THE STRESS RELIEF CENTER

Subtitle

CDC Admits Flu Vaccine’s Ineffectiveness

 Untold thousands of people from nearly all 50 U.S. states have continued to flood hospital emergency rooms in recent weeks due to widespread outbreaks of flu-like symptoms. And because many of these people have already been vaccinated for the flu this season, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is basically having to admit that the flu shot is not nearly as effective as we have all been told it is — but be sure to get it anyway (they continually say).

As reported by CBS News, the most recent statistics show that at least 24 states and New York City are experiencing “high activity of influenza-like illness,” and another 16 states are reporting moderate activity, despite the warmer-than-normal winter in many places throughout the country. And since it is so early into the so-called “flu season,” officials are scrambling to make sense of the situation, especially as it is becoming painfully obvious that flu shots simply do not work.

Even though about 65 percent of adults 65 years of age and older get a flu shot every year, this age group continues to be the most hard hit by influenza. Even children are falling victim to the flu, as more than 20 children from across the U.S., according to FOX News, have died in recent weeks due to flu complications. As reported by various news sources, many of these children and others had been vaccinated for the flu, illustrating its ineffectiveness.

“[T]hese early [vaccine effectiveness] estimates underscore that some vaccinated persons will become infected with influenza,” admitted CDC researchers in a new study published in the journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. This same report admits that flu vaccines are also only about 60 percent effective at preventing the flu, based on infection rates in recent years.

Flu vaccine is actually less than two percent effective, based on the figures

But as we reported back in 2011, the data the CDC is using to claim even a 60 percent effectiveness rate for the flu shot is largely misinterpreted. Only about 2.7 in 100 adults gets the flu every year on average, according to the Lancet published meta-analyses that the CDC is referring to with its 60 percent effectiveness claim. But when you introduce vaccines into the picture, that number only drops by 1.5 percent.

In other words, flu vaccines have an effectiveness rate of only about 1.5 percent, according to the Lancet study that health authorities now routinely use to claim that flu vaccines are effective. When you take into account possible margins of error and other discrepancies, the true effectiveness of the flu shot is negligible, based on all available data.

What this means, of course, is that the CDC and various other major mouthpieces for public health are struggling to maintain the flu vaccine lie, as no matter how many people get the flu shot, flu outbreaks only continue to intensify. If anything, this shows that widespread malnutrition, lack of vitamin D, and toxic environments, and not a lack of flu shots, is to blame for the current flu epidemic.

 

Natural News tests flu vaccine for heavy metals

(NaturalNews) Mercury tests conducted on vaccines at the Natural News Forensic Food Lab have revealed a shockingly high level of toxic mercury in an influenza vaccine (flu shot) made by GlaxoSmithKline (lot #9H2GX). Tests conducted via ICP-MS document mercury in the Flulaval vaccine at a shocking 51 parts per million, or over 25,000 times higher than the maximum contaminant level of inorganic mercury in drinking water set by the EPA.(1)

The tests were conducted via ICP-MS using a 4-point mercury calibration curve for accuracy. Even then, the extremely high level of mercury found in this flu shot was higher than anything we've ever tested, including tuna and ocean fish which are known for high mercury contamination.

In fact, the concentration of mercury found in this GSK flu shot was 100 times higher than the highest level of mercury we've ever tested in contaminated fish. And yet vaccines are injected directly into the body, making them many times more toxic than anything ingested orally. As my previous research into foods has already documented, mercury consumed orally is easily blocked by eating common foods like strawberries or peanut butter, both of which bind with and capture about 90% of dietary mercury.

 
Here are the actual results of what we found in the influenza vaccine from GSK (lot #9H2GX):

Aluminum: 0.4 ppm
Arsenic: zero
Cadmium: zero
Lead: zero
Mercury: 51 ppm

All tests were conducted via calibrated, high-end ICP-MS instrumentation as shown in these lab videos.

 

Doctors, pharmacists and mainstream media continue to lie about mercury in vaccines

As you take in the scientifically-validated fact that mercury exists at very high concentrations in flu vaccines, keep in mind that most doctors, pharmacists and members of the mainstream media continue to stage an elaborate lie that claims mercury has "already been removed from vaccines."

Never mind the fact that the use of mercury is admitted right on the package containing the vaccine vial. And now, Natural News has scientifically confirmed the mercury content of flu vaccines using high-end laboratory instrumentation. The existence of high mercury in flu shots is irrefutable.

Anyone who claims mercury has been removed from all vaccines is either wildly ignorant or willfully lying. And anyone who would knowingly allow themselves to be injected with mercury is probably already a victim of the kind of brain damage well known to be caused by mercury.

 

Insert admits "no controlled trials"

Shockingly, the package insert for this flu shot readily admits the vaccine has never been subjected to scientific clinical trials:

"There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with Flulaval," the package insert claims in tiny text (that no one reads).

This is printed right on the insert, yet no one in the mainstream media will ever report this astonishing admission. This statement, all by itself, is a confession that flu shot marketing is a fraud.

Across the board, flu shots are heavily propagandized and promoted with the implication that they have zero risks while offering 100% protection. No one in the mainstream media ever questions this claim even though the package insert openly admits the claim is complete hokum and has never been subjected to scientific scrutiny.


No evidence of safety or effectiveness in pregnant women

But that's not all the insert admits. It also says:

"Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children."

And yet everywhere you go in America, there's a Walgreens, CVS or Wal-Mart pharmacy promoting flu shots for pregnant women. Never mind the fact that flu shot safety has never been established in pregnant women, and never mind the obvious fact that you should never inject a pregnant women with mercury in the first place!

Who needs scientific proof when you've got the full propaganda of the media and the government to back you up? Anyone who dares question the scientific validity of flu shot safety for pregnant women is immediately attacked as being an opponent of all vaccines.

Apparently, the only requirement to be accepted by the vaccine community is to believe in medical fairy tales while abandoning all critical thinking and scientific skepticism. In the vaccine industry, genuine science is simply not allowed. No wonder two former Merck virologists filed a False Claims Act with the federal government, accusing the company of knowingly fabricating its vaccine efficacy data to trick the FDA.


