Connect with us

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.

advertisement - learn more

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.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Al Sharpton Cancels NYC ‘Vaccine Forum’ Amid Pressure From Physicians – But It’s Happening Anyway

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Amid pressure from scientists and physicians, Al Sharpton cancels vaccine forum event aimed at educating the public about potential vaccine dangers. But the event is still on in a new location!

  • Reflect On:

    Why such a concerted effort from the establishment to shut down public events aimed at educating people about safety concerns regarding vaccines? If there was nothing to hide, why shut them down so aggressively?

The Rev. Al Sharpton and the National Action Network were set to host a “vaccine forum” on Oct 19th, 2019 in Harlem that would feature speakers focused on raising awareness about vaccine injuries and lack of vaccine safety.

The event was going to take place at National Action Network’s headquarters on 145th Street, and Sharpton was slated to welcome guests, alongside Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is currently suing New York State for removing the option for parents to exercise religious exemptions to vaccines.

After the event was shut down at NAN due to pressure from prominent vaccine supporters, the location was moved to an Assembly Hall at Riverside Church. (More details below.)

Dr. Peter Hotez, who has refused to publicly debate Robert F Kennedy Jr on the matters of vaccine safety, was one of the individuals trying to shut down the event. When speaking of Sharpton he stated:

“His organization should not be hosting this event,” he said. “He should not be appearing at this event. This is an event which is intended to deliberately work towards depriving kids in Harlem of their life-saving vaccines and to make parents question the safety of those vaccines.”

Not all share Hotez’s opinion that vaccines are a safe, one size fits all pharmaceutical. And there is much evidence to support those doubts. Hence why the vaccine awareness movement is rapidly growing, it’s evidence based and that’s becoming more obvious as each day goes by.

advertisement - learn more

If there was no evidence vaccines come with serious dangers, this argument would have died out years ago. Take for example the resurgence of topics like flat earth, it had celebrity backing and was an internet phenomenon, but it died off quickly as there simply is no evidence to support the idea. With vaccines, it’s much different. More and more prominent, credible and credentialed individuals are joining the movement because the evidence continues to mount. Their goal is to assess vaccine safety and stop government from trying to force vaccines on everyone due to pharmaceutical pressures.

Dr. Sean O’Leary with the American Academy of Pediatrics also outspoken about the event:

“Just when we get done with the measles outbreak, actions like this threaten the public’s health by starting another measles outbreak, […] Here, in another part of New York City, we have folks ready to go into a community and spread more misinformation and pseudoscience.”

Again, more misinformed and opinionated statements from individuals that perhaps are simply not attempting to see the truth or who are pressured not to speak the truth. The body of evidence that expresses the lack of vaccine safety is vast. For example, a pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in 39 kids are injured by vaccines in some way, contrary to the estimate put forth by the CDC that suggests 1 in a million are injured –  that’s quite the gap.

It brings up the question, if there is nothing to hide in the actions of pharmaceutical companies, why are they protected by laws from ever being sued for vaccine injuries and harm? Why are public debates on the issue always cancelled? Why does the media work so hard to turn people to question things into ‘antivaxxers?’ Why do we (CE) had our reach limited on Facebook and receive ‘fake news’ strikes every time we report on vaccines? – even when the information is completely fact based…

Because there is something to hide here. If there was nothing to hide, big pharma and their control over congress, government, media, some scientists and doctors would not be working so hard to shut down people who have figured out the truth.

“It is a grave warning sign for American democracy that the pharmaceutical industry is now so powerful that it can silence debate, even in the traditional heart of civil rights activism” – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

If you are in the New York area, you can attend this free public event to understand more about vaccines safety on October 19th,  2019.

Speakers include: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.; Sheila Ealey; John Gilmore; Dr. Phil Valentine; Curtis Cost; Dr. Lawrence Palevsky; Reverend Walter Sotelo; Mary Holland; Gary Null; Mitchel Cohen; and many more.

The event time and location is as follows:

Saturday, October 19th, 1:00-4:0 p.m.
Assembly Hall at Riverside Church
91 Claremont Avenue, New York, NY

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Tulsi Gabbard Just Called Hillary Clinton The “Embodiment Of Corruption” And Much More

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Hillary Clinton just referred to Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian asset in an interview. Tulsi comes back at her on Twitter, exposing the true face of Clinton.

  • Reflect On:

    Is it not important we have more public conversations about the true nature of the politicians we vote for?

