flu shot
The influenza season is again upon us and the CDC's blitzkrieg of fear tactics to compel every citizen to rush to their doctors, hospitals or pharmacies to get vaccinated is underway. We have witnessed this ritual many times before. It is has become an annual rite for the world's most heavily vaccinated population. Mainstream media outlets blast us with stories of the first influenza deaths and images of smiling children getting vaccinated. And this pageantry will continue for the next several months. The government has a lot of vaccines to get rid of and they can thank the media for doing their advertising for them.

However, popular attitudes towards the influenza vaccine have been waning. For the reason, we can expect the propaganda to be particularly fierce this year. The vaccine's track record is not impressive. Consistently, it fails to meet the medical establishment's promises. This is no surprise. Quite simply, influenza vaccines are horrible, ineffective drugs.

We can look back through the years and find plenty of reasons for why more and more people are skeptical about seasonal flu vaccination. Research indicates that during the fake swine flu scare in 2009, Glaxo's Pandermrix flu vaccine was associated with a 1400% increase in narcolepsy risk, "an incurable, debilitating condition" associated with acute brain damage.[1] A team of Finnish scientists at Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare, recorded 800 cases of narcolepsy associated with this vaccine. Vaccine ingredients other than the engineered viral antigen are most often believed to be the primary culprits to adverse vaccine reactions. The Finnish research, on the other hand, indicated that the vaccine's altered viral nucleotide likely contributed to the sudden rise in sleeping sickness.[2]

Although Pandermrix was pulled from the market, it should never have been approved and released in the first place. This is a classic case of regulatory negligence by health officials and the WHO which disseminates flu vaccines around the world. Like all vaccines, which are now commonly fast tracked through government health regulatory bodies for rapid release upon the public, it should have been tested and reviewed more thoroughly.

Since the time of Edward Jenner's primitive inoculation experiments to combat smallpox and the countless deaths that followed throughout the 19th century, modern vaccine science has failed to learn its lessons. The British government has paid out over 63 million pounds to cover lawsuits from Pandermrix victims. Glaxo never admitted its flu vaccine caused brain damage.[3]

This year's influenza vaccines will be different. For the first time, Sanofi will unleash its Flublok on the public. This vaccine does not require the culturing of the virus in chicken egg medium. Instead, it is genetically modified and combined with baculovirus grown in caterpillar cells. Seqirus' Flucelvax, another new vaccine, is grown on canine kidney cells. However, these will only be given to those 18 years and 4 years and older respectively. One positive change is that 80% of the vaccines will be mercury-free for the 2018-2019 season.[4]

Today tens of thousands of infants, toddlers, children and adults around the world are becoming victims of vaccine injuries. No national debate is initiated because federal health agencies, through regulatory malfeasance, have aligned their interests with pharmaceutical profits rather than service to the public health. And we are repeatedly told the flu vaccine is completely safe and severe adverse effects are rare. But by what standard is rarity determined? Jeremy Hammond notes that in Australia, one out of a hundred children experienced fever-induced seizures from the 2009-2010 flu vaccine.[5] And even if serious adverse effects of 1 in 100 are regarded as rare, health agencies ignore such risks in order to meet vaccination compliance.

Like the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), flu vaccines are among the least effective vaccines on the market. An updated review of the vaccine conducted by the prestigious Cochrane Database Collaboration concluded that their findings should "discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure."[6] Repeatedly we are told by health officials that the moral argument for its continued use is for "the greater good," although this imaginary good has never been defined scientifically.

According to Dr. Tom Jefferson at the Cochrane Collaboration, it makes little sense to keep vaccinating against seasonal influenza based on the evidence.[7] Jefferson has also endorsed more cost-effective and scientifically-proven means of minimizing the transmission of flu, including regular hand washing and wearing masks. There is also substantial peer-reviewed literature supporting the supplementation of Vitamin D.

Dr. Jefferson's conclusions are backed by a 2013 article by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine scientist Peter Doshi, PhD, in the British Journal of Medicine. In his article, Doshi questions the flu vaccine paradigm, stating:
"Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials' claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated."[8]
In her investigative report, "The Emerging Risks of Live Virus and Virus Vectored Vaccines," Barbara Lo Fisher noted that the attenuated virus in the flu vaccine can shed and infect others for months after vaccination. Both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated are at risk. The CDC acknowledges this risk and warns "Persons who care for severely immunosuppressed persons who require a protective environment should not receive LAIV, or should avoid contact with such persons for 7 days after receipt, given the theoretical risk for transmission of the live attenuated vaccine virus."[9]

Dr. David Brownstein has noted that as far back as 1999, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported increased risks of febrile disorders greater than placebo associated with the live vaccine.[10] According to the FDA's literature on FluMist, the vaccine was not studied for immunocompromised individuals (yet was still administered to them), and has been associated with acute allergic reactions, asthma, Guillian-Barre, and a high rate of hospitalizations among children under 24 months - largely due to upper respiratory tract infections. Other adverse effects include pericarditis, congenital and genetic disorders, mitochondrial encephalomyopathy or Leigh Syndrome, meningitis, and others.[11] Given this litany of vaccine dangers, it is highly unlikely the vaccine was removed simply for ineffectiveness. Yet when has the CDC ever been truthful with the public?

