Part 2: Flu Vaccines: Are They Safe & Effective?
By Richard Gale and Gary Null, PhD.
September 28, 2009
Flu Vaccines: Are They Safe & Effective? Part 2 (Oct. 14, 2009)
The CDC Misinterprets Influenza Death Statistics
The official CDC website states that approximately 36,000 Americans die from the flu annually. We repeatedly hear this figure reported by officials and in the media across the nation, hence making flu infection the seventh cause of death in the US. But the reality is very different. The CDC’s own website reports mortality rates under the frequent heading “influenza/pneumonia.” Dr. David Rosenthal, Director of Harvard University’s Health Services, brings clarity to this confusion. Most of these so-called flu deaths are in fact pneumonias—not even viral pneumonias—and secondary infections. Furthermore, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Academy shows that many of these deaths are a result of pneumonias acquired by patients taking stomach acid suppressing drugs.
For example, if we are to take the combined figure of flu and pneumonia deaths for the flu period of 2001, and add a bit of spin to the figures, we are left believing that 62,034 people died from influenza. The actual figures are 61,777 died from pneumonia and only 257 from flu. Even more amazing, in those 257 cases, only 18 were scientifically identified as positive for the flu virus. A separate study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics for the flu periods between 1979 and 2002 reveals that the range of annual flu deaths were between 257 and 3006, for an average of 1,348 per year.20
How does the CDC respond to this discrepancy reported by the Harvard scientist? Read carefully the CDC’s own statement.
“Typically, influenza causes death when the infection leads to severe medical complications… [and as most such cases] are never tested for virus infection… CDC considers these figures to be very substantial undercounting of the true number of deaths from influenza. Therefore, the CDC uses indirect modeling methods to estimate the number of deaths associated with influenza.” In an earlier 2003 article JAMA, William Thompson from the CDC’s National Immunization Program attempted to explain“influenza-associated mortality.” He wrote, “Based on modeling, we think it’s associated. I don’t know that we would say that it’s the underlying cause of death.”21
In summary, the CDC is admitting
1) the deceased are not tested to determine the presence of the flu virus, and
2) they do not directly perform any direct testing to determine the exact cause of death but rather “indirect modeling methods” is a professional way of saying subjective mathematical equations to arrive at their figures. The 36,000 mortality figure is nothing more than a mathematical model. The British journal concluded that the only possible rationale for the CDC’s complete disregard for scientific fact, even in face of independent research to discredit its statistics, is a public relations effort between the CDC and the vaccine manufacturer’s campaigns to increase flu vaccination.
There can be little doubt about this after statements presented by the CDC’s National Immunization Program’s spokesperson, Glen Nowak, at the 2004 National Influenza Vaccine Summit—co-sponsored by the CDC and the American Medical Association. Nowak outlined the CDC’s “Seven Step Recipe for Generating Interest In, and Demand for, Flu Vaccination.” One step requires “medical experts and public health authorities publicly.. [to] state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)” to encourage influenza vaccination. Another step is “continued reports.. that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people, helping to foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.” 22
Why was the “Seven Step Recipe” implemented? Dr. Nowak publicly stated the CDC’s reasons on National Public Radio, “… the manufacturers were telling us that they weren’t receiving a lot of orders for vaccine for use in November or even December [of 2003]… It really did look like we [CDC] needed to do something to encourage people to get a flu shot.23
Now that we have a better understanding of how the CDC calculated its statistics in the past and expert confirmation from renown publications and scientists that such data is erroneous, what do we find on the CDC website under the heading “Influenza Death Statistics” as of September 2009—five years after the published denunciation of the CDC’s erroneous calculations for influenza?
“For pneumonia and influenza (P&I) deaths, CDC estimates approximately 8,000 deaths are associated with seasonal flu. This represents 9.8% of (P&I) deaths. For respiratory and circulatory (R&C) deaths, CDC estimates approximately 36,000 deaths are associated with seasonal flu. This represents 3.1 percent of those deaths. For all-cause deaths, CDC estimates that approximately 51,000 deaths are associated with seasonal flu. This represents 2.2% of all deaths. Centers for Disease Control. “Influenza death statistics”. www.cdc.gov/flu/about/diseases/us_flu-related_deaths.htm Accessed September 24, 2009.