Never proven safe or effective in children, either

Flu shots are heavily promoted for children, right alongside mumps and measles vaccines. But it turns out flu shots are never scientifically tested for safety or efficacy in children.

Check out what the insert for this vaccine directly admits:

"Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval in pediatric patients have not been established."

It's right there in black and white... an open admission. Yet flu shots are aggressively marketed to parents and children as if they were Tic-Tacs. The real beauty of the entire vaccine industry scam is that no scientific evidence is required! You don't have to have any proof, all you have to do is believe in vaccines as a matter of faith.


Never tested for cancer risk

Do flu shots cause cancer? The honest, scientific answer is that these shots are never tested for that. As the insert readily admits:

"Flulaval has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility."

Believe it or not, the Flulaval vaccine also warns that no one should be given this shot if they've already received another flu shot at some previous time:

"Do not administer Flulaval to anyone... following previous administration of any influenza vaccine."

And yet, amazingly, people are encouraged to get flu shots year after year, even though the package insert directly warns against anyone taking a series of influenza vaccines.


Admission that flu shots contain formaldehyde and sodium deoxycholate

The same insert that admits this vaccine has never been proven safe in children or pregnant women also openly admits that it contains neurotoxic chemicals.

Per the insert, each dose of Flulaval contains up to 25 mcg of formaldehyde (a neurotoxin) and up to 50 mcg of sodium deoxycholate.

This is on top of the 25 mcg of mercury you'll get in every dose. And remember, this is mercury that's injected directly into your body, so you absorb 100% of this mercury (unlike mercury you eat, where most of it sticks to food fibers and is transported out of your body).


Total admission that flu shots cause seizures, convulsions and Guillian-Barre syndrome

Ever wonder what all these toxic chemicals and heavy metals cause in humans? Flu shots vaccines, it turns out, are already known to cause a huge number of devastating health effects.

Predictably, there is a massive disinfo campaign across the mainstream media, Wikipedia, medical journals and government propaganda agencies (CDC, FDA, etc.) to pretend that flu shots have no risks whatsoever. Yet the insert that comes with the vaccine openly admits the flu shot has been linked with a long, frightening list of serious adverse effects. As this Flulaval insert says (see photo below):

"In addition to reports in clinical trials, the following adverse events have been identified during postapproval use of Flulaval...

vomiting
chest pain
allergic edema of the mouth
anaphylaxis
laryngitis
cullulitis
muscle weakness
arthritis
dizziness
paresthesia
tremor
somnolence
Guillian-Barre syndrome
convulsions / seizures
facial or cranial nerve paralysis
encephalopathy
limb paralysis
insomnia
dyspnea
sweating"



Here's a photo of this section of the package insert, complete with the GlaxoSmithKline toll-free phone number:





If you take flu shots, you are being poisoned by quacks

The upshot of all this is that flu shots utterly lack any scientific evidence of safety of efficacy. We don't know if they work at all, in other words, and neither does the vaccine manufacturer. Neither do the doctors or medical staff who administer them. Flu vaccines are injected into people purely as a matter of blind faith in the very same companies that have already been convicted of felony crimes.

GlaxoSmithKline, for example, not only manufacturers this Flulaval vaccine... the company also committed multiple felony crimes and got caught bribing doctors, ultimately agreeing to pay a multi-billion-dollar criminal settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Trusting a flu shot made by a corporation of felons is a lot like trusting the purity of heroin you buy from a street dealer. Both flu shots and street heroin have at least one thing in common, by the way: neither has ever been tested for safety.

We also know that flu shots contain neurotoxic chemicals and heavy metals in alarming concentrations. This is irrefutable scientific fact. We also know that there is no "safe" form of mercury just like there is no safe form of heroin -- all forms of mercury are highly toxic when injected into the body (ethyl, methyl, organic, inorganic).

The only people who argue with this are those who are already mercury poisoned and thus incapable of rational thought. Mercury damages brain function, you see, which is exactly what causes some people to be tricked into thinking vaccines are safe and effective.

Technically, you'd have to be stupid to believe such a thing, as the vaccine insert directly tells you precisely the opposite.



Share this story, spread the truth

Share this story with everyone who needs to know the truth about flu vaccines. This message needs to get out. Every fact stated in this article is 100% true and verified. The quotes from the Flulaval package insert are on-the-record statements from GlaxoSmithKline.

And for the record, I am not an opponent of the theory of vaccination. What I'm against is the continued use of toxic heavy metals and chemicals in vaccines. I'm also opposed to the wildly fraudulent marketing of vaccines. If any other product were marketed with the same lies and deceptions as vaccines, they would be immediately charged with fraud and misrepresentation by the FTC. But somehow when the vaccine industry commits routine fraud, everybody pretends it isn't happening.

Even with all the marketing fraud taking place, if the vaccine manufacturers would stop poisoning the population with vaccine additives (by removing mercury, formaldehyde and other chemicals from their products), nearly all opposition to vaccines would rapidly disappear.

Sources for this story include:
(1) http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basi...
(2) http://vaccines.naturalnews.com

 

 


 

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, March 20, 2012

 Health Authorities Now Admit Severe Side Effects of Vaccination

 Swine Flu, Pandemrix and Narcolepsy

 by Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D.

(OMNS, March 20, 2012) The swine flu pandemic of 2009 was caused by a type A influenza (H1N1) virus. This virus was originally referred to as "swine flu" because many of the genes of this new virus were very similar to influenza viruses that normally occur in pigs in North America. The H1N1 virus is genetically similar to the 1918 pandemic virus, as determined from victimes of the latter who were buried, and later disinterred, in Svalbard. It was responsible for most of the outbreaks up until 1956 and then disappeared.

