserted the company’s attorney into the FDA, where he pioneered the policy that allows GMOs onto the market without a single adequate safety study. Since then, numerous studies have pointed to serious health impacts, all of which are ignored or attacked.

Many of us who study the research on GMOs are convinced that they contribute to rising disease rates in the US. But even if we’re wrong, no one can pretend that the GMOs have been safe for the economy. All over the world and especially in the US, consumer rejection of GMOs has exacted a heavy economic toll on food companies and agribusiness.

But even if the regulators in the Cayman Islands and Prince Edward Island are ignoring the trends, others are wising up. According to Friends of the Earth, “more than 79 grocery retailers with more than 11,000 stores have now made commitments to not sell the GMO salmon,” if it gets introduced into the market. Major brands are already racing to eliminate derivatives of GM crops, even advertising on TV that their products are non-GMO. And many countries and regions that had considered Oxitec’s GM mosquitoes have said no and are opting for safer alternatives. And as long new studies continue to demonstrate serious unpredicted side-effects from genetic engineering, more consumers will take the necessary precautions.

The leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices, Jeffrey Smith’s meticulous research documents how biotech companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put the health of society at risk and the environment in peril. His work expertly summarizes why the safety assessments conducted by the FDA and regulators worldwide teeter on a foundation of outdated science and false assumptions, and why genetically engineered foods must urgently become our nation’s top food safety priority. Mr. Smith’s feature-length documentary Genetic Roulette — The Gamble of Our Lives was awarded the 2012 Movie of the Year (Solari Report) and the Transformational Film of the Year (AwareGuide).

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.