How did the CDC arrive at these conclusions? The CDC site now continues to restate its scientifically flawed methodology:
“Statistical modeling was used to estimate how many flu- related deaths occurred among people whose underlying cause of death on their death certificate was listed as a respiratory and circulatory disease.”24
This is clearly an indication of policy turned dogmatic that disregards sound scientific evidence proving their errors. It is all business as usual, disregard the critics, full speed ahead.
Canadian health authorities are at least a bit more transparent over their investigations into vaccination results than the American government health cartel. However, like the US, they still report completely erroneous conclusions based on their own data. Every year Health Canada publicizes their laboratory results of swabs received from people with Influenza-Like Illnesses (ILI). Consistently the statistics show that approximately 95 percent of cases are attributable to pathogens, such as adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, parainfluenza and others, instead of the flu virus.25 Clinically, the symptoms appear very much the same, and unless laboratory tests with high specificity are performed, nobody can distinguish between what is a real flu infection from what might be any large number of different pathogenic infections giving flu-like symptoms.
During the 2004-2005 flu season, the Canada Communicable Disease Report showed that of the 68,849 laboratory tests performed for influenza, only 14.9% tested positive for a flu virus. All the remaining 85.1% specimens were a result of other pathogens impervious to flu vaccines.26 For the following 2005-2006 season, Health Canada received 68,439 confirmed tests for influenza like infections. Of these, only 6,580, or 10.4% confirmed positive for influenza. The rest, 89.6%, were other pathogens.27 Canadian health officials, nevertheless, disregarded their own statistics and continue their public relations campaign to boost the perception that the flu vaccine is 70-90% effective. In a debate published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Italian epidemiologist Dr. Vittorio Demicheli, now a colleague of Dr. Tom Jefferson, stated that Canada’s claims are
“both wrong and misleading… and refers only to the ability of the vaccine to produce antibodies effective against the virus. But his is not the important measure of vaccine efficacy. Instead, we should measure the ability of the vaccine to prevent clinical disease, in this case influenza. By this measure, vaccine efficacy is no greater than 25%.”28
To further complicate matters regarding influenza-like-illnesses attributed to non-influenza pathogens, there is also evidence showing that flu symptoms are synonymous with symptoms caused by toxic levels of pesticides, herbicides and fluoride. During his sworn testimony before a
Congressional Hearing in the 1960s, Dr. Granville Knight, former president of the American Academy of Nutrition, stated,
“waves of so-called ‘Virus X’ and similar diseases… are caused by exposure to such agricultural chemicals; [and] that it is impossible for doctors to diagnose the difference between London flu, virus conditions and pesticide poisoning.”29
In August 2009, Swiss immunologist Dr. Beda Stadler at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern reported in European papers that based on his research and analysis, the swine flu has already ended through much of Europe and the United States. Dr. Stadler claims “the dangerous pandemic virus has mutated into a simple summer flu.”30
A similar, yet independent conclusion on September 1, 2009 from the University of Maryland predicts the H1N1 will very unlikely mutate “in a natural way” into a more virulent virus.31 It would appear therefore that any dangers for a new and more virulent strain of H1N1 emerging would more readily be the result of vaccination. The important word in this is “in a natural way.” What is not being taken into consideration in any manner by the vaccine industrial complex is the fact that human bodies are also superb incubators for viruses, and perhaps introducing viruses into our bloodstream, along with the numerous known and unknown genetic contamination found in vaccines, are giving rise to new strains of virus. However, chasing the origins of a new strain of flu virus would be as successful as standing on a beach and trying to find that one sand granule that is older than all the others.
The Wall Street Journal in April 2009 reported that the WHO grossly inflated the number flu deaths they reported as much as 15-fold. The actual confirmed swine flu deaths in Mexico were 7 instead of the 152 reported. When the CDC reports flu mortality statistics, they are lumped in the same category with all pneumonia deaths. According to the independent vaccine journalist, Wynne Alexander, “this is patently ridiculous… this is just insanity on its face, and the CDC is comfortable with that.”32
If we think for a moment only about the number of deaths among the elderly from pneumonia infection, and then consider that the figures being published by the government health agencies to support their dire warnings for a presumed epidemic in October include pneumonia deaths, then it should be clear that H1N1 infection dangers are far less than the government and vaccine makers want the nation to believe. This conclusion is actually supported by relatively recent study published by the National Institutes of Health in 2005 that surveyed three decades of data on mortality rates among the elderly. The study, aired on Canada TV, discovered that flu shots for elderly American citizens did not save any lives.33
Small children between 6 and 24 months are being recommended for the front of the vaccination line by the CDC. The agency’s rationale remains unclear. However, biologists at Clemson University have determined that children under the age of 5 are the least likely to transmit swine flu. Therefore, the researchers recommend that smaller children not be given such a high ranking on the government’s priority risk group list.34
The chairman of the Health Committee in the German Parliament, Dr. Wolfang Wodarg, stated to the Neuen Presse that the swine vaccine and the so-called pandemic “is great business for the pharmaceutical industry.”35 In actual fact, the majority of independent science, unbiased by pharmaceutical corporate support, has very well shown that the swine flu is not very different from normal season flu and does not warrant any special, dramatic alarm.
Dr. Marc Girard is a medical specialist in drug adverse effects. He was commissioned by the French courts as a medical witness on the swine flu vaccine’s safety. During an interview on French television, Dr. Girard stated, “A vaccine is being developed in conditions of amateurism such as I have never seen before. Let’s take the pessimistic hypothesis: one death among every 1000 patients. There are plans to vaccinate 60 million people, and so you already have 60,000 deaths, and this time, young people, children and pregnant women.” Dr. Viera Scheibner comments on this scenario: “The swine flu vaccination is just a hoax. It’s an attempt to create a pandemic so that they can sell a lot of vaccines.”36 According to Nancy Cox, Director of the Influenza Division at the Centers of Disease Control, “intensive analysis” studies seem to indicate that the novel H1N1 variant has lower respiratory transmission than the common seasonal H1N1 flu.37
The WHO is estimating that 2 billion or approximately one third of the world’s population might become infected during the course of the next two years. In the US, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that “swine flu could strike up to 40 percent of Americans.”38
For this reason, world and national health agencies are mobilizing rapidly a massive vaccination campaign to vaccinate as much of the planets population as possible. The Director General of the WHO, Dr. Margaret Chan, estimates that vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots.39
International scholar of political and social affairs, Michel Chossudovsky, states, “There is ample evidence, documented in numerous reports, that the WHO’s level 6 pandemic alert is based on fabricated evidence and a manipulation of the figures on mortality and morbidity resulting from the H1N1 swine flu.” Chossudovsky has uncovered evidence that the CDCP and WHO are“recategorizing a large number of cases of common influenza as H1N1 swine flu.”40
Public Faith in Vaccine Science
Across the developed world there is a growing distrust in the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry, government health agencies and professional medical associations. Although the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out $1.2 billion in damages due to vaccine adverse effects in children, the vaccine makers impose gag orders to prevent public disclosure of vital proprietary information during settlements. There remains confusion among the US health agencies on the actual percentages of vaccine adverse reactions. The FDA estimates only 1 percent are reported; the CDC claims it is 10 percent. According to the National Vaccine Information Center, only one in forty New York doctors report adverse reactions, and medical students have testified before Congress that they were instructed to not report vaccine incidents in their private practice. The recent authorization of the 2006 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparadness Act provides vaccine manufacturers with legal impunity in the event the new untested Swine Flu vaccines result in a wave of serious injury and death.41
Immediately this raises the question why the drug lobbyists would insist upon being granted immunity. Could it be because they know the potential dangers of their swine flu vaccines? It is therefore little wonder that more and more healthcare practitioners and the public are growing increasingly suspicious of vaccine safety and the real intentions of the vaccine makers.
