Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines Thursday, September 02, 20 0 by !

ike Adams, the "ealth #anger $earn more: http:%%&&&'naturalne&s'com%02()* +vaccines+,unk+science'html-i.// 0r(01ge2 As someone &ith a good deal of education in scientific thinking and the scientific method, 1 have put considerable effort into attempting to find any real scientific evidence backing the &idespread use of influen/a vaccines 3flu season shots4' 5efore learning about nutrition and holistic health, 1 &as a computer soft&are entrepreneur, and 1 have a considerable scientific background in areas such as astronomy, physics, human physiology, microbiology, genetics, anthropology and human psychology' 6ne of my most-admired thought leaders is, in fact, the late physicist #ichard 2eynman' 1 don7t speak from a 8scientific8 point of vie& on 9atural9e&s very often because it7s often a dry, boring presentation style' 5ut 1 do kno& the difference bet&een real science and ,unk science, and 1 find e.amples of ,unk science in both the 8scientific8 side of things as &ell as the 8alternative8 side of things' 2or e.ample, so-called 8psychic surgery,8 as least in the &ay it has been populari/ed, is nothing more than clever sleight-of-hand &here the surgeon palms some chicken gi//ards and then pretends to pull diseased organs out of the abdominal cavity of some patient' The demonstrations 17ve seen on film are obvious :uackery' Similarly, flu season vaccines are mainstream medicine7s version of psychic surgery: 1t7s all ,ust 8medical sleight of hand8 based on nothing more than clever distractions and the obfuscation of scientific facts' 2lu season shots, you see, simply don't work on (( out of 00 people 3and that7s being generous to the vaccine industry, as you7ll see belo&4' A year ago, 1 offered a ; 0,000 re&ard to any person &ho could find scientific proof that " 9 vaccines &ere safe and effective 3http:%%&&&'naturalne&s'com%02<(=>+"'''4' 9o one even made a claim to collect that re&ard because no such evidence exists' ?onventional medicine, they say, is really 8Evidence-5ased !edicine8 3E5!4' That is, everything promoted by conventional medicine is supposed to be based on 8rigorous scientific scrutiny'8 1t7s all supposed to be statistically validated and proven beyond a shado& of a doubt that it &orks as advertised' And in the case of flu vaccines, they are advertised as providing some sort of absolute protection against influen/a' 80on7t miss &ork this flu season' @et a flu shotA8 The idea, of course, is that getting a flu shot offers 00B protection from the flu' 1f you get a shot, they say, you &on7t miss &ork from sickness' This implication is &ildly inaccurate' 1n fact, it7s ,ust flat-out false' As you7ll see belo&, it7s false advertising &rapped around ,unk science' Cou see, there was never an independent, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study proving either the safety or effectiveness of the " 9 s&ine flu vaccines that &ere
1

heavily pushed last year 3and are in fact in this year7s flu shot cocktail4' 9o such study has ever been done' As a result, there is no rigorous scientific basis from &hich to sell such vaccines in the first place' To try to e.cuse this, vaccine hucksters claim that it &ould be 8unethical8 to conduct a placebo-controlled study of such vaccines because they &ork so &ell that to deny the placebo group the actual vaccine &ould be harmful to them' Everybody benefits from the influen/a vaccine, they insist, so the mere act of conducting a scientifically-controlled test is unethical' 0o you smell some :uackery at &ork yetD This is precisely the kind of pseudoscientific gobbledygook you might hear from some mad #ussian scientist &ho claims to have 8magic &ater8 but you can7t test the magic &ater because the mere presence of measurement instruments nullifies the magical properties of the &ater' Similarly, vaccine pushers often insist it7s unethical to test &hether their vaccines really &ork' Cou ,ust have to 8take it on faith8 that vaccines are universally good for everybody' Cep, 1 used the &ord 8faith'8 That is essentially &hat the so-called scientific community is invoking here &ith the vaccine issue: Eust 5E$1EFE they &ork, everybodyA Gho needs scientific evidence &hen &e7ve got 2A1T" in vaccinesD 2orget about evidence-based medicine' 2orget about any rational cost-benefit analysis' 2orget about the risk-to-benefit ratio calculations that should be part of any rational decision making about vaccines' 9o, the vaccine industry 3and its apologist bloggers4 already know that vaccines are universally good for you, therefore no such rigorous scientific assessment is even re:uiredA The Scientific !ethod, in other &ords, doesn7t really apply to the things they already believe in' 2aith can override reason in the 8scientific8 community, if you can believe thatA Ghat7s ne.t, are they going to claim vaccines &ork because some sort of 8vaccine @od8 makes them &orkD "ere, take your vaccine shot' And don7t forget to pray to the Faccine @od because that7s ho& these things really &ork' Faccine voodoo, in other &ords' 3"ey, that &ould have been a great title for the vaccine song, come to think of it'''4