However, this new virus was actually quite different from the typical swine flu viruses. This virus first caused illness in Mexico and the United States in March and April, 2009. This novel H1N1 flu spread from person to person, unlike typical swine flu. In 2009 vaccines were being developed for the prevention of swine flu in humans. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=99584

On 11 June 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the swine flu had developed into a full scale world epidemic - a pandemic alert to Phase 6. Margaret Chan, the Director-General of WHO, commented on the situation in a somewhat ambiguous way. While stressing that the swine flu had reached a serious pandemic level, she declared later in the same statement that the illness seemed to be mild and that most of the patients would recover without medical intervention. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pandemic_phase6_20090611/en/index.html

The world chose to listen to the first part of her message.

Two pharmaceutical companies GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Novartis had, under considerable time pressure, developed a vaccine against the swine flu. Since the cultivation of an adequate amount of virus to generate the vaccine requires time, GSK and Novartis decided to formulate a weaker vaccine but strenghten it with an adjuvant that contains squalene. Immunologic adjuvants are substances, administered in conjunction with a vaccine, that stimulate the immune system and increase the response to the vaccine http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/adjuvants/squalene/questions_and_answers/en/. Although squalene is a natural substance found in methabolic pathways of the body, its inclusion in a vaccine is controversial and it is not in use in the USA.

On 25 September 2009, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) approved Pandemrix, the swine flu vaccine produced by GSK and Focetria produced by Novartis. http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2009/09/eu-approves-gsk-pandemrix-and-novartis.html The vaccine would be ready for use that October.

In Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland, the authorities explicitly set the goal of vaccinating the entire population http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/massvaccinering-raddade-sex-liv_6851143.svd. In this respect, it is of interest that the governments of these countries, already before the outbreak of the swine flu, had concluded an agreement with GSK, according to which they were assured the delivery of pandemic vaccines, if needed. In addition, the contract stipulated that, in a situation characterized as a pandemic by the WHO, the same Nordic countries would have ten days to decide whether or not to accept delivery of the vaccine in question. Hence, the purpose of the agreement was to assure that the entire populations of these countries would receive vaccinations. Finally, the contract protected GSK from any claim for financial compensation in case the delivered vaccine would have any side effects.

When WHO declared the swine flu to be a Phase 6 pandemic, the agreement referred to above was automatically activated.

Mass vaccination started in Finland and Sweden in October 2009. In order to cover the largest possible percentage of the population, the authorities initiated an enormous public relations campaign, which could be described in terms of a "moral persuasion." Solidarity became the slogan: "Be vaccinated to protect your fellow citizens." Those who questioned the vaccination program (small groups of vaccine opponents or just people who were hesitant) were looked upon with disapproval.

In contrast to these vaccine - enthusiastic countries, the politics of vaccination within the rest of the European Union varied immensely among its member states. Poland, for example, decided not to buy vaccines at all due to the strict agreement conditions required by the pharmaceutical companies. Denmark's order covered only "risk groups". http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svd-granskar-sveriges-vaccinering-mot-svininfluensan_6843475.svd

The expected second wave of the influenza never appeared. The epidemic gradually declined during the first half of 2010. The same year, on 10 August, WHO officially declared the end of the epidemic. The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) stated that the swine flu was less dangerous and had a lower mortality rate than the seasonal influenza. Thus, apparently the swine flu would not have been a dangerous epidemic even without the mass vaccination. Interestingly, also that same year, vitamin D was shown to prevent influenza in children. (1)

In Sweden, 60% of the population had been vaccinated, while in Finland 50% was covered. In contrast, the figures in Germany and Poland were only 8 and 0% respectively. In the history of Swedish health care this pandemic campaign amounted to one of the most expensive ever. Enormous amounts of taxpayer money were at stake. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svd-granskar-sveriges-vaccinering-mot-svininfluensan_6843475.svd

Meanwhile, the media had become silent on this issue ; there was no further discussion about the swine flu anymore.

Then the blow came:

"The absolutely worst thing that could happen," commented Richard Bergström, the Director - General of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, EFPIA. "The worst nightmare of both the industry and the health authorities is an illness that turns out to be mild, while the vaccine that was supposed to prevent a dangerous epidemic causes a severe side effect that was previously unknown." http://www.kostdemokrati.se/nyheter/files/2012/02/SvD-sid-14-19.pdf

In August 2010, Finland reported an increased occurrence of narcolepsy in children and youngsters vaccinated with Pandemrix. On 1 September 2010, Finland stopped all Pandemrix vaccinations. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/10/swine-flu-vaccine-may-have-caused-narcolepsy.aspx

Narcolepsy is a severe chronic neurologic disease that not only results in a disabling fatigue, which typically results in the patient falling asleep anywhere and at any time. It might also lead to panic attacks and a state of exhaustion. For many, the worst consequences are the symptoms of cataplexy. This condition causes the narcolepsy patient, when expressing strong feelings such as laughter or crying, to suddenly lose muscular control. The legs give way, speech gets slurred, the gaze goes unfocused and the person gives the impression of being drunk. In some patients, frightening hallucinations appear when falling asleep or waking up.

On 1 September 2011, the Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) admitted, that for Finnish children and youngsters age 4-19, there was a new and obvious connection between Pandemrix and narcolepsy. As stated in THL's press release, "The increased risk associated with vaccination amounted to six cases of narcolepsy per 100,000 persons vaccinated in the 4-19 age group during the eight months following vaccination. This was 12.7 times the risk of a person in the same age group who had not been vaccinated." http://www.thl.fi/en_US/web/en/pressrelease?id=26352 This statement was made almost exactly two years after the THL's earlier statement made in the midst of the swine flu hysteria that everyone should be vaccinated with Pandemrix and that it would be safe. In that original statement, the director of the THL emphasized that the squalene adjuvant could increase the side effects of the vaccine to some extent. However, he stated, these side effects would not be dangerous. http://www.tohtori.fi/?page=5833192&id=0169960

