Details

Created on Wednesday, 03 October 2018 21:45

It's October 1, and like clockwork, the government and media are coming on strong, encouraging everyone to get a flu shot, and I find it surreal. They have absolutely no idea how effective it is, and worse: they don’t know if it is effective at all.

You would think that they would test it. Say, assemble two groups of 1000 people, striving to make them comparable, to eliminate variables and differences other than the flu shot. Then, compare outcomes: what percent of each group comes down with the flu. 

Be aware that they know very well that the vaccine is not 100% effective. Each and every year, there are people who get the flu shot and also get the flu. They have a term for it: vaccine failure.

So, the question is: how does the incidence of flu among those vaccinated compare to the incidence among those unvaccinated?

You’d expect the vaccinated to do better, right?  But, it has never been tested. They refuse to do it.

They refuse because they say it would be unethical- since everyone needs it. But then, when you suggest comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated-by-choice, they make up excuses why they can’t do that either. They say it’s apples and oranges, but that’s ridiculous. Only about 40% of adults get the flu shot, so among the 60% who don’t, I’m sure they could find a suitable control group.

But then they say that since the control group would be unvaccinated, and knowingly unvaccinated, that the test would lack “placebo control.” That’s true, but the placebo factor is probably miniscule when it comes to flu. There are some conditions, for instance, depression, where the placebo effect is powerful. If a person thinks she is taking something that can make her feel better, she’s likely to start feeling better. The same goes for sleeping pills. If you think a pill is going to help you sleep, it may ease your anxiety about not sleeping, and hence, you sleep better. And, it is well established that placebos even make pain more tolerable.   

But, with the flu. I don’t see how a person thinking he’s been protected will have any effect on whether or not he gets the flu. So, the placebo effect should hardly matter at all here. 

And, if there is a beneficial placebo effect from vaccine, then it is going to improve results for those vaccinated. It’s not going to improve results for those who got nothing.  So, if the results of the test are going to get skewed, it will be in favor of the vaccinated. So, it can only make the vaccine look more effective than it is.  

So, there really is no valid excuse for not testing the flu vaccine and finding out exactly how well it works.

And, I would also like to see long-term studies to see how people who take the flu shot annually fare compared to those who don’t, in terms of longevity, cancer incidence, dementia incidence, and more. What we really need is a comprehensive, longitudinal study of health outcomes from taking annual flu shots.  

But, that kind of study is extremely expensive because it goes on for so long, and there might not be money to do it.  But, the first one, in which flu incidence is compared over one flu season, would not expensive, and it could easily be done. And, there is no excuse for not doing it.

But, they don’t do it. They have never done it. And, they never will to do it.  And that’s because they can’t risk blowing up the whole scam.  If the unvaccinated group did better OR if both groups did the same (showing no effect at all) OR if the vaccinated group did better but only slightly better- any of those outcomes would be disastrous for the flu vaccine industry.  Without a hell of a lot of protection shown, something night and day, you really couldn’t justify doing it.

According to WebMD, 5 to 20% of Americans get the flu each year. So, let’s average that to 12.5%, which would be 1 in 8.  Well, if vaccinated people had an incidence of 10% and unvaccinated had an incidence of 15%, would it be worth it to get the shot? If you got the shot, you’d have a 1 in 10 of getting the flu. If you didn't, you'd have a 1 in 7 chance. Would it be worth it to risk the known and potential adverse effects of the flu shot for that? I certainly don’t think so.

So, the flu vaccine would have to win, and win big to be justified. But, they know very well that in any given year, there is no guarantee of it and not even a likelihood of it.

Plenty of times, they have been forced to admit that the flu vaccine didn’t work very well in a particular year because the “committee” chose the wrong strains. After all, all they can do is take their best guess. But, why should I put any stock in their guesses?  

Here is what we know: We know that the flu vaccine is never completely effective, that there are vaccine failures each and every year.  Therefore, you can’t be sure of not getting the flu by getting a flu shot.  And second, there is no reliable information on how effective it is at reducing risk or if it is effective at all.  

And what about the risk of harm from the flu shot? On the CDC website, it states that if you think you have been injured by the flu shot, you may be able to receive compensation from the federal government.  So, drug companies make flu vaccine, for profit, and if it harms people, it’s the taxpayers who have to foot the bill and compensate the victims.

About 40%, of U.S. adults get the flu vaccine, but close to 60% of children get it.  Why is it higher for children? It’s probably because schools and pediatricians push it so hard.  And it really bothers me about the pediatricians because: what the hell do they know? All they know are the platitudes; the talking points. They certainly don’t know that they are providing something that is safe and effective.  They are just falling in line and being good little dispensers. 

It's a matter of faith for them, the doctors, just as it is for the public. And don’t think for a second that every M.D. believes in flu shots. There is a female M.D. not far from me who tells her patients that if they want a flu shot, they will have to go elsewhere. She doesn’t take the flu shot, and she doesn’t give it.  

And there are other doctors like her, although you wouldn’t know it from watching tv.  From the media, you would think that every M.D. in the country is gung-ho about flu shots and subjects himself and his family to them.

The bottom line is that the flu shot contains heavy metals such as mercury as a preservative, aluminum salts, formaldehyde, viral proteins, chicken egg proteins, gelatin, antibiotics, and other highly allergenic substances.  To take an injection of it on nothing more than the theoretical hope that it will lower your risk of getting the flu an unspecified and undetermined amount is a very bad gamble, and if you take it, you should stay away from race tracks and betting halls. 

 October: it’s Flu Shot time. Are you going to get one?