Hnethical to find out if they &orkD

1 got to &ondering about the &hole e.planation of ho& it &ould be 8unethical8 to test &hether the " 9 vaccines actually &ork' This deflection strikes me as particularly odd, because it comes &ith an implied follo&-up statement' "ere7s &hat they7re actually saying &hen they invoke this e.cuse: - 4 1t is 8unethical8 to conduct placebo-controlled studies on seasonal flu vaccines to find out if they actually &ork' -24 5ut at the same time, it is entirely ethical to give these shots to hundreds of millions of people, even &hile lacking any real evidence that they are safe or effective'
2

1n other &ords, it7s unethical to conduct any real science, but entirely ethical to ,ust keep in,ecting people &ith a substance that might be entirely useless 3or even harmful4' That7s ,ust a hint of the kind of &arped logic and failed ethics that typify our modern vaccine industry' Faccine advocates claim that " 9 vaccines are so effective that 96T giving vaccines to a placebo group &ould 8put their lives at risk'8 That alone is apparently enough reason to avoid conducting any real science on these vaccines' 5ut 17m not buying this' 1 think it7s ,ust a cover story -- an e.cuse to avoid sub,ecting such vaccines to rigorous scientific in:uiry because, deep do&n inside, they know vaccines would be revealed as an elaborate medical fraud' So 1 poked around to see if there &ere other randomi/ed studies being conducted that might actually put people7s lives at risk' 1t didn7t take long to find some' 2or e.ample, the New England Journal of Medicine recently published t&o studies regarding post heart-attack patient cooling &hich seeks to minimi/e brain damage by physically lo&ering the temperature of the brain of the heart attack patient until they can reach the acute care technicians at a nearby hospital' 1n t&o studies, researchers &ho already kne& that 8cooling8 &ould save lives nevertheless sub,ected I>0 heart attack patient to a randomi/ed study protocol that assigned comatose 3but resuscitated4 patients to either 8cooling8 temperatures or normal temperatures' 1n one study, &hile half the cooled patients recovered &ith normal brain function, only a :uarter of those e.posed to normal temperatures did' 1n other &ords, patient cooling saved their brains' And yet the importance of kno&ing &hether or not this procedure really &orked &as apparently enough to ,ustify withholding the treatment from over a hundred other patients, most of &hom suffered permanent brain damage as a result' Cou see, &hen scientists really &ant to kno& the ans&ers to :uestions like, 80oes this brain cooling &orkD8 they have no :ualms about sub,ecting people to things like permanent brain damage in a randomi/ed clinical trial' The kno&ledge gained from such an e.periment is arguably &orth the loss of a fe& patient brains because, armed &ith scientific evidence, such procedures can be rolled out to help save the brains of potentially hundreds of thousands of patients in subse:uent years' 5ut &hen it comes to testing vaccines like the recent " 9 variety, the official e.planation is that it7s too dangerous to &ithhold vaccines from a treatment group' They say it7s not really important to determine if vaccines are statistically validated, and it7s not &orth the 8risk8 of &ithholding vaccines from anyone in a randomi/ed clinical trial' 9o&, sure, there have been some clinical trials done on many different vaccines over the years, but most of those are industry funded, and there are almost never rigorous trials conducted on each year7s seasonal flu vaccines before they are released for public consumption' As a result, each year's vaccine is a brand new experiment, carried out across the guinea pig masses of patients &ho ,ust do &hatever they7re told &ithout :uestioning &hether it7s backed by real science' 5ecause, of course, it isn7t' And 17m not the only one &ho recogni/es this inconvenient fact'
3