In Sweden, at least 150 children are now suffering from narcolepsy caused by Pandemrix vaccine. In Finland, the number is approximately 100. In both countries the number is probably growing. Narcolepsy is a disease with lifetime consequences, and the risk that Pandremix may have caused other neurological illnesses has not yet been excluded. Many have already began to compare this tragedy with the thalidomide catastrophe. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/medicinsk-tragedi-med-ett-absurt-slut_6861775.svd

No European countries had a particularly high rate of deaths due to the swine flue. Germany had the same death rate as Sweden, which was 0.31/100 000, although Sweden vaccinated 60% and Germany only 8%. This implies that the vaccine did little to prevent deaths. The responsible authorities have not yet commented on this matter of fact. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/massvaccinering-raddade-sex-liv_6851143.svd

Last year the Finnish government promised full compensation for those who have developed narcolepsy as a consequence of the vaccination. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-05/finnish-government-to-compensate-pandemrix-narcolepsy-victims.html. While Sweden did, indeed, follow the Finnish THL in admitting the connection between the vaccine and the disease, the Swedish authorities have not yet decided whether and how to provide appropriate compensation.

In February 2012, Svenska Dagbladet, a widely read newspaper in Sweden, presented an informative and accurate series of articles on this theme. They describe some of the affected children narrating how difficult it is to live with narcolepsy http://www.svd.se/nyheter/multimedia/artikel_6840743.svd

According to the authorities, much research is still underway concerning the details of the vaccine injury. Taking the pressure from the public and the affected families into account, it will be difficult for them to avoid carrying out a thorough investigation. Let's hope so.

References:

1. Urashima M, Segawa T, Okazaki M, Kurihara M, Wada Y, Ida H. Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1255-60.

Educate Before You Vaccinate!

 Educate Before You Vaccinate!  Have You Done So At All Before You Stick Your Arm Out For That Free Flu Shot?
What Do You Get For Free In This World?

 

 Shock Vaccine Study Reveals Influenza Vaccines Only Prevent The Flu In 1.5 Out Of 100 Adults

Not 60% as you’ve been told

Mike Adams
Natural News

Thursday, October 27, 2011

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that “flu vaccines are 60% effective!”
This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn’t even bother to read the study itself (as usual).

NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these “scientific” studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.

The “60% effectiveness” claim is a total lie – here’s why

What we found is that the “60% effectiveness” claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that “60% effectiveness” means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won’t get the flu!

Thus, the “60% effectiveness” claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.

This is utterly false.

In reality — and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, “Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis” — only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!

See the abstract at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l…

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots

Let’s start with the actual numbers from the study.

The “control group” of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.

The “treatment group” consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.

So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly “scientific” conclusion from this is rather astonishing:

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!

Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…)

In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines “don’t work on 99 out of 100 people.” Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).

So where does the media get “60% effective?”

This is called “massaging the numbers,” and it’s an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.

First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.

You can then say that 0.43 is “43% of 2.73,” and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a “57% decrease” in influenza infections. This then becomes a “57% effectiveness rate” claim.

The overall “60% effectiveness” being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.

So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are “60% effective,” what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.

Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.

But you’ve probably already noticed that the mainstream media won’t dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are “60% effective,” whatever that means.

How to lie with statistics

This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these “relative numbers” are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.

You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is “50% effective at preventing breast cancer!”

But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.

But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a “50% breast cancer prevention rate!” And most consumers will buy into this because they don’t understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, “Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!”

And yet that’s utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies

At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don’t), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.

In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let’s suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:

“This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!”

You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality — scientifically speaking — you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)

How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?

Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don’t tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!

It’s very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines “work” better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer’s. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.

So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)

Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).

Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may “shrink tumors” in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as “cancer survivors” are, for the most part, actually “chemo survivors.”

Good news for children?

If there’s any “good news” in this study, it’s that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.

So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).

Guess who funded this study?

This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.

For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. (http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)

The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called “Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine,” (http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/a…) which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.vppartners.org/sites/def…).

Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet study

Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:

Problem #1) The “control” group was often given a vaccine, too

In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the “control” groups were given so-called “insert” vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The “control” group, in other words, wasn’t really a proper control group in many studies.

Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy children

It’s the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It’s no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against “never vaccinated” children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.

Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin D

Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more effective than flu shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v…). Read the article to see the actual “absolute” numbers in this study.

Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines

Vaccines are considered “effective” if they merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer’s two decades later? Is that still a “success?” If you’re a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer’s pills, too. That’s probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.

Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis

There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were “selected” for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.

Remember: Scientific fraud isn’t the exception in modern medicine; it is the rule. Most of the “science” you read in today’s medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the language of science.

Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers

I haven’t had time to follow the money ties for each individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I’m willing to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in “scientific” circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing about vaccines who hasn’t been in some way financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don’t expect the medical journals to print that article, of course. They’d rather not reveal what happens when you follow the money.

Problem #7) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!

Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we’re going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?

That’s a lot like listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?

Just for fun, let’s conduct a thought experiment and suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?

Or to put it another way, even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.

Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza to appear. That’s the far more likely reality of the situation.

Flu shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people. That’s why the people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people who got flu shots! (Just ask ‘em yourself this coming winter, and you’ll see.)

What the public believes

Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are “70 to 90 percent effective.” This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.

It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be “only” 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, “Vaccines don’t work as well as you might have thought.” These headlines were followed up with explanations like “Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!”

I hate to break it to ‘em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.

Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.

Outright fraudulent marketing

Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!

So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?

It’s truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit’s foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as “science” today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.

That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn’t difficult these days. Just shroud it all under “science” jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!

The real story on flu shots that you probably don’t want to know

Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren’t for halting the flu. We’ve already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the “science” on that.

So what are flu shots really for?

You won’t like this answer, but I’ll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to “soft kill” the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v…) and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated “public health” message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.

Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and “weed out” those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.

And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.


This article was posted: Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 4:57 am

First Genetically Engineered Flu Vaccine Now on the Market

 By Dr. Mercola

As recently reported, a hardier than normal type of flu has spread around the US, and much earlier than normal, causing some states to declare public health emergencies.