A recent survey conducted by the Orlando Health Arnold Palmer Hospital found that nearly half of parents believe the flu shot made children more susceptible to infection. An additional 28 percent of parents did not trust the vaccine was as safe as health officials and doctors claim.[12]

The survey should not come as a surprise. Empirical evidence based upon personal experience should carry equal weight to a paper published in medical journal. It is very common to hear family and friends describe how rotten and sick they felt after receiving a flu shot, or how they came down with flu-like symptoms shortly thereafter. Every vaccination weakens the body's immune system. A Dutch study out of Erasmus Medical Center compared virus-specific CD8+ T cells in children who were vaccinated and unvaccinated. The researchers found that although the seasonal influenza vaccine showed effectiveness, it "hampers the development of virus-specific T cell responses."[13] The consequence is that vaccinated children can be more prone to respiratory infections by any one of over a hundred other viruses that present flu-like symptoms.

An earlier study confirms the Dutch finding. To date there is only one gold standard clinical trial with the flu vaccine that compares vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and it is not good news for the CDC and the vaccine makers. This Hong Kong funded double-blind placebo controlled study followed the health conditions of vaccinated and unvaccinated children between the ages of 6-15 years for 272 days. The trial concluded the flu vaccine held no health benefits. In fact, those vaccinated with the flu virus were observed to have a 550% higher risk of contracting non-flu virus respiratory infections. Among the vaccinated children, there were 116 flu cases compared to 88 among the unvaccinated; there were 487 other non-influenza virus infections, including rhinovirus, coxsackie, echovirus and others, among the vaccinated versus 88 with the unvaccinated. This single study alone poses a scientifically sound warning and rationale for avoiding the vaccine.[14]

It should be noted that there are approximately 200 distinct viruses that are misdiagnosed as influenza and produce flu-like symptoms. These organisms don't magically appear during fall and winter - they are always among us. Nevertheless we are more susceptible to flu-like infections during the colder months when there are fewer daylight hours.

In a Canadian study led by Dr. Danuta Skowronski, individuals with a history of receiving consecutive seasonal flu shots over several years had an increased risk of becoming infected with H1N1 swine flu. Skowronski commented on his findings that "policy makers have not yet had a chance to fully digest them [the study's conclusions] or understand the implications." He continued, "Who knows, frankly? The wise man knows he knows nothing when it comes to influenza, so you always have to be cautious in speculating."[15]

At their best, flu vaccines remain around 50% effective according to official health statements. Annually the CDC touts public relations message that its seasonal vaccine will be 60% effective; however, the vaccine repeatedly falls short. Records show the flu vaccine has never reached that level of accuracy. Last year's vaccine was one of the worst on record. The CDC lowered its original 60% efficacy estimate to 37% after the flu season was underway. But a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated it was only 10% effective because it is believed the H3N2 targeted strain had mutated. The World Health Organization's predictions for 2014-2015 flu strains were also a bust. The match was such a failure that the CDC was forced to warn the American public that the vaccine was only 23% effective.[16] Given that the 2012-2013 flu season was only 27% effective for the 65 years-plus age group, predictive methodologies to determine which flu strains emerge during any given influenza season have more in common with medieval divination than sound science. For the 1992-1993 and 1997-1998 seasons, the vaccine concoction of flu strains was only 16% effective. Katherine Severyn, who monitors the actual WHO predictions and compares them with CDC claims, stated that, "depending upon the study cited, [flu] vaccine efficacy actually ranges from a low of 0%." [17]

The development and promotion of the influenza vaccine was never completely about protecting the public. It is the least popular vaccine in the US including among healthcare workers. Instead, similar to the mumps vaccine in the MMR, it is a cash cow for vaccine makers. Attempts to determine the actual severity of any given flu season are burdened by intentional federal confusion meant to mislead the public. The CDC's first line of propaganda defense to enforce seasonal flu shots is to exaggerate flu infections as the cause of preventable deaths. However, validating this claim is near impossible because the CDC does not differentiate deaths caused by influenza infection and deaths due to pneumonia. On its website the CDC has stretched its imagination more than ever by claiming 80,000 people died from flu infections last year. The agency would have us believe none of these 10s of 1000s were vaccinated. However, the CDC makes no differentiation between deaths from flu and pneumonia; instead, both infections are lumped together. The large majority of these were pneumonia deaths of elderly patients. Yet in any given year, only 3-18% of suspected influenza infections actually test positive for a Type A or B influenza strain.[18]