Suspicions also lie in the government’s figures to support their predictions of a 2009-2010 swine flu threat based on evidence that the diagnostic kits being used are inaccurate in diagnosing the presence of H1N1. There are currently three rapid diagnostic tests for determining swine flu infection. A CDC report found that these tests can be wrong as much as nine out of ten times, and on average between 40-69 percent. The CDC determined that the instant tests are “not highly worthwhile for diagnosing H1N1 infections.” The report states that there is almost nothing to distinguish the swine flu from normal seasonal flu. In fact, the diagnostic tests were more accurate with the seasonal flu.42 Consequently, only professional diagnostic laboratories qualify for scientifically sound diagnosis of H1N1 incidents. Reports are coming into the CDC from many various venues and the most common diagnostic usage being used around the world are these rapid diagnostic kits.
Throughout the world, healthcare practitioners, including physicians, are becoming nervous about the reports about the swine flu vaccine and are turning suspicious about health officials’ hype over their dire warnings of swine flu’s dangers. Dr. Neal Rau, an Ontario medical director of infection prevention and control told the Toronto Star, “I won’t get one until there have been a million doses given and there is evidence it is safe.”43
Polls taken in European countries show an increase in the number of health workers and citizens ready to refuse the H1NI vaccination. Twenty-nine percent of all Germans surveyed said they would refuse the vaccine “under any circumstance” and an additional 33 percent would likely refuse it. In the region of Bavaria and Baden Wurtteemburg, only 10 percent of those polled said they would submit to the injection. In France, Le Figaro conducted a poll of 12,050 people showing 69 percent would refuse it. In a separate French survey, one third of 4,752 doctors, nurses and healthcare workers surveyed would not be inoculated.44
In the UK, a couple polls reported in the Daily Mail in late August 2009, showed:
• Half of family physicians do not want swine flu vaccination
• Seventy-one percent of those polled do not believe the vaccine has been tested enough for safety and the swine flu is much milder than health authorities are saying
• A third of UK nurses would refuse the vaccine 45
A survey published in the British Medical Journal of 8,500 healthcare workers in Hong Kong found that more than fifty percent would refuse the swine flu vaccine if they could.
Polls taken in the US so far are showing Americans are quickly losing faith in the federal health agencies’ and the private medical establishment’s assurances about vaccine efficacy and safety. A poll of pregnant mothers taken by the parent support group www.Mumsnet.com indicates that women are becoming more suspicious of vaccines’ ultimate value. The survey of 1500 respondents showed that only 6 percent of pregnant women would “definitely” take the shot, while 48 percent said they “definitely” wouldn’t. The figures mirror an accompanying poll that showed 5 percent definitely would and 46 percent definitely wouldn’t vaccinate their children.46
Another reason to question the health agencies’ credibility concerns the rapid push to have sufficient amounts of the drug Tamiflu to treat people with H1N1 infections. This may seem to be a vital and appropriate proactive measure if it wasn’t for the fact that two separate peer- reviewed studies—one in the March 2009 Journal of the American Medical Association and the other in the New England Journal of Medicine—stated Tamiflu does not work for the H1N1 virus! The conclusion is clear. The CDC committed a grievous error in ordering massive amounts of Tamiflu for rapid distribution. Double-blind placebo controlled studies in respected orthodox publications unequivocally state that Tamiflu does not work for H1N1. This is not an isolated incident. A similar scenario unfolded in the UK and with wide media coverage. During August 2009, across England, children taking Tamiflu fell deathly ill. Medical experts, outside the government’s health ministry confirmed that Tamiflu is more harmful than good. But at the end of a brief spark of media publicity, the government turned around, rejected the experts’ claims and continued to recommend Tamiflu in the advent of swine flu infection.47
Richard Gale and Gary Null
Part 3, Is the Flu Vaccine Effective?
see alsoVaccines: A Second Opinion by Gary Null, PhD (Oct. 18, 2009)
Gary Null is heard daily over the internet and on many broadcast radio stations out of New York City. You can access all audio archives of the daily Gary Null Show (12 Noon-1 PM Eastern time) from this link: http://garynull.org/?feed=rss2
Click on the date of your choice to download an MP3 audio file of the show. Gary's audio archives are available free.
Many other interesting shows from Gary Null's Progressive Radio Netwoek can be accessed from this link: http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/PRNarchives2.php
|All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.|