Already, the government and media are coming on strong, encouraging everyone to get a flu shot, and I find it surreal. They have absolutely no idea how effective it is, and worse: they don’t know if it is effective at all.

You would think that they would test it. Say, assemble two groups of 1000 people, striving to make them comparable, to eliminate variables other than the flu shot. Then, compare outcomes: what percent of each group comes down with the flu. 

Be aware that they know very well that the vaccine is not 100% effective. Each and every year, there are people who get the flu shot and also get the flu. They have a term for it: vaccine failure.

So, the question is: how does the incidence of flu among those vaccinated compare to the incidence among those unvaccinated?

You’d expect the vaccinated to do better, right?  But, it has never been tested. They refuse to do it.

They refuse because they say it would unethical- since everyone needs it. But then, when you suggest comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated-by-choice, they make up excuses why they can’t do that either. They say it’s apples and oranges, but that’s ridiculous. Only about 40% of adults get the flu shot, so among the 60% who don’t, I’m sure they could find a suitable control group.

But then they say that since the control group would be unvaccinated, and knowingly unvaccinated, that the test would lack “placebo control.” That’s true, but the placebo factor is probably miniscule when it comes to flu. There are some conditions, for instance, depression, where the placebo effect is powerful. If a person thinks she is taking something that can make her feel better, she’s likely to start feeling better. The same goes for sleeping pills. If you think a pill is going to help you sleep, it may ease your anxiety about not sleeping, and hence, you fall asleep. 

But, with the flu. I don’t see how a person thinking he’s been protected will have any effect on whether or not he gets the flu. So, the placebo effect hardly matters at all here. 

And, if there is a beneficial placebo effect from vaccine, then it is going to improve results for those vaccinated. It’s not going to improve results for those who got nothing.  So, if the results of the test are going to get skewed, it will be in favor of the vaccinated. So, it can only make the vaccine look more effective than it is.  

So, there really is no valid excuse for not testing the flu vaccine and finding out exactly how well it works.

And, I would also like to see long-term studies to see how people who take the flu shot annually fare compared to those who don’t, in terms of longevity, cancer incidence, dementia incidence, and more. What we really need is a comprehensive, longitudinal study of health outcomes from taking annual flu vaccination.  

But, that kind of study is extremely expensive because it goes on for so long, and there might not be money to do it.  But, the first one, in which flu incidence is compared over one flu season, would not expensive, and it could easily be done. And, there is no excuse for not doing it.

But, they don’t do it. They have never done it. And, they never will to do it.  And that’s because they can’t risk blowing up the whole scam.  If the unvaccinated group did better OR if both groups did the same (showing no effect at all) OR if the vaccinated group did better but only slightly better- any of those outcomes would be disastrous for the flu vaccine industry.  Without a substantial benefit, without a lot of protection shown, something night and day, you really couldn’t justify continuing it.

According to WebMD, 5 to 20% of Americans get the flu each year. So, let’s average that to 12.5%, which would be 1 in 8.  Well, if vaccinated people had an incidence of 10% and unvaccinated had an incidence of 15%, would it be worth it to get the shot? If you got the shot, you’d have a 1 in 10 of getting the flu. So, if you were in a group of 100, the risk would be of you being among the 10 who got it. But, without getting the shot, the risk would be of you being among the 15 who got it. So, we’re just talking about avoiding the risk of 5 more out of 100. Would it be worth it to risk the known and potential adverse effects of the flu shot for that? I certainly don’t think so.

 So, the flu vaccine would have to win, and win big to be justified. But, they know very well that in any given year, there is no guarantee of it and not even a likelihood of it.

Plenty of times, they have been forced to admit that the flu vaccine didn’t work very well because the “committee” chose the wrong strains. After all, all they can do is take their best guess. But, why should I put any stock in their guesses?  

Here is what we know: We know that the flu vaccine is never completely effective, that there are vaccine failures each and every year.  Therefore, you can’t be sure of not getting the flu by getting a flu shot.  And second, there is no reliable information on how effective it is at reducing risk or if it is effective at all.  

And what about the risk of harm from the flu shot? On the CDC website, it states that if you think you have been injured by the flu shot, you may be able to receive compensation from the federal government.  So, drug companies make flu vaccine, for profit, and if it harms people, it’s the taxpayers who have to compensate the victims.

About 40%, of U.S. adults get the flu vaccine, but close to 60% of children get it.  Why is it higher for children? It’s probably because schools and pediatricians push it so hard.  And it really bothers me about the pediatricians because: what the hell do they know? All they know are the platitudes; the talking points. They certainly don’t know that they are providing something that is safe and effective.  They are just falling in line and being good little dispensers. 

It's a matter of faith for them, just as it is for the public. And don’t think for a second that every M.D. believes in flu shots. There is a female M.D. not far from me who tells her patients that if they want a flu shot, they will have to go elsewhere. She doesn’t take the flu shot, and she doesn’t give it.  

And there are other doctors like her, although you wouldn’t know it from watching tv.  From the media, you would think that every M.D. in the country is gung-ho about flu shots and subjects himself and his family to them.

The bottom line is that the flu shot contains heavy metals such as mercury as a preservative, aluminum salts, formaldehyde, viral proteins, chicken egg proteins, gelatin, antibiotics, and other highly allergenic substances.  To take an injection of it on nothing more than the theoretical hope that it will lower your risk of getting the flu an unspecified and undetermined amount is an extremely unwise gamble, and if you take that gamble, you need to stay away from race tracks and betting parlors because you are hopelessly inept at distinguishing a good bet from a bad one.