DR Brownstein – Flu Vaccine “Moderately” Effective? FAKE NEWS!
Yesterday (February 17, 2017), Foxnews.com posted a story titled, “Flu Vaccine is only moderately protective this year, CDC says.” (1) The article stated, “Overall, getting a flu shot cut one’s risk of contracting flu and needing to see a doctor by 48 percent this season, when the effectiveness of the various components of the vaccine were assessed together, according to the report published in the CDC’s online journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).”
This story is a perfect example of fake news.
I have seen a lot of flu and flu-like illnesses in my practice over the past few weeks. Since I have been telling my patients not to take the flu vaccine, since it fails nearly all who take it, I wondered if the current flu vaccine was actually working to prevent someone from getting the flu. So, I looked up the MMWR to see how effective the flu vaccine really is. The report can be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6606a2.htm?s_cid=mm6606a2_w
The mind-numbing report (anyone who tries to read it will have their mind numbed) states, “Interim estimates of vaccine effectiveness based on data collected from November 28, 2016, through February 4, 2017, indicate that overall the influenza vaccine has been 48% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 37%–57%) effective in preventing influenza-related medical visits across all age groups…”
The news media picked up the 48% effectiveness number reported above. However, let me explain that number a little better. The 48% claim of effectiveness of the flu vaccine is a relative risk number. The relative risk is a statistical term that is universally used in medical studies in order to make a poorly performing drug or therapy look much better than it actually is. I have pointed out the fallacy of relying on this statistical manipulation in promoting the use of statin medications in my book, The Statin Disaster.
So what is the true effectiveness of the flu vaccine? That number would be expressed by the absolute risk reduction. This is a statistical term that best exemplifies if a drug or therapy is truly effective or not. In the case of the MMWR report on the flu vaccine, the true reduction in the flu vaccine in preventing influenza-related medical visits across all age groups is around 1%. I can’t give you exact numbers because the MMWR report did not supply the actual numbers. When the true numbers come out, I will write again. But, a 50% relative risk reduction means that the absolute risk reduction is probably around 1%. This means that the flu shot failed 99% who took it—they received no benefit from this year’s flu vaccine. In other words, you have to inject 100 people with the 2016-2017 flu vaccine to prevent one case of the flu. The other 99 people were not protected.
(Note: I have written about how the flu vaccine fails 97-99% who take it in a previous post. You can read it here: http://blog.drbrownstein.com/the-truth-about-the-flu-vaccine/)
CDC – Update: Influenza Activity — United States, October 2, 2016–February 4, 2017
February 17, 2017
U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System laboratories, which include both public health and clinical laboratories throughout the United States, contribute to virologic surveillance for influenza.
During October 2, 2016–February 4, 2017, clinical laboratories in the United States tested 392,901 respiratory specimens for influenza viruses, 38,244 (9.7%) of which were positive (Figure 1). During the week ending February 4, 2017 (week 5), 27,409 specimens were tested, 5,722 (20.9%) of which were positive for influenza. Among these, 5,017 (87.7%) were positive for influenza A viruses and 705 (12.3%) were positive for influenza B viruses.
Public health laboratories in the United States tested 38,141 respiratory specimens collected during October 2, 2016–February 4, 2017. Among these, 15,781 were positive for influenza (Figure 2), 14,606 (92.6%) were positive for influenza A viruses, and 1,174 (7.4%) were positive for influenza B viruses. Among the 14,335 (98.1%) influenza A viruses subtyped, 13,973 (97.5%) were influenza A (H3N2) and 362 (2.5%) were influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus. Among the 851 (72.5%) influenza B viruses for which lineage was determined, 460 (54.1%) belonged to the B/Yamagata lineage and 391 (45.9%) belonged to the B/Victoria lineage.
Age was reported for 13,306 influenza-positive patients, among whom 1,048 (7.9%) were aged 0–4 years, 4,041 (30.4%) were aged 5–24 years, 4,029 (30.3%) were aged 25–64 years, and 4,188 (31.5%) were aged ≥65 years. Influenza A (H3N2) viruses predominated in each age group, representing a range of 82.3% of influenza-positives in persons aged 0–4 years to 93.6% in persons aged ≥65 years. The largest number of influenza B viruses were reported in persons aged 5–24 years.
CDC recommends shingles vaccine made of cow skin, residual components of human DNA!
February 23, 2016
If we are to follow the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), people 60 years of age and older should be injected with Zostavax (or Zoster), a (carcinogenic) shingles vaccine.
According to “experts,” Zoster is supposed to reduce the risk of developing shingles, as well as the pain incurred by some elderly people. ACIP also advises people who’ve already had shingles to still get the vaccine to “prevent future occurrences.”
Now, firstly, if you’ve had shingles, the odds of having it again are slim. Secondly, Zostavax contains monosodium glutamate (MSG), a known neurotoxin which, when injected, can cause central nervous system disorders and brain damage. Thirdly, the shingles vaccine contains gelatin derived from the collagen inside pig skin and bones, which, when injected, poses the risk of infection from synthetic growth hormones. Fourthly, senior citizens are more likely to already have compromised immunity, thanks to other vaccines, flu shots, pharmaceuticals and food that’s lacking in nutrition (especially for those with unhealthy lifestyles).