To speed up flu vaccine production, the US FDA has approved a new insect-based, genetically engineered flu vaccine, as well as vaccines grown in cultures of dog kidney cells rather than eggs.

And while mainstream media claims the flu vaccine is working well this year, a recent review of published research shows flu vaccines are ineffective at best, and produce neurological complications at worst, while having no effect at all on hospitalizations or working days lost.
Flu Outbreak Showing Signs of Waning

In response to the flu outbreak, New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued an executive order allowing pharmacists to give flu vaccine injections to minors. If you believe this is a good thing, you’re still in the dark about the side effects of flu vaccines — some of which can be fatal — which makes getting it at a neighborhood pharmacy risky business.

 Besides, all vaccinations should be carefully recorded in your child’s medical file, which will not happen when you pop into a pharmacy. They’re also unlikely to be properly trained to ascertain and/or address any acute side effects that may occur.

On January 11, media outlets such as ABC News1 reported the outbreak was waning in some parts of the nation, claiming the flu shots appeared to be doing a good job in curbing the outbreak. However, in the same article, CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden points out that the flu tends to ebb and flow throughout the season.

 Furthermore, this year’s flu vaccine contains a very good match to the circulating strains, yet the reported efficacy of the vaccine is still only slightly over 60 percent — a point made by Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota2. According to Osterholm:

"A match doesn't tell us how well a vaccine is going to work. It's almost meaningless."

Perhaps the headlines are best explained as counter-propaganda to the latest scientific review that, yet again, found that the flu vaccine offers minimal, if any, protection against the flu, and that it comes at some risk. One of the most recent examples is the devastating side effects of the 2009-2010 flu vaccine, which caused some 800+ cases of narcolepsy in Sweden and other European countries3.
Flu Vaccine Doesn’t Work, According to Recent Research Review

If you’re thinking about vaccinating yourself or your infant against the flu, I highly recommend reading the independent study review from the Cochrane Collaboration first. As Tom Jefferson, a researcher with the Cochrane Collaboration, recently told Northwestern.edu4:

“The [Center for Disease Control] is making policy based on weak evidence and it is refusing to answer questions. There is no evidence that vaccines can prevent deaths or prevent person-to-person spread of infection.”

According to these independent research reviewers5:

“At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10 percent of all circulating viruses. Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.

Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost but caused one case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations.

As you may recall, Piers Morgan recently got the flu vaccine on the air on the Dr. Oz show, "and within 10 days I've been struck down," he now reports. "Don't ever take a flu shot again," Yoakam tells him, in this January 23 interview. Good advice, I'd say. While health agencies deny the possibility of getting the flu from the flu vaccine, many still do experience flu-like symptoms and/or get ill to some degree or another after getting the vaccine.

 

 Regulators Approve New Genetically Engineered Insect-Based Flu Vaccine

 Other Novel Flu Vaccines Being Unleashed

Last November, the FDA also approved a new flu vaccine by Novartis called Flucelvax, which is grown in cultures of dog kidney cells rather than chicken eggs8 . This too allows for speedier vaccine production, should another pandemic erupt. But does speedier production equate to safer products? If history offers any clues, the answer is no. But, as demand for vaccines of all kinds increases, the relationship between the US government and Big Pharma keeps getting cozier. As reported by Reuters9:

“In 2006, HHS [US Department of Health and Human Services] provided more than $1 billion in contracts to six manufacturers to develop cell-based flu vaccine technology in the United States... In 2009, spurred by difficulties in growing vaccine for the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, HHS provided Novartis with nearly $500 million to build the first U.S. facility capable of producing cell-based vaccine for seasonal and pandemic flu in the United States.”

The newly approved Flublok vaccine also received financial backing from the US government. The HHS bailed out the small manufacturer, Protein Sciences, with a $147-million investment, allowing it to create the first gene-based flu vaccine to win FDA approval. It certainly won’t be the last however. Two other genetically engineered flu vaccines are under development. According to Reuters, one of them, created by Novavax, will use “bits of genetic material grown in caterpillar cells called "virus-like particles" that mimic a flu virus.”

I for one am not looking forward to finding out what the side effects might be from this new generation of genetically engineered flu vaccines... Even worse, the HHS also has its eye on a “universal” flu vaccine that would cover any and all flu strains, and only require one dose every five to 10 years. As reported by Reuters:

“Work by Fauci and Dr. Gary Nabel, former head of NIH's Vaccine Research Center who just joined Sanofi as chief science officer, showed that a portion of the flu virus that is usually hidden from the immune system may be the key.

Fauci describes the hemagluttinin part of the flu virus as bulb-shaped with a stem on one end, sort of like a dandelion that has gone to seed or a lollipop on a stick. Most vaccines target proteins on the bulb portion of the virus, which mutates from year to year, but Fauci says the stem contains proteins that don't change much from virus to virus. The problem is that when the flu virus is presented to the body, these stem proteins are structurally hidden from the immune system. A genetically engineered vaccine could overcome that by only presenting these stem proteins to the immune system.”

 According to Robin Robinson, director of the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a part of the HHS, it’s “a good hypothesis” that will hopefully work. The HHS is “keeping fingers crossed.” What could possibly go wrong by making your body attack genetically engineered virus structures that are normally hidden from immune system detection, right?
Irresponsible Flu Vaccine Recommendations Reach a New Low

In related news, while a new breed of genetically engineered flu vaccines are hitting the market, some experts are now actually proclaiming the conventional egg-based flu vaccine safe for those with severe egg allergies. According to a recent article in the New York Times10:

“Amid an unusually widespread outbreak of the flu, a medical association of allergy specialists said Friday that even children with severe egg allergies should get flu shots. Because the vaccine is grown in chicken eggs, manufacturers recommend that the roughly 2 percent of all children who have egg allergies not get them. But flu hospitalizes 21,000 young children a year, said Dr. James L. Sublett, chair of the public relations committee of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

Because only trace amounts of egg protein remain in the vaccine, 'we now know administration is safe,' he said. “'The benefits of the flu vaccination far outweigh the risks.' Even children who have gone into anaphylactic shock from eating eggs should get flu shots, but from an allergist trained to handle emergencies, the association recommended.”

 I really cannot believe how far they will go to endanger your health — especially when you consider that, for an industry that claims to be science-based, flu vaccine recommendations go AGAINST the hard evidence. Worse yet, while studies show flu vaccination is ineffective, when it comes to safety, which is the other and more important factor (especially for infants), the evidence is basically non-existent! According to an independent study review from the Cochrane Collaboration11 published August 15, 2012, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine is similar to placebo in children under the age of two. Furthermore:

“Influenza vaccines were associated with serious harms such as narcolepsy and febrile convulsions [in children]. It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months of age.”
Vaccine Damaged Child Awarded $1 Million

 A lot of people still believe vaccines are safe, not realizing that children are being permanently harmed each and every day by mandated childhood vaccinations. Sadly, once that happens, the family is left ‘holding the bag,’ with no recourse.

 In December last year, a family won a nearly $1 million settlement12 from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, but this is a rarity. Severe flaws in the system results in the majority of vaccine injured children not receiving any compensation at all for the harm inflicted on them. According to the court’s decision13:

“Petitioners alleged that as a result of 'all the vaccinations administered to [Ryan] from March 25, 2003, through February 22, 2005, and more specifically, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations administered to him on December 19, 2003 and May 10, 2004,' Ryan suffered 'a severe and debilitating injury to his brain, described as Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’)...'

Petitioners specifically asserted that Ryan 'suffered a Vaccine Table Injury, namely, an encephalopathy' as a result of his receipt of the MMR vaccination on December 19, 2003. Id. In the alternative, petitioners asserted that 'as a cumulative result of his receipt of each and every vaccination between March 25, 2003 and February 22, 2005, Ryan has suffered. . . neuroimmunologically mediated dysfunctions in the form of asthma and ASD.'”

 In this case, while the MMR vaccine was indicated as a possible culprit, the primary cause was believed to be the sheer number of vaccinations. The cumulative effect of multiple vaccinations simply cannot be underestimated, and now they’re asking you to vaccinate your children against the seasonal flu, each and every year, starting from the age of six months! And they’re recommending this without ANY proof whatsoever that this is indeed safe. Safety is “assumed.” Not tested and verified. Please do remember this.

 One way to evaluate your child’s potential for vaccine damage is to get his or her gut flora checked prior to getting any vaccine. For more information about this novel but promising way to prevent vaccine damage, please see my interview with Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride.
How to Protect Yourself During the Flu Season

 Avoiding a serious case of influenza is not about vaccination but more about maintaining a healthy, well functioning immune system. By following these simple guidelines, you can help keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you're far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with or, if you do get sick with the flu, you are better prepared to move through it without complications and soon return to good health.
Optimize Your Gut Flora. This may be the single most important strategy you can implement as the bacteria in your gut have enormous control of your immune response. The best way to improve your beneficial bacteria ratio is to avoid sugars as they will feed the pathogenic bacteria. Additionally, processed foods and most grains should be limited and replaced with healthy fats like coconut oil, avocados, olives, olive oil, butter, eggs and nuts. Once you change your diet than regular use of fermented foods can radically optimize the function of your immune response.
Optimize your vitamin D levels. As I've previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency may actually be the true culprit behind the seasonality of the flu – not the flu virus itself. This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take. Regularly monitor your vitamin D levels to confirm your levels are within the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml.

Ideally, you'll want to get all your vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed, but as a last resort you can take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. According to the latest review by Carole Baggerly (Grassrootshealth.org), adults need about 8,000 IU's a day. Be sure to take vitamin K2 if you are taking high dose oral vitamin D as it has a powerful synergy and will help prevent any D toxicity.
Avoid Sugar and Processed Foods. Sugar impairs the quality of your immune response almost immediately, and as you likely know, a healthy immune system is one of the most important keys to fighting off viruses and other illness. It also can decimate your beneficial bacteria and feed the pathogenic yeast and viruses. Be aware that sugar (typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup) is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice. If you are healthy then sugar can be consumed but the LAST thing you should be eating when you are sick is sugar. Avoid it like poison while you are sick.
Get Plenty of Rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you're tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night's Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest.
Have Effective Tools to Address Stress. We all face some stress every day, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness. If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique, which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma.
Get Regular Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads. Be sure to stay hydrated – drink plenty of fluids, especially water. However, it would be wise to radically reduce the intensity of your workouts while you are sick. No Peak Fitness exercises until you are better.
Take a High Quality Source of Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils that are trans fats and in processed foods as it will seriously damage your immune response.
Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don't use antibacterial soap for this – antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
Tried and True Hygiene Measures. In addition to washing your hands regularly, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze. If possible, avoid close contact with those, who are sick and, if you are sick, avoid close contact with those who are well.
Use Natural Antibiotics. Examples include oil of oregano and garlic. These work like broad-spectrum antibiotics against bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in your body. And unlike pharmaceutical antibiotics, they do not appear to lead to resistance.
Avoid Hospitals. I'd recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you're having an emergency and need expert medical care, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds. The best place to get plenty of rest and recover from illness that is not life-threatening is usually in the comfort of your own home.

 

 

 

Mainstream column admits vaccines cause cancer in pets

 Jonathan Benson
 NaturalNews

 February 27, 2012

Did you know that vaccinating your cat with the typical, recommended feline vaccination schedule may lead to your furry friend developing cancer? In a recent article published in The Ledger, Karri Miller, Central Florida’s only full-time board certified veterinary oncologist, admits that inflammation caused by vaccines can cause some cats to develop cancer years down the road — and yet she still recommends that people have their pets vaccinated.

A telling admission about the serious risks associated with vaccines, Miller’s report highlights the fact that at least one out of every 10,000 cats develops “vaccine-associated sarcomas” as a result of getting vaccinated. Whether it is the mandatory rabies vaccine, or the host of other viral and bacterial vaccines commonly administered to felines, vaccinated cats admittedly have an increased risk of developing cancer in response to the injections.

Vaccine task force says keep injecting cats with cancer-causing vaccines, but do so in spots that will be easy to remove tumors later

The issue has become so serious, in fact, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) developed a “Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force” (VAFSTF) back in 1996 to keep track of the prevalence of the condition, and to investigate ways to help mitigate and prevent it. Besides simply not vaccinating cats at all, the only thing this task force has really come up with so far as a solution is to simply inject vaccines in different spots on cats’ bodies so that, should a tumor end up developing there, it will be easy to treat it with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation (http://www.avma.org/vafstf/sitercmnd.asp).

In other words, vaccines will continue to cause cancer in cats, so the best way, in these experts’ minds, to address the problem is to inject vaccines in areas that will be easier for surgeons to access in the event that they have to remove a tumor at the site. Never would these experts caution cat owners against getting the harmful vaccines in the first place, of course, or at the very least reduce the number of vaccines they choose to get for their cats.

In her article, for example, Miller actually suggests that cat owners continue to get their cats vaccinated with whatever vaccines their veterinarians recommend because “[t]he risk of developing a tumor from a vaccine may be much less than your cat catching a deadly virus that could have been prevented with a vaccine,” in her opinion. And if your cat does get cancer, Miller, of course, recommends surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy as appropriate treatment.

However, according to Dr. Don Hamilton, a veterinary homeopath in New Mexico, most pet vaccines are largely useless anyway because they cause “at least as much illness as they have ever prevented.” In many cases, he says, vaccines simply do not offer the protection their advocates claim they do, and they typically weaken pets’ immune systems and create more chronic illness than if those pets were allowed to simply develop their own natural immunity through proper nutrition (http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html).

Sources for this article include:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20120218/COLUMNISTS/202185001

 

'Vaccine court' awards millions to two autistic children damaged by vaccines

 (NaturalNews)

Quietly and without much fanfare, the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), or more accurately the congressionally-sanctioned kangaroo court whose sole purpose is to shield the vaccine industry from liability for vaccine injuries, has essentially admitted that vaccines cause autism. As reported by the Huffington Post, two more children who developed autism following routine vaccinations have been awarded millions of dollars to help pay for the lifetime of specialized care they will need to address their injuries.

The first case involves a 10-year-old boy named Ryan from California who quickly regressed into an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) following routine vaccinations he received between 2003 and 2005, and specifically the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Prior to getting vaccinated, Ryan was a perfectly healthy young boy who was actually quite advanced for his age, according to reports. But after getting the MMR vaccine on December 19, 2003, he rather quickly developed an encephalopathy, or serious inflammation, in his brain.

Ryan's family and friends testified before the kangaroo court that the cumulative effect of the boy's receiving multiple vaccines from 2003-2005 caused him to suffer "neuroimmunologically mediated dysfunctions in the form of asthma and ASD," a claim that the federal government eventually admitted to be true several years later. Ryan's family eventually received compensation for his "Vaccine Table Injury," but pertinent details about the case have been sealed, including particulars about whether or not the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed with the court's decision.

You can read further details about Ryan's case here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

Similarly, a young girl named Emily developed a seizure disorder and a form of ASD known as pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specific (PDD-NOS) following vaccination with DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), as well as MMR, HiB (haemophilus influenzae type B), and Prevnar (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine), at 15 months old. According to Emily's court filing, the young girl developed a fever of 105.7 degrees Fahrenheit following the vaccines, which developed into seizures, shaking episodes, and a measles-type rash.

Initially, the government attempted to deny that Emily's injuries were caused by vaccines. The defendants even tried to deny that Emily was even sick in the first place. But it was eventually determined that young Emily had indeed developed an ASD, and the government agreed to settle the case by awarding Emily's family for her vaccine-induced injuries. In Emily's case, the government never came right out and admitted that vaccines were the cause of her injuries, but its actions in dropping its defense prove that there is no other logical explanation.

Emily's case is spelled out further here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

Courts have quietly admitted in the past that vaccines cause autism, brain damage
Back in 2008, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims also admitted that vaccines, and particularly those that contain the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal, can cause autism. A young girl, whose identity was sealed for the family's protection, was awarded compensation after a series of vaccines caused her to develop severe autism symptoms, including loss of language skills, no response to verbal direction, and no eye contact, among other things.

A year prior, a young boy named Bailey was also awarded compensation after suffering a seizure and developing Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following vaccination with MMR. Bailey's family was eventually awarded compensation for the boy's injuries, which the court reluctantly admitted were caused by the vaccine.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BANKS_CASE.pdf


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038858_vaccine_court_autistic_children_damaged.html#ixzz2M2IaDF4h

 

Shock vaccine study

Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults

 Not 60% as you’ve been told

Mike Adams
Natural News

 Thursday, October 27, 2011

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that “flu vaccines are 60% effective!”

 This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn’t even bother to read the study itself (as usual).

NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these “scientific” studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.

The “60% effectiveness” claim is a total lie – here’s why

What we found is that the “60% effectiveness” claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that “60% effectiveness” means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won’t get the flu!

Thus, the “60% effectiveness” claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.

 This is utterly false.

In reality — and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, “Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis” — only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!

See the abstract at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l…

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots

Let’s start with the actual numbers from the study.

The “control group” of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.

The “treatment group” consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.

The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.

So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly “scientific” conclusion from this is rather astonishing:

Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!

Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…)

In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines “don’t work on 99 out of 100 people.” Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).

So where does the media get “60% effective?”

This is called “massaging the numbers,” and it’s an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.

First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.

You can then say that 0.43 is “43% of 2.73,” and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a “57% decrease” in influenza infections. This then becomes a “57% effectiveness rate” claim.

The overall “60% effectiveness” being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.

So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are “60% effective,” what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.

Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.

But you’ve probably already noticed that the mainstream media won’t dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are “60% effective,” whatever that means.

How to lie with statistics

This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these “relative numbers” are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.

