Government health experts tell us the flu vaccine protects the very young and the very old, the groups most likely to suffer serious respiratory complications from the flu. And they say it’s important everyone get the flu vaccine because it will further protect these vulnerable segments of the population.
But there are several flaws in that line of thinking.
First, if the flu vaccine really works, then a non-vaccinated person should not pose a threat to anyone–young or old–who does get the vaccine. That’s just elementary logic, right? If it really works, it will protect them.
But, of course, it doesn’t really work.
In fact, evidence clearly shows the flu vaccine is a dismal failure. Especially among the very old. This year’s annual flu vaccine, for example, is completely worthless. It doesn’t even cover half of the flu viruses in circulation this season. But even in a year when the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) does “get it right,” the vaccine doesn’t protect the elderly against serious influenza complications.
So, what about the vaccine’s effect on young children?
Well, the U.S. government refuses to perform any actual study comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated children. So we have no U.S. scientific data on the question.
They say it would be “unethical” to “deprive” any children of the vaccine. But no medical practice can ever be ethical if it’s not scientifically valid in the first place. It’s a good thing we have all those full-time, non-physician bioethicists guiding the government and the academic medical research complex. Maybe they should all go back to Bioethics 101.
Fortunately, in 2012, scientists in Hong Kong did conduct a scientific test of vaccination on children. It’s probably one of the few–if not the only–true scientific study on the effectiveness of flu vaccines in children conducted in recent years. And it revealed the absurdity of vaccination “science.”
The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the kind designed to study drugs. Of course, mainstream medical researchers insist upon using this methodology to assess natural therapies too. Even when it’s completely inadequate and inappropriate. But in this case, the design is perfect for demonstrating the effectiveness of a vaccine–or lack thereof, as it turned out.
Researchers divided the children into two groups. The first group received the trivalent flu vaccine (meaning the vaccine contained three strains of influenza circulating that season). The second group received a salt solution, a genuinely inactive treatment, as the placebo. (Curiously, most vaccine trials use active placebos, or substances found in the vaccines. This practice makes the results meaningless. Although, this fact is almost never revealed.)
Then, they followed the children for about nine months. At the end of the trial period, the researchers said they found no “statistically significant” difference in the risk of influenza infection between the two groups. In other words, they said they found no benefit from the vaccine.
But when you look at the actual numbers, as I did, it’s a different story.
In fact, 116 children in the vaccinated group caught the flu. But only 88 children in the placebo group got it. In other words, nearly 25 percent more children who received the flu vaccine got the flu compared to children who didn’t get the vaccine. I would hardly call that difference “insignificant.”
And here’s another interesting point…
The vaccinated children had evidence in their blood of antibodies against the flu, as you would expect when you inject a vaccine. The authors suggested that the presence of these antibodies provided benefits to the children. But if the children still had the same (or greater) risk of actually getting the flu, then what difference did it make?
Clearly, the vaccine didn’t protect the children from getting sick in other ways either. In fact, the vaccinated group ended up getting almost six times more respiratory infections. To be more specific, the vaccinated group experienced 230 cases of rhinovirus (common cold). But the non-vaccinated placebo group experienced only 59 cases. That’s 75 percent fewer cases!
Furthermore, there were 160 cases of Coxsackie/Echovirus in the vaccinated group. And zero cases in the non-vaccinated placebo group. Among other respiratory viruses, there were 97 in the vaccinated and only 88 in the placebo.
Of course, the common cold is not a life-threatening illness. And Coxsackie and Echovirus usually just cause minor respiratory symptoms. (Although they both can also cause hepatitis, heart disorders, meningitis, and paralysis). But these infections certainly aren’t enjoyable for children–or their parents. And they often lead to parents administering dangerous medications, like acetaminophen, to alleviate their child’s symptoms. So why increase a child’s chances of coming down with one of these “harmless” viruses? And if viruses are harmless, then why vaccinate in the first place?
In their report, the authors concluded that the trivalent influenza vaccine “could increase influenza immunity.” (Although their results show it did not reduce actual flu cases!) Plus, it clearly reduced the children’s immunity against non-influenza respiratory viruses. They blamed this “unusual” finding of increased risk on some “unknown” biological mechanism.
It’s hardly unknown. In fact, as I’ve said many times, vaccines interfere with normal immune system responses and can interfere with the ability to fight other infections. And we’ve known about this phenomenon in virology for more than half a century.
On the contrary, this study gives us many “known” conclusions.
First, influenza vaccines provide no benefit.
Second, they carry a huge risk of other respiratory illnesses.
And third, they likely harm the normal immune response.
But the facts are up against the alphabet soup of CDC, FDA and NIH, as well as WHO.
Henri Pasteur, a true pioneer of effective vaccination, would be rolling over in his grave at the current state of affairs. Or, perhaps shouting, “Sacre bleu.”
1. “Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine,” Clinical Infectious Disease, 2012; 54(12):1778-1783