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently suggested that she thinks Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, is being “groomed” by Russia to run as a third-party candidate in 2020. Of course, she supplied no evidence of this, but using “Russia” in any sentence in the US is a sure-fire way of striking fear in people about someone.

In an interview with David Plouff, Obama’s former campaign manager, Clinton said:

“They’re also going to do third-party again, “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

Again, step out of part politics for a second, are we really going to pretend this is about parties and not the global elite being upset at someone who’s ruining their show? Think about it, Clinton used Facebook, Google, YouTube and almost every media outlet in the US to manipulate the public into thinking she was a viable candidate. Trump was keen to use social media, and played the role of causing drama, but at least he was transparent about it. Clinton on the other hand, is precisely what Gabbard stated about her in a follow-up Tweet to Clinton’s remarks.

When it comes to the US’ involvement in war, which Gabbard has been rightly critical about, she has also said that Trump “has the blood of the Kurds on his hands” but explained that she holds both parties responsible for supporting what she described as a “regime-change war.” Accurately seeing that this is not about parties but about deep state agendas.

The Takeaway

As we often say in step 1 of The CE Protocol, we have to break the illusion of the world around us. Events like this indicate that there is a greater desire for people to speak up and expose what many people have known for a long time but has never received the attention it deserves. Gabbard in this case is helping the American public see more clearly the true nature of some of the politicians at play and the actions they take.

When we learn to see these actions more clearly we can call into question whether or not our voting processes or systems are truly representative of what people want or whether they are just there to tell a story to the people – one that isn’t true – so money and power can be made and maintained at the elite level.

Needing to have open and public conversations about this type of stuff, moving beyond the mainstream media created celebrity status of various candidates, is important so that people can begin to see the truth – see the person behind the mask. This is partly what people see with Trump, the truth of what politicians look like, act like and where their agendas lie. It’s all laid bare. Whether or not you agree or disagree with it is up to you to decide, because at least now it can be seen clearly. Especially if you avoid mainstream media’s coverage of it.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

This is Not A Movie, It’s October 1st, 2019 In Hong Kong

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Protests in Hong Kong rose to many tense moments over the past few months. This video footage shows clashes between riot police and protesters on Kowloon’s Nathan Road.

  • Reflect On:

    Have people reached a breaking point when it comes to how often they are not heard by governments?

In the video below, what looks like a Hollywood movie is the reality just a couple of weeks ago in Hong Kong. Riot police and protesters have been clashing for months as the streets become filled with hundreds of tear gas canisters and Molotov cocktails. Having covered the G20 summit in Toronto, these scenes appear much more tense than what I saw during those protests, and even those were filled with vandalism, pepper spray, burning cars and rubber bullets.

We’ve covered the Hong Kong protests a couple of times here on CE, including a full segment on CETV here.

There are obviously two perspectives as to what is going on, the Mainland China perspective and that of the Hong Kong protesters who feel Mainland China is acting wrongly. From the perspective of Mainland China, the protests in Hong Kong are fundamentally the result of Western interference and attempts at a ‘soft recolonization’ of Hong Kong. Their arguments have some merit.

From the Hongkongers perspective,  tensions rose after the introduction of an extradition bill that threatened residents’ freedoms. Protesters are demanding Hong Kong’s chief executive Carrie Lam resigns. They are also calling for:

  • The complete withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill
  • The government to withdraw the use of the word “riot” in relation to protests
  • The unconditional release of arrested protesters and charges against them dropped
  • An independent inquiry into police behaviour
  • Implementation of genuine universal suffrage

As with many things people are feeling at the moment, big government has been overreaching for quite some time, and freedoms continue to be cut while quality of life in our fast-paced modern society diminishes. What we must remember when viewing these issues is we can’t singularly look at each one and determine whether it’s right or wrong so easily. People are exposed to ‘hits’ from every direction to their wallets, freedom, health, lifestyle and psyche and our world is reflecting the feeling that ‘enough is enough.’

Since much of the time we aren’t sure what else to do, people fight back, they do what they think will lead them to being heard and having a solution brought forth. is this the best way forward? Perhaps not, but when it becomes clear to people that their governments and the voting process do not work in their benefit nor favor, this is sometimes what they revert to.

advertisement - learn more

Video credit: Tom Grundy/HKFP

More at http://www.hongkongfp.com – Hong Kong’s only not-for-profit, independent English-language news source.

H/T: Twisted Sifter

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Get breaking conscious news articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!