[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen


Health
See other Health Articles

Title: Influenza: Expert Advice You Need Now
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777798
Published: Jan 19, 2013
Author: Susan B. Yox, RN, EdD, Richard J. Whitle
Post Date: 2013-01-19 05:28:38 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 83
Comments: 3

Editor's Note:

Alabama was one of the first states to be hit hard with influenza. In light of that, Susan B. Yox, RN, EdD, of Medscape spoke with Richard Whitley, MD, Distinguished Professor of Pediatrics; Loeb Scholar in Pediatrics; Professor of Pediatrics, Microbiology, Medicine and Neurosurgery, at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's Influenza Advisory Group, about the diagnosis and management of influenza. Among other advice for managing an influx of patients with possible flu, Dr. Whitley describes his experiences with clinical decisions such as which patients should be hospitalized and who can be safely managed at home during the ongoing influenza season. He also addresses the important issue of antiviral treatment and why he believes it is an essential component in the fight against influenza. Richard J. Whitley, MD

Medscape: Reports indicate that 20 children have died from influenza this season, and last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 47 states are experiencing widespread influenza. Patients with symptoms of influenza are overwhelming emergency departments. Would you offer our clinician audience some insight? Do you believe that this will be a record-breaking influenza season or is this perhaps just a quick beginning to an expected seasonal surge in influenza?

Dr. Whitley: I need to give you a little bit of background. Until a week ago, I had been on our clinical service since Thanksgiving, so I have watched this unfold in our emergency department and in our inpatient service here at Children's Hospital of Alabama. Alabama was one of the first states to experience a surge in the number of cases of influenza, not only in children but also in adults. But the wave came in children first, which is very interesting. A couple of observations have been made. One is the CDC hypothesis that we saw influenza early this year because children went back to school and mingled with other students, causing an increase in the rate of transmission.

That can't be the only explanation because, beginning early in December and even by Thanksgiving, we were hospitalizing children with influenza pneumonia and bacterial infections secondary to influenza infection. We have had many children hospitalized as a result of supplemental oxygen requirement, and some have required ventilatory support. We have had no deaths yet at Children's Hospital of Alabama, but we have seen a significant number of children who developed secondary bacterial complications in the form of Staphylococcus aureus (community-acquired, methicillin-resistant) or streptococcal infections of the lung that have required surgical drainage because of empyema.

The other observation that I have made, because I'm also responsible for our diagnostic virology laboratory, is that at the beginning of the season we saw many cases of influenza B. As we moved into December, the epidemiology of the infection changed so that we saw H3N2, which is now the predominant strain of influenza that is circulating in the communities across the United States. It is as though influenza B is playing a secondary role. H3N2 is the virus that we worry about the most because it's more severe than H1N1 or even 2009 H1N1. That has attracted a lot of attention.

Medscape: So, you believe that this is already a particularly worrisome year for influenza?

Dr. Whitley: Yes. The CDC reports that it is beginning to wane in some states, but it's not waning at Children's of Alabama. We have been at this now for 8 weeks, and we are seeing 260 visits to our emergency department daily, when we normally see about 100-150. It isn't just influenza. We are also seeing other respiratory infections that are common at this time of year in children under 2 years of age, particularly respiratory syncytial virus infections. But the predominant illness is influenza.

Medscape: Can you offer any comment on what is happening in adults?

Dr. Whitley: We are also seeing flu in adults. We find that the adults in Birmingham tend to get immunized, whereas many families forget that their children need immunization as well. That is an important point: We have to make sure that our children are immunized.

Medscape: The next question relates to the virus strain in circulation right now. The most common strain is the H3N2, and 36%-37% of influenza A specimens are of unknown subtype. Is it common for laboratories to not subtype such a high percentage of specimens?

Dr. Whitley: Yes, it is common, and it reflects a couple of different trends that are occurring. Most diagnostic virology laboratories just report influenza A or influenza B, and they don't bother to subtype the specimens. If a virus specimen is sent to the state health department, it will ultimately be typed. But there is a significant lag phase of 4-6 weeks before the typing is complete.

So, the specimens that haven't been typed yet will eventually be typed. But I don't think that we are dealing with a new strain of influenza that we are not aware of yet. If that were the case, we would already know it because the deep sequencing that is being done at the CDC would have identified those cases by now. So I don't think we are dealing with a 2009 H1N1.