Given that ACIP specifically advises people 60 years of age or older to have this injection, it really makes you wonder — what’s so magical about ages 50 through 59 that makes people of this age supposedly safe from shingles? Well, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) website, “protection beyond 5 years is uncertain; therefore, adults receiving the vaccine before age 60 years might not be protected when their risks for shingles and its complications are greatest.” In other words, the vaccine is only good for a few years, then you’d have to get another one, and another, and another…you get the drift.
While the CDC warns people with weakened immune systems not to get the shingles vaccine, millions of Americans are regularly prescribed antibiotics which destroy healthy gut flora and severely compromise immunity. Moreover, the CDC also warns pregnant women not to get the shingles vaccine. Okay, how many 60-year-old pregnant women have you seen again?
Now, let’s take a look at the list of ingredients in Zoster, as published in the CDC website:
“Shingles Vaccine Ingredients: Sucrose, hydrolyzed (means reduced with chemicals) porcine (pig) gelatin, monosodium L-glutamate, sodium phosphate dibasic, potassium phosphate monobasic, neomycin, potassium chloride, residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein, and of course, bovine calf serum.”
For your information, bovine calf serum, which is extracted from cow skin, causes connective tissue disorders, arthritis, lupus, shortness of breath, chest pain and, of course, skin reactions when injected to humans. Doesn’t shingles cause painful skin rashes in the first place? Where’s the logic here?
In their efforts to force their beliefs on those around them, vaccine fanatics will go to great lengths to try to convince others, and to demonize anyone who doesn’t share their point of view. This kind of zealous ideal used to be reserved for matters of religion. Religious fanatics also tended to demonize others, these were the people who ardently believed that their religion is the only “true religion” and everyone else is going to hell. Vaccine fanatics believe that they are the only scientifically minded ones, and everyone else is scientifically illiterate. In reality, it is more scientifically illiterate to blatantly ignore the dangers involved in vaccinations. (1)
Even the manufacturers of vaccines freely admit that there are risks involved. The claim by vaccine manufacturers is that the benefits of vaccinating outweigh the risks. As more and more vaccines are brought to market there appears to be no end in sight to all of the “necessary risks.”
Just this past year, the CDC issued a public apology over the flu vaccine as it was found to not be effective against the current strains of the flu. It also came to light that the tetanus vaccines being forced upon women in Kenya were laced with chemicals that caused sterilization. The women and girls who received these tetanus shots were not informed of the dangers. Even with numerous scientific studies to support the fact that vaccines are not as effective as fanatics claim and that in fact, they’re very dangerous, vaccine fanatics simply ignore the reality of the dangers of vaccines in their quest to force vaccinations on the rest of society.
Genital Warts Vaccine Tested on Infants
February 28, 2017
Story at-a-glance –
In a trial sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health in Hungary, in collaboration with Merck, researchers are testing the 4-valent Gardasil vaccine in children to treat recurrent respiratory paillomatosis (RRP), a rare childhood disease caused by HPV
Initially the study was to enroll children as young as 1 year old with RRP and administer three doses of HPV vaccine to “assess response to vaccination,” but recent study details indicate the tests are ongoing in children as young as 28 days old
The study’s status remains unknown, as it has not yet been reported as completed
By Dr. Mercola
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, marketed under the brand names Gardasil and Cervarix, are among the most controversial vaccinations offered in the U.S. — and the controversy, it appears, is only slated to get worse.
Gardasil vaccine, manufactured by Merck, was fast-tracked to the U.S. market in 2006, without adequate evidence for safety and effectiveness in children. It was only studied in fewer than 1200 girls under 16 years old, who were followed up for about two years, before it was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).1
The vaccine was originally touted as an anti-cervical cancer vaccine that should be given to all girls and women aged 9 to 26 years old, despite the fact it was rushed to licensure without first proving that it actually prevented cervical cancer, especially when given to pre-adolescent girls.2
Within five years, U.S. public health officials broadened HPV vaccine recommendations to include all pre-adolescent boys as well, in order to target cancers of the penis, anus and back of throat.3
Originally the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended a three-dose HPV vaccine regimen, but in October, 2016, the CDC changed its recommendation to two doses for girls and boys aged 9 to 14 years old to be given six months apart.
The CDC still recommends that three doses be given to females and males who get the vaccine between the ages of 15 and 26 years old.4
Since sexual contact with an infected person is a high-risk factor for both hepatitis B and HPV, public health officials maintain that hepatitis B and HPV vaccines need to be given to children before they become sexually active.
It is thought that sometimes pregnant women with active HPV infection that has not been cleared can transmit HPV to their newborns during the birth process.5
This may be why there has been speculation that HPV vaccines may one day be recommended for much younger children, even infants, similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which is given to newborns in hospital nurseries before hospital discharge.6
Authors of a 2012 article published in the medical journal, Vaccine, called for a “reframing” of global cervical cancer prevention policies and stated:
“On a global scale, vaccination of newborns and infants is well established and has developed a successful working infrastructure.
The hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination programs offer a model for HPV introduction in which newborn and infant immunization achieves a rapid reduction in the prevalence of the HBV carrier rates in immunized cohorts of children, and of liver cirrhosis and liver cancer decades later.”7