Dr. Martin Meltzer, a CDC expert in health economics, has stated "almost nobody dies of the flu" and "deaths [are] associated with flu, but not necessarily caused by flu."[19]

One particularly compelling 2005 study was carried out by scientists at the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH) and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Not only did the study indicate that the flu vaccine did nothing to prevent deaths from influenza among seniors, it found that flu mortality rates increased as a greater percentage of seniors received the shot.[20]

After the release of the study, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson covered the findings in a CBS News segment. Attkisson interviewed the only co-author of the study who was not affiliated with the NIH, Dr. Tom Reichert, who stated that the research team revisited the data several times, but that no matter how they analyzed the "incendiary material", the conclusion was clear: flu shots don't improve mortality rates.[21]

The other good news is that Americans are gradually losing their confidence in the CDC. According to a National Consumers League poll, over two-thirds of Americans believe vaccines cause autism, which the CDC categorically denies.[22] Almost two months after the media reported on the revelations by a CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, who exposed the CDC cover up of a vaccine-autism connection with the MMR vaccine, a CBS News poll showed public approval of the CDC nosedived to 37%, down from 60% the previous year. Vaccine apologists and the major media claim this large decrease is due to the CDC's dismal handling of the Ebola crisis; however, Thompson's whistleblowing received over 750 million Twitter impressions indicating that the debate over vaccine efficacy and safety is far more on the public's mind.[23] Positive endorsement of the CDC would plummet further if the public knew the full extent of CDC officials lying to Congress and their conspiracy to commit medical fraud for over a dozen years.

Imagine the tens of thousands of children and families who would have been saved from life-long neurological damage and immeasurable suffering if the CDC was not invested in protecting the toxic products of the pharmaceutical industry and was serving the health and well-being of American children. And we can begin to further dismantle this citadel of despotic medical fascism by simply refusing the flu vaccine and protecting ourselves by adopting a healthier lifestyle during the flu season.

About the author

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation's longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Autism: Made in the USA, War on Health: The FDA's Cult of Tyranny and Silent Epidemic: The Untold Story of Vaccination.


[1] yournewswire.com
[2] Finnish Scientists Identify Link Between GlaxoSmithKline's Swine Flu Vaccine Pandemrix and Narcolepsy
[3] If Vaccines Don't Cause Brain Damage, Why Is GlaxoSmithKline Paying Out $63 Million to Vaccine Victims?
[4] Maggie Fox. "Which flu vaccine should you get?" NBC News. September 4, 2018.
[5] Jeremy Hammond. "The New York Times vs. the Science on the Flu Shot," Health Defense. April 10, 2018
[6] Jeremy Hammond. "How the CDC uses fear marketing to increase demand for flu vaccines," Foreign Policy Journal. June 19, 2018
[7] 'A Whole Industry Is Waiting For A Pandemic', Der Spiegel, accessed December 4, 2011
[8] Doshi, P. "Influenza: Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease." BMJ 346 (2013): F3037. Accessed November 30, 2015.
[9] Barbara Lo Fisher, The Emerging Risks of Live Virus and Virus Vectored Vaccines. National Vaccine Information Center, 2014
[10] healthimpactnews.com
[11] fda.gov
[12] "Study finds over half of all parents don't trust flu shots," October 19, 2018.
[13] Bodewes R. et al. "Annual vaccination against influenza virus hampers development of virus-specific CD8+ T Cell immunity in children," Journal of Virology. 2011. Nov; 85(22): 11995-1200
[14] gaia-health.com
[15] cbc.ca
[16] CDC: Flu virus may have mutated, making flu shots less effective
[17] Richard Gale and Gary Null, "Flu Vaccines: Are They Effective and Safe?" Progressive Radio Network, September 28, 2009
[18] Barbara Lo Fisher, "CDC Admits Flu Shots Fail Half the Time." NVIC, October 19, 2016
[19] Manning, Anita. "Study: Annual flu death toll could be overstated." USA Today. December 11, 2005.
[20] Glezen, W P., and Lone Simonsen. "Commentary: Benefits of Influenza Vaccine in US Elderly-new Studies Raise Questions." International Journal of Epidemiology 35, no. 2 (2006): 352-53. Accessed December 1, 2015. doi:10.1093/ije/dyi293.
[21] "Govt. Researchers: Flu Shots Not Effective in Elderly, After All"
[22] Vaccines Injuries and Deaths Increase in Government Vaccine Court - June 2016 Report
[23] American Public Officially Loses Faith in CDC