Medscape: Diagnostic testing is another question that commonly comes up with clinicians. The rapid test carries the potential for false-negative results, and there is some guidance from CDC that clinicians should move forward with treatment if symptoms indicate influenza. Could you comment on the limitations and best practices with rapid diagnostic testing?

Dr. Whitley: Our emergency department does rapid influenza testing because, at least at this hospital, we are firmly committed to administering antiviral medication to children who are sick. In a pediatric emergency department, the specificity of rapid testing is high. If the test is positive, the patient has influenza. The sensitivity is not as good as the specificity. In other words, you are going to get false negatives with a rapid diagnostic test.

If we translate this now to adults, the probability of getting a false negative is even higher because the virus load in adults is lower. You are less likely to detect an infectious virus in an adult than in a child. The guidelines that we have used during influenza season say that if a child comes in and the rapid test is negative, but the child is not hypoxic and doesn't require hospitalization, we treat that child empirically as long as we can get oseltamivir.

We have criteria for treatment, and every patient who is hospitalized will be subtyped according to the strain. In other words, is it 2009 H1N1, is it seasonal H1N1, is it H3N2, or is it influenza B? If it's influenza B, which strain is it? We then go one step further and look for the 274Y mutation to determine whether the child already has a virus that was circulating in the community that is resistant to the existing neuraminidase inhibitors. We go the extra mile in the way that we provide care, and I think it is beneficial.

Medscape: How do you treat the child who has a resistant virus?

Dr. Whitley: We treat the child symptomatically if the child is not critically ill, or we give combination therapy with oseltamivir and rimantadine. Some experimental protocols use 3 different drugs (rimantadine, oseltamivir, and ribavirin). That is the only experimental protocol that is used in the community right now.

Medscape: Let's talk about treatment in young children. Oseltamivir was recently FDA-approved for use in infants as young as 2 weeks old, but the average primary care clinician in an office or in an emergency care setting might be concerned about giving it to a child that young. Would you review the recommendations in very young children?

Dr. Whitley: Yes, but I have to admit up front that I have a bias because I am one of the 2 people responsible for the data that led to that recommendation. We generated those data through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Collaborative Antiviral Study Group, which were provided to Roche and Genentech and used to extend the licensure for oseltamivir to children less than 2 years of age.[1]

We did a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in children less than 2 years of age so that we could determine the dose that should be used in those children. This study grew out of the public health needs identified with the 2009 H1N1 epidemic experience. We were able to unequivocally show that the dose that should be used in children, up to about 9 months of age, is 3 mg/kg/day. Between 9 months and 1 year of age, the dose should increase to 3.5 mg/kg/day. After 1 year of age, you can go back to 3 mg/kg/day. Most physicians will use 3 mg/kg/day dosing. (Editor's note: For CDC's guidance on dosing in children, see CDC's Seasonal Influenza: Antiviral Drugs.)

A couple of important lessons were learned from that study. First, children got better fast. We had entry criteria that demanded that children be admitted to the hospital within 48 hours after the onset of disease, rather than 72 hours as in many other studies. Second, we learned that the drug was incredibly safe, which addresses concerns from Japan that there were neurotoxic effects of the drug. We absolutely did not see that at all. The patients did exceedingly well and there were no adverse events.

Our strategy at Children's Hospital of Alabama is as follows: If a child comes walking into the emergency department and everybody in the family has influenza, and the child is a little achy and has a low-grade fever but isn't really sick, we don't worry about that child because that child probably has partial immunity and doesn't warrant immediate intervention with an antiviral drug such as oseltamivir or zanamivir.

On the other hand, if the child comes in with a 104° F fever, we definitely are going to go ahead and treat that child, which is a little bit different from some of the recommendations that you may have heard from the CDC during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. At that time, people said, "We don't need to worry about treating influenza." I think we do need to worry about treating influenza because we can reduce the probability of otitis media, secondary bacterial infections, and the probability of hospitalization (although the latter endpoint is observational and doesn't come from controlled clinical studies).

Medscape: That leads to the next question. For clinicians who are seeing people in offices and emergency rooms, decisions in some situations are obvious. In those patients who are more borderline, do you have any advice about the decision to treat at home or in the hospital?

Dr. Whitley: That is pretty straightforward for me. You can manage most adults at home unless they are really in distress or have an infiltrate on a chest x-ray, and you are worried that the patient might require respiratory support. In children, the criteria are simple: If the child is hypoxemic (a transcutaneous oxygen saturation of less than 92%) and tachypneic, that child is usually hospitalized. We are going to make sure that that child is stable in the hospital before we do anything else.

We observe these children in the hospital for a period of time. We generally require that they be off of oxygen overnight, maintaining their oxygen saturation concentrations above 92% before we let them leave the hospital. I have had children in for 5 days because we can't maintain their oxygen concentrations.

Medscape: Are there any shortages of antiviral drugs for children in particular?

Dr. Whitley: Canada is releasing their stockpile of oseltamivir so that they can make oseltamivir available, not only for children but also for adults. We have had shortages of the pediatric formulation of oseltamivir in the United States as well. The oseltamivir shortages were recognized by Roche/Genentech as early as the middle of November. According to their press releases, they are backfilling their suppliers as quickly as possible so that they can get the drug into the field.

I have not had a problem obtaining drug here in Birmingham. However, I have colleagues who are infectious disease physicians in surrounding states (particularly Florida and Georgia) where they have not been able to get oseltamivir. This problem also happened during 2009 H1N1. I would have hoped that we would have had drug available for these children.

Medscape: Do you know whether the clinicians in Florida and Georgia have been able to get the drug they need? Does it just take longer?

Dr. Whitley: They have to compound the adult drug for children.

Medscape: What is your bottom-line advice for people who are out in the trenches? What might they expect in the next couple of weeks and months?

Dr. Whitley: My first bit of advice is that if influenza is in your community, it would be worth trying to immunize your patients now, if they haven't already been immunized. In Madison County, Alabama, public health officials went into the school system yesterday, and every child who had an informed consent but had not yet been immunized received FluMist intranasally. They had a 95%-98% uptake rate, which was fantastic. We have to be creative in how we immunize people; we haven't totally lost the opportunity to immunize children and adults, and we should remember to try and do that. That's the first thing.

The second thing is that if you are sick, don't go to work because you are going to infect somebody else, and then you will have 2 people out of work rather than 1.

The third point is that if people are sick, they should seek medical attention (eg, 103° or 104°F fever, shortness of breath, tachypnea, abdominal pain). These individuals require medical attention and are likely going to require treatment with a drug such as oseltamivir or zanamivir.

What do I expect is going to happen over the next 4-6 weeks? Influenza is going to begin to abate in states such as Alabama because we expect the season to last about 3 months, and we have been at it for 2 months. I have another month to go here dealing with sick children and adults. I am anticipating that it will continue for about another 4 weeks and then gradually back off. We were among the first states to be hit, so I expect that we will be among the first states to get over it, too.

Medscape: So, other clinicians who just got into a surge of influenza in the past 3-4 weeks may have a couple of months to go?

Dr. Whitley: Yes, such as California. California has seen very little influenza. The entire West Coast, for that matter, is just beginning to see influenza. I expect that the flu is going to be more protracted in the state of California than it will be in the Southeast.

Medscape: Do you have any other advice for clinicians?

Dr. Whitley: Whether we are healthcare providers or not, we took the 2009 H1N1 as a simple little breeze and we didn't pay that much attention to influenza. With influenza, we are going to see severe disease. We can never let our guard down. We always need to remind ourselves that when it's time to get immunized, get immunized. We need to pay attention to the public health issues that surround this disease, whether we are physicians, healthcare providers, or laymen. It doesn't make any difference. We need to do better.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)

My first bit of advice is that if influenza is in your community, it would be worth trying to immunize your patients now, if they haven't already been immunized. In Madison County, Alabama, public health officials went into the school system yesterday, and every child who had an informed consent but had not yet been immunized received FluMist intranasally. They had a 95%-98% uptake rate, which was fantastic. We have to be creative in how we immunize people; we haven't totally lost the opportunity to immunize children and adults, and we should remember to try and do that. That's the first thing.

Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) 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/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2811%2...

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_vaccines_junk_science.html)

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/annual_reports/1999_annual_report.p...) 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/default/files/reports/report2004_iavi...).

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_vitamin_D_influenza.html). 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_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html) 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.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html#ixzz2IR7O26zq

Southern Style  posted on  2013-01-19   10:47:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Southern Style (#1)

Probably what would work better than flu vaccines in combating flu spread would be confining infected mass transit users to designated cars.

Tatarewicz  posted on  2013-01-20   1:49:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tatarewicz (#2)

combating flu spread

A couple days of "sick leave", with pay, would probably be a good investment also.

Southern Style  posted on  2013-01-20   1:53:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]