You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is “50% effective at preventing breast cancer!”

But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.

But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a “50% breast cancer prevention rate!” And most consumers will buy into this because they don’t understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, “Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!”

And yet that’s utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies

At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don’t), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.

In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let’s suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:

“This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!”

You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality — scientifically speaking — you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)

How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?

Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don’t tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!

It’s very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines “work” better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer’s. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.

So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)

Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).

Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may “shrink tumors” in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as “cancer survivors” are, for the most part, actually “chemo survivors.”

Good news for children?

If there’s any “good news” in this study, it’s that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.

So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).

Guess who funded this study?

This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.

For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. (http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)

The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called “Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine,” (http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/a…) which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.vppartners.org/sites/def…).

Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet study

Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:

Problem #1) The “control” group was often given a vaccine, too

In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the “control” groups were given so-called “insert” vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The “control” group, in other words, wasn’t really a proper control group in many studies.

Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy children

It’s the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It’s no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against “never vaccinated” children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.

Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin D

Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more effective than flu shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v…). Read the article to see the actual “absolute” numbers in this study.

Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines

Vaccines are considered “effective” if they merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer’s two decades later? Is that still a “success?” If you’re a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer’s pills, too. That’s probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.

Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis

There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were “selected” for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.

Remember: Scientific fraud isn’t the exception in modern medicine; it is the rule. Most of the “science” you read in today’s medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the language of science.

Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers

I haven’t had time to follow the money ties for each individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I’m willing to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in “scientific” circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing about vaccines who hasn’t been in some way financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don’t expect the medical journals to print that article, of course. They’d rather not reveal what happens when you follow the money.

Problem #7) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!

Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we’re going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?

That’s a lot like listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?

Just for fun, let’s conduct a thought experiment and suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?

Or to put it another way, even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.

Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza to appear. That’s the far more likely reality of the situation.

Flu shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people. That’s why the people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people who got flu shots! (Just ask ‘em yourself this coming winter, and you’ll see.)

What the public believes

Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are “70 to 90 percent effective.” This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.

It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be “only” 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, “Vaccines don’t work as well as you might have thought.” These headlines were followed up with explanations like “Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!”

I hate to break it to ‘em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.

Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.

Outright fraudulent marketing

Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!

So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?

It’s truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit’s foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as “science” today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.

That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn’t difficult these days. Just shroud it all under “science” jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!

The real story on flu shots that you probably don’t want to know

Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren’t for halting the flu. We’ve already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the “science” on that.

So what are flu shots really for?

You won’t like this answer, but I’ll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to “soft kill” the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v…) and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated “public health” message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.

Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and “weed out” those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.

And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.

 

FDA admits in court case that vaccines still contain mercury

 Ethan A. Huff,
Natural News

April 1, 2012

It is a common myth today that the vaccines administered to children no longer contain the toxic additive thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative linked to causing permanent neurological damage. But a recent federal case involving the U.S.Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has revealed that, contrary to this widely-held belief, thimerosal is actually still present in many batch vaccines, including in the annual influenza vaccine that is now administered to children as young as six months old.

 Filed by a citizen-backed coalition advocating vaccine safety, the lawsuit against the FDA alleged that the agency’s continued endorsement and approval of thimerosal as a vaccine additive is a serious public health threat, especially since safer alternatives already exist and are widely used voluntarily by many vaccine manufacturers. But Judge Brett Kavanaugh, siding with antiquated pseudoscience, decided that thimerosal is not a health threat, and that those who wish to avoid it can simply choose thimerosal-free alternatives.

Ignoring the evidence of thimerosal’s dangers brought before him on behalf of the millions of children across the country who continue to be injected with this mercury-based additive, Judge Kavanaugh declared that the plaintiffs, which include groups like theCoalition for Mercury-Free Drugs(CMFD), did not have proper standing to file the lawsuit. And in the process, both he and the FDA inadvertently admitted that thimerosal is still present in many childhood vaccines, which counters popular claims to the contrary.

FDA admits on its website that thimerosal is still in vaccines

The fact that Judge Kavanaugh refused to hear the case is tragic in and of itself, as thimerosal, which is composed of 50 percent mercury, has been proven to cause serious health damage. But what may be even worse is the fact that many people falsely believe that thimerosal is not even included in vaccines anymore, which is leading them to blindly allow them to be administered to their children. And the U.S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) and the FDA have continued to provide dubious and misleading information on the subject, which the mainstream media has been complicit in spreading over the years.

But the FDA explains, in no uncertain terms, directly on its website that thimerosal is still added to certain vaccines. For this reason alone, it is crucial that parents who choose to vaccinate their children ask for an ingredients list for each and every vaccine before allowing them to be administered to their children.

“While the use of mercury-containing preservatives has declined in recent years with the development of new products formulated with alternative or no preservatives, thimerosal has been used in some immune globulin preparations, anti-venins, skin test antigens, and ophthalmic and nasal products, in addition to certain vaccines,” writes the FDA on itsThimerosal in Vaccinespage (http://www.fda.gov).

 Don’t believe the lie: Thimerosal is eventually converted by the body into highly-toxic inorganic mercury

Another myth often spread by thimerosal advocates claims that the ethylmercury compounds that compose roughly 50 percent of the preservative are not actually harmful because they are different from the type found in a can of tuna. But a comprehensive review conducted by Dr. Paul G. King has proven otherwise, showing that ethylmercury is first metabolized by the body into toxic methylmercury, which is then metabolized into inorganic mercury (http://www.infowars.com).

Both methylmercury and inorganic mercury are listed by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) as toxic substances responsible for causing neurological problems, brain disorders, nervous system illnesses, gastrointestinal problems, kidney failure, respiratory illness, and death (http://www.epa.gov/hg/effects.htm).

Sources for this article include:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/23/44979.htm

http://www.fda.gov

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/children.htm

 

Recent Videos

1611 views - 0 comments
1928 views - 0 comments
2276 views - 0 comments
2186 views - 0 comments