The ?ochrane ?ollaboration The ?ochrane ?ollaboration, as described on its o&n &ebsite, is, 8'''an international, independent, not-for-profit organi/ation of over 2=,000 contributors from more than 00 countries, dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information about the effects of health care readily available &orld&ide'8 8Ge are &orld leaders in evidence-based health care,8 the site goes on to say, follo&ed by a :uote from The Lancet &hich states, 8The ?ochrane ?ollaboration is an enterprise that rivals the "uman @enome Jro,ect in its potential implications for modern medicine'8 Gorking for the ?ochrane ?ollaboration, an epidemiologist named 0r' Tom Eefferson decided to take a close look at the scientific evidence behind influen/a vaccines 3seasonal flu vaccines4' The objectives of the study &ere to: 81dentify, retrieve and assess all studies evaluating the effects of vaccines against influen/a in healthy adults'8 The Search Criteria 8Ge searched the ?ochrane ?entral #egister of ?ontrolled Trials 3?E9T#A$4 3The ?ochrane $ibrary, 20 0, issue 24, !E0$19E 3Eanuary ()) to Eune 20 04 and E!5ASE 3 ((0 to Eune 20 04'8 Selection Criteria 3for inclusion in the study4: 8#andomi/ed controlled trials 3#?Ts4 or :uasi-#?Ts comparing influen/a vaccines &ith placebo or no intervention in naturallyoccurring influen/a in healthy individuals aged ) to )> years' Ge also included comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms'8 The !otal Scope of the study encompassed over <0,000 people' And ,ust so you kno&, these the results may strongly favor the vaccine industry' The author even &ent out of his &ay to &arn that 8 > out of I) trials K&ereL funded by industry 3four had no funding declaration4'8 1n other &ords, close to half of the studies included in this analysis &ere funded by the vaccine industry itself, &hich as &e kno& consistently manipulates data, bribes researchers or other&ise engages in scientific fraud in order to get the results they &ant' The author even goes on to &arn ho& industry-funded studies al&ays get more press, saying, 8'''industry funded studies &ere published in more prestigious ,ournals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological :uality and si/e'8 See the study detail page at: http:%%onlinelibrary'&iley'com%o%co'''

Study results sho& influen/a vaccines are nearly &orthless 9o& here comes the interesting part: Even though nearly half the studies &ere funded by the vaccine industry itself, the study results sho& that in most circumstances, influen/a vaccines are virtually &orthless: 8The corresponding figures Kof people sho&ing influen/a symptomsL for poor vaccine matching &ere 2B and B 3#0 , (>B ?1 0B to IB48 say the study authors' And by 8poor
4

vaccine matching,8 they mean that the strain of influen/a viruses in the vaccine are a poor match for the strains circulating in the &ild' !his is usually the case in the real world because the vaccine only incorporates last year7s viral strains and cannot predict &hich strains &ill be circulating this year' 1n other &ords, you would have to vaccinate "## people to reduce the number of people showing influenza symptoms by just one$ 2or ninety-nine percent of the people vaccinated, the vaccine makes no difference at allA 1n a 8best case8 scenario &hen the viral strain in the influen/a vaccine ,ust happens to match the strain circulating in the &ild -- a situation that even the study authors call 8uncommon8 -the results &ere as follo&s: 8*B of unvaccinated people versus B of vaccinated people developed influen/a symptoms 3risk difference 3#04 IB, (>B confidence interval 3?14 2B to >B4'8 1n other &ords, the matching vaccine 3&hich is uncommon in the real &orld4 reduced influen/a infections in % out of "## people' 6r, put another &ay, &'( of those injected with the vaccine received no benefit 3and no different outcome4' 2urthermore, the study7s conclusions go on to state: M 8Faccination had''' no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates'8 M 8Faccine use did not affect the number of people hospitali/ed or &orking days lost'8 M 8The revie& sho&ed that reliable evidence on influen/a vaccines is thin but there is evidence of &idespread manipulation of conclusions'''8 M 8There is no evidence that Kinfluen/a vaccinesL affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission'8 3@ot thatD Faccines do not affect transmission of the disease, yet that7s the &hole reason vaccines are pushed so heavily during pandemics -- to block disease transmission'4 M 81n average conditions 3partially matching vaccine4 00 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influen/a symptoms'8 And finally, the study author7s summary concludes &ith this &hopper of a statement: 8)ur results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influen/a vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited'8 1n other &ords, taking into account the industry bias, the actual results may be that vaccines prevent influen/a symptoms in only out of ,000 people'

Jutting it in perspective So let7s put all this in perspective in a rational, intelligent &ay' This far-reaching analysis of influen/a vaccine trials sho&s that under common conditions, seasonal influenza vaccines
5

have no benefit for && out of "## people' 2urthermore, even this result is describe as being 8an optimistic estimate8 because nearly half of the vaccine trials &ere funded by the vaccine industry &hich tends to 8produce results favorable to their products'8 2urthermore, some of the studies &ere carried out in 8ideal8 viral matching scenarios that rarely happen in the real &orld' And finally, some evidence of harm from vaccines &as simply thro&n out of this analysis, resulting in a 8harms evidence base8 that &as :uite limited and likely doesn7t reveal the full picture' Are you getting all thisD Even &ith industry-funded studies likely distorting the results in their favor, if you take a good hard look at the scientific evidence surrounding the effectiveness of vaccines, you :uickly come to reali/e that influenza vaccines don't work on && out of "## people' 3And the real ans&er may be even &orse'4 9o& that7s a far cry from the false advertising of the vaccine industry, &hich implies that if you get a shot you7re 8protected8 from influen/a' They claim you &on7t miss &ork, you7ll stay &ell, and so on' Through these messages, they are cleverly implying that vaccines &ork on 00B of the people' 5ut based on the available scientific evidence, these are blatantly false statements' And the &ild e.aggeration of the supposed benefits from vaccines crosses the threshold of 8misleading advertising8 and enters the realm of 8criminal marketing fraud'8 Ghere is the 2T? or 20A on speaking out against this :uackeryD Faccine marketing is, essentially, scientific fraud' To claim that vaccines protect everyone &hen, in reality, they may reduce symptoms in only one out of 00 people is intellectually dishonest and do&nright fraudulent' 1t is, simply put, ,ust pure 5'S' :uackery' 9o&, imagine if an herbal product &ere advertised on television as offering some health benefit, but it turned out that the product only &orked on out of 00 people &ho took it' That herbal product &ould be &idely branded as 8:uackery8 and the company selling it &ould be accused of false advertising' The company o&ners might even be charged &ith criminal fraud' 5ut vaccines get a free pass on this issue' Ghile an herbal product might be heavily investigated or even confiscated by the 20A, vaccines that only &ork on B of the people receive the full backing of the 20A, ?0?, G"6, 2T? and local hospitals and clinics to boot' The fact that the vaccine is pure :uackery apparently doesn7t matter to any of these organi/ations: 1t7s full speed ahead, regardless of &hat the science actually says' 6nce you understand all this, you no& understand &hy it is an accurate statement to say 8The 20A promotes medical fraud'8 Similarly, 8The ?0? promotes medical fraud'8 As does the G"6'
6

These are scientifically accurate statements, assuming you agree that a product that only &orks on out of 00 people fits the definition of 8fraud8 &hen it is marketed as if it helped everyone' And most people &ould agree &ith that reasonable definition of fraud' 1t7s a totally different story if the efficacy ratio is higher' 1f influen/a vaccines actually produced some benefit in 2> out of 00 people, that might be &orth considering' 5ut it7s no&here near that' The 20A, by the &ay, &ill often approve pharmaceuticals that only produce results in * percent of the clinical trial subjects' The &orld of modern medicine, in fact, is full of pharmaceuticals that simply don7t &ork on (>B of the patients &ho take them' #ead the ?ochrane summary yourself at: http:%%onlinelibrary'&iley'com%o%co''' 1t7s entitled, 8Faccines for preventing influen/a in healthy adults8 Authors: 8Tom Eefferson, ?arlo 0i Jietranton,, Alessandro #ivetti, @hada A 5a&a/eer, $ubna A Al-Ansary, Eliana 2erroni8

Enter the vaccine /ombiesA

Gith these study results in mind, take a look at some of the lyrics in my recent hip hop song, 8Faccine Nombie8 3http:%%&&&'naturalne&s'com%vaccine+'''4 I forgot how to think for myself I don't understand a thing about health I do the same as everyone else I'm a vaccine ombie! ombie 9o& you can see &here these lyrics come from' 1f influen/a vaccines are &orthless for (( percent of those &ho receive them, then &hy are people lining up to get in,ectedD The ans&er is because they fail to think critically about vaccines and their health' They don7t understand health, so they ,ust go along &ith everybody else and do &hat they7re told' "ence their earning of the 8Faccine Nombie8 designation' The song goes on to say: I'm a sucker for the ads! a sucker for the labs " sucker for the swine flu #abs and I don't mind followin' a medical fad $ause livin' without a brain ain't half bad Ces, people &ho line up for influen/a vaccines are 8suckers8 &ho have been bamboo/led by fraudulent vaccine propaganda' 5ut they7re follo&ing a 8medical fad8 and it7s easier to ,ust do &hat you7re told rather than engage your brain and think critically about &hat you7re doing'
7

8$ivin7 &ithout a brain ain7t half bad8 because it takes the burden of decision making out of the loop and allo&s you to ,ust rely on &hatever the doctors and health officials tell you to do'

"o& the scientific community lost touch &ith real science 5ut &hat if they &ere all lying to youD 6r &hat if they, themselves, &ere ignorant about the fact that influen/a vaccines are &orthless on ((B of those &ho receive themD 3Fery fe& doctors and scientists, it turns out, are a&are of this simple truth'4 6r &hat if the vaccine pushers had all convinced themselves of a falsehoodD Ghat if they truly believed that vaccines &ere really, really good for everyone but that belief &as based on wishful thinking rather than rigorous scientific revie&D 5ecause that, my friends, is e.actly &hat has happened' Ge have an entire segment of the scientific community that has been suckered into vaccine propaganda' They7ve convinced themselves that seasonal flu shots really &ork and that virtually everyone should be in,ected &ith such shots' And they believe this based on irrational faith, not on scientific thinking or rigorous statistical evidence' They are, in other &ords, pursuing a vaccine religion 3or cult4' The is especially curious, given that most vaccine pushers don7t believe in @od or any organi/ed religion -- e.cept for their o&n vaccine religion, &here real scientific evidence isn7t re:uired' All you gotta do is believe in vaccines and you can ,oin their religion, too' And so all across the 7net, so-called 8science bloggers8 embarrass themselves by promoting near-useless influen/a vaccines as 8evidence-based medicine,8 apparently una&are that the evidence sho&s such vaccines to be all but &orthless' They might as &ell say they support vaccines 8Eust 7cu/'8 And 8,ust 7cu/8 is no reason to in,ect yourself &ith a chemical cocktail that even the industry admits causes e.tremely dangerous neurological side effects in a small number of vaccine recipients'

Fitamin 0 &ould actually make vaccines &ork better To top this all off, here7s the real kicker of this story: Cou can beat the minimal protective benefits of vaccines &ith a simple, lo&-cost vitamin 0 supplement' Fitamin 0, you see, is the nutrient that activates your immune system to fight off infectious disease' Githout it, vaccines hardly &ork at all' 1n fact, the very lo& rate of vaccine efficacy 3 B4 is almost certainly due to the fact that most people receiving the vaccines are vitamin 0 deficient' 3Any&here from <>B - (>B of Americans are deficient in vitamin 0, depending on &hom you ask'4 "ilariously, the &ay to make vaccines &ork better &ould be to hand out vitamin +
8

supplements to go along with the shotsA Even more hilariously, if people &ere taking vitamin 0 supplements, they &ouldn7t need the vaccine shots in the first placeA ