Featured

Flu Vax Causes 5.5 Times More Respiratory Infections

June 2, 2013 by admin in Vaccines with 13 Comments

The utter absurdity of vaccination ‘science’ is revealed in this study. It claims a flu vaccine results in less disease risk because it causes antibodies to develop, in spite of not reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease and also resulting in 5.5 times more incidents of similar diseases!

Vaccine Vials, by Sanofi Pasteur

Vaccine Vials, by Sanofi Pasteur, Vaccine Profiteer

by Heidi Stevenson

Would you be interested in a vaccination that results in more than 5 times as much illness? If you take the seasonal influenza vaccination, that’s what you’re doing. The seasonal trivalent flu vaccine results in 5.5 times more incidents of respiratory illness, according to a study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

The study is particularly noteworthy because it was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial—and the researchers used saline solution, a genuinely inactive placebo, as a standin for the trivalent flu vaccine. Most vaccine trials utilize active placebos, which are substances that include ingredients used in the vaccines, making the studies meaningless—though this fact is almost never revealed in the writeups.

Subjects were followed for an average of 272 days. The active influenza vaccine adminstered was Sanofi Pasteur’s Vaxigrip. The trial included children aged 6-15 years. 69 were given Vaxgrip and 46 received the saline placebo. Results were reported in terms of episodes per 1,000 person years of follow up.

With regard to effectiveness against influenza, the authors wrote:

There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of confirmed seasonal influenza infection between recipients of TIV [trivalent influenza inactivated vaccine] or placebo.

The flu vaccine provided no benefit!

The authors tried to cover that by adding:

TIV recipients had significantly lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on
serologic evidence.

In other words, the authors are trying to suggest that, in spite of the fact that vaccine recipients suffered as much genuine influenza as those who’d received a placebo, they still benefited because of “serologic evidence”. This “serologic evidence” consists of antibodies produced as a result of the vaccine, which is the standard method of determining a vaccine’s effectiveness.

In other words, a vaccine’s effectiveness is not determined by whether it prevents disease, but rather by whether it causes antibodies to be produced!

But the story is even worse than this. The study also demonstrated that the vaccine resulted in recipients having 5.5 times more respiratory illness. Here’s a partial breakdown of their results:

Vaccinated Placebo (saline)
Any Seasonal Influenza 58 88
H1N1 (Swine Flu ‘Pandemic’) 58 0
   Total Influenza Cases 116 88
Noninfluenza Viruses
   Rhinovirus (common cold) 230 59
   Coxsackie/Echovirus 160 0
   Other Respiratory Viruses 97 29
      Total Other Viruses 487 88

As you can see, even though the authors claim that there was no distinction in cases of influenza between the subjects who received a vaccine and those who received the placebo, the reality seems to be quite different: There were a total of 116 influenza cases in the vaccinated group and 88 in the placebo group.

The authors play with statistics in this study by using assumptions about whether people actually had diseases, because there were many reported instances that couldn’t be verified. They came up with a relative risk of 4.4. In any case, relative risk is actually a meaningless statistic here, because it requires that exposure to the causative agent be known, which it clearly wasn’t in this study.

I prefer a simpler, more straightforward—and, I believe, more honest—approach of simply comparing the numbers of cases of disease. Doing that, we get 487 ÷ 88, which tells us that those who were vaccinated were 5.5 times more likely to contract a confirmed respiratory illness!

Now, let’s take a look at the other respiratory illnesses that people were more likely to contract as a result of being vaccinated for influenza. The rhinovirus is the common cold, so it isn’t a big deal. However, coxsackievirus and echovirus are quite different. Both of them are known to cause meningitis, paralysis, hepatitis, and heart disorders. This is not common, but the same thing is true of poliovirus. It also causes a usually minor respiratory illness, but in rare cases can result in much the same harm that coxsackievirus and echovirus can.

It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that the rate of severe crippling diseases may also be increased by the influenza vaccine, and potentially by any vaccine against a respiratory illness.

Implications

This study’s implications are quite serious. The authors suggest:

Receipt of TIV could increase influenza immunity at the expense of reduced immunity to
noninfluenza respiratory viruses, by some unknown biological mechanism. Alternatively, our results could be explained by temporary nonspecific immunity after influenza virus infection, through the cell-mediated response or, more likely, the innate immune response to infection.

In other words, the act of injecting antigens probably damages the innate cell-mediated immune response, the part of the immune system that protects without the need of resorting to development of antibodies. They go on to state:

The phenomenon of virus interference has been well known in virology for >60 years.

The interference of vaccinations with the innate cell-mediated immune response is well known! The authors go on to cite several sources supporting this fact.

In summary, this study demonstrates:

  • Influenza vaccines provide no benefit.
  • Influenza vaccines cause a hugely increased number of respiratory illnesses.
  • Influenza vaccines—and very likely other vaccines—harm the innate cell-mediated immune response, which results in a significant increase in infectious disease incidents.

Nonetheless, our agencies of health destruction, such as the US’s alphabet soup of FDA, CDC, and NIH, the UK’s NHS, MHRA, and DOH, Australia’s ANPHA, and Canada’s Health Canada, plus the international WHO and massive foundations such as the Gates Foundation and GAVI—these and so many more routinely lie about the reality of vaccinations. They use fear tactics and lies to promote the profiteering of Big Pharma and Big Medicine at the expense of the populace, and worse, of our children.

The reality of all these agencies is that, though they may have been created for the purpose of benefiting our health, they’ve been coopted by Big Pharma and Big Medicine, who have managed to buy their way into them. The result is that these agencies now actively promote, and even enforce, the use of products and methods whose first purpose is to make profits. If that means the public’s health must suffer … apparently, it’s a small price to pay when it doesn’t affect the bottom line.

Sources:

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • Pingback: Study: Flu Vaccine Causes 5.5 Times More Respiratory Infections – A True Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study | Health Impact News

  • I don’t get the flu vaccine for my family, but wanted to point out that this article needs a rewrite due to misinterpretation of the data. You state, “69 were given Vaxgrip and 46 received the saline placebo.” This is true. Then you state, “There were a total of 116 influenza cases in the vaccinated group and 88 in the placebo group.” This is clearly not true – the cases of influenza are nearly double the number of children involved in each group?? If you go back and look at page 21 of the study, you will see that you are confusing actual cases of influenza with what they call rate, defined as “Incidence rates estimated as the number of virus detections or illness episodes per 1,000 person-years of follow up.” The actual incidences are as follows: vacc 3 cases of any seasonal flu out of 69 vaccinated (4%), placebo 3 cases of any seasonal flu out of 46 in group (6.5%) broken down as seasonal H1N1 (2 v 2), seasonal influenza A (1 v 0), seasonal B (0 v 1).

    The difference was that 20 of the 69 vacc group got resp illnesses (29%) v 3 of the 46 placebo group (6.5%). The illnesses included rhinovirus, coxsackie, and a large number of other resp viruses which included detection of coronavirus, metapneumonovirus, parainfluenza, RSV.

    When you do the calculations to one decimal place, you can see you get the accurate calculation of 4.4 as the increased incidence. Important research showing us there is more to consider than just flu incidence when deciding on this vaccine for your family. My husband and I and our 7 children have never had the vacc and do not plan to do so.

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      Yes, they used incidents per 1,000 person-years. The amount of time each
      person was in the study was utilized, and it is only the amount of time
      in the study that can be counted. So, person-years were given, not
      incidents per person.

      I think that tends to show that it’s inappropriate to have studies with differing lengths of participation time. However, for amount of time in the study, the rate of influenza cases is what’s given.

      I should have included the statement that results are reported in terms of incidents per 1,000 person-years of follow-up, so have added it in the third paragraph.

      Statistics are a tricky business and can be used in inappropriate ways. In this instance, though it would seem the incidents per person is the salient issue, that would be a misrepresentation of the data, because it doesn’t inform us that the amount of time each group was followed up was different. Otherwise, the two figures would be the same.

  • Pingback: NEW STUDY SHOWS FLU VACCINE MAKES YOU 5.5 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO CONTRACT RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES | The Liberty Beat

  • Pingback: Flu Vaccine Causes 5.5 Times More Respiratory Infections – Waking Times : Waking Times

  • Pingback: Le vaccin contre la grippe provoque 5,5 fois plus d’infections respiratoires | Sortir du chaos et de l'illusion

  • Pingback: Le vaccin contre la grippe provoque 5,5 fois plus d’infections respiratoires | Héritage Ancestral

  • / Heidi Stevenson

    What a crock! Seroconversion is NOT the same thing as a positive lab assay. A positive lab assay refers to an active infection, while seroconversion is merely a presumed number of antibodies to a particular disease, whether active or not.

    Your presumption is rather foolish. Your claim that seroconversion and positive lab assays for current infection are equivalent is ludicrous, and your statement that there was no difference between vaccine and placebo groups is also ludicrous, as the figures from the study, which are shown above, clearly demonstrate.

  • Pingback: Indiana School Offers Free School Supplies in Exchange for Vaccinations  Dark Politricks

  • Pingback: Indiana School Offers Free School Supplies in Exchange for Vaccinations

  • Pingback: Indiana School Offers Free School Supplies in Exchange for Vaccinations | Nwo Report

  • Dragon Acupuncture

    What do you make of this follow up study that suggests there is no increase in respiratory infections? http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/6/789.abstract

    • / Heidi Stevenson

      Since the article’s hidden behind a paywall and the abstract doesn’t give key info, so I cannot comment in detail.

      Nonetheless, there is one key bit of information in the abstract that would indicate the results are virtually meaningless. It states: “The proportion vaccinated did not vary between virus-positive controls and pan-negative controls in children (P = .62) or adults (P = .33). Influenza infection was associated with reduced odds of vaccination, but adjusted odds ratios differed by no more than 0.02 when the analysis used influenza-negative or virus-positive controls.”

      A p-value of .33 means that the same results would likely have happened in 1 out of 3 equivalent studies. A p-value of .62 means that the same results would likely have happened in 2 out of 3 equivalent studies. Between the two p-values, it seems that, overall, the results were equivalent to a coin toss – 50-50!

      Data behind the paywall may be of interest, but nothing in the abstract indicates results robust enough to use in support of claims about increases or decreases in respiratory infections after flu vaccination.

      Thank you very much for bringing the question up.

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software