The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines

The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines







Sayer Ji, Contributor
Activist Post

With the flu season ramping up, many are looking to vaccination as a
"preventive" approach. Those who abstain are often accused of being
uneducated, or worse, socially irresponsible. Nothing could be further
from the truth.

As it presently stands, it is not sound medical science, but primarily
economic and political motivation which generates the immense pressure
behind mass participation in the annual ritual of flu vaccination.

It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment
(especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database
Review, considered by many within the evidence-based medical model to
be the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of common medical
interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the
belief and/or propaganda that flu vaccines are safe and effective.

To the contrary, these authoritative reviews reveal there is a
conspicuous absence of conclusive evidence as to the effectiveness of
influenza vaccines in children under 2, healthy adults, the elderly, and healthcare workers who care for the elderly.

What is even more disconcerting is that only one
safety study on inactivated flu vaccines has been performed in children
under 2 (the population most susceptible to adverse reactions), even
though in the USA and Canada current guidelines recommend the
vaccination of healthy children from six months old.

Another alarming finding following the global pandemic declared by the
World Health Organization in 2009, is that receipt of the seasonal flu
vaccine among Canadians actually increased the rate of medically attended pandemic H1N1 infection. Vaccines, therefore, may actually decrease resistance to viral infection via their immunosuppressive actions. View study.


Can Vaccination Replace Natural Immunity?

At the outset it should be acknowledged that there could be no medical
justification for vaccination in the first place if it were not for the
observation that periodic infection from wild type pathogens confers
lasting, natural immunity. In a very real sense periodic infectious
challenges are Nature's immunizations, without which the very concept
of vaccination would make absolutely no sense.
The vaccination process artificially simulates and co-opts a natural
process, generating a broad range of adverse unintended consequences,
many of which have been documented here.
Vaccine proponents would have us believe that natural immunity is
inferior to synthetic immunity, and should be replaced by the latter.
In some cases they even suggest breastfeeding should be delayed during immunizations
because it "interferes" with the vaccine efficacy. Sounds like naked
economic incentives have trumped genuine, serious health concerns for
the entire population, especially the very young, the elderly and the
sick.

This warped perspective follows from the disingenuous standard vaccine
researchers use to "prove" the "efficacy" of their vaccines. The chemical kitchen sink
is thrown at the immune system in order to conserve the
expensive-to-produce antigen and to generate a more intense immune
response - a process, not unlike what happens when you kick a beehive.
These chemicals include detergents, anti-freeze, heavy metals,
xenotrophic retroviruses, DNA from aborted human fetuses (diploid
cells) and other species, etc. Amazingly, vaccine researchers and
manufacturers do not have to prove the antibodies actually have
affinity with the antigens they are marketed to protect us against, i.e.
they do not have to prove "effectiveness," only "efficacy."

This
semantic trick is at the root of how the world has been deceived into
accepting interventions so dangerous that their risk, like nuclear
power, is underwritten by world governments, not private insurers who
know they would go bankrupt paying out claims to the injured.

Also, recent research indicates in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses, running diametrically opposed to orthodox vaccinology.

Another point that can not be understated is that the trivalent
(3-strained) influenza vaccines are incapable of protecting us against
the wide range of pathogens which produce influenza-like illness:
<blockquote>Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness
which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains,
cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell
the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or
serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only
Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating
viruses. (Cochrane Database).</blockquote>It
is therefore exceedingly clear that it is a mathematical impossibility
for influenza vaccines to be effective at preventing wild-circulating
strains of influenza. Nutritional support, then, becomes the most
logical and reasonable solution.

Immune Status Determines Susceptibility To Infection

The fact is that our immune status determines susceptibility. If the
immune system is continually challenged with environmental toxicants,
nutritional deficiencies and/or incompatibilities, chronic stress,
influenza is far more likely to take hold. If your immune system is
strong, many infectious challenges occur, are met with an appropriate
response, and often go unnoticed. In other words, it is not a lack of a
vaccination that causes infection, rather, the inability of the immune
system to function effectively. [Note: In some cases, we may become
infected and the ultimate outcome is that we enjoy even greater
immunity.]

While there are a broad spectrum of natural substances
which have been studied for their anti-influenza properties, vitamin D
deserves special consideration due to the fact that it is
indispensable to produce antiviral peptides (e.g. cathelicidin) within
the immune system, and can be supported for pennies a day.


A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
in 2010, revealed that children receiving 1200 IUs of vitamin D a day
were at 59% reduced risk for contracting seasonal Influenza A
infection. Moreover as a secondary outcome, only 2 children in the
treatment group versus 12 for the control group, experienced an asthma
attack.

There are actually a broad range of preventive strategies that are evidence-based, and available without prescription.

1) Echinacea Tea:
2) Elderberry:
3) American Ginseng:
4) Green Tea:
5) Probiotics:
6) Vitamin D:

Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/the-shocking-lack-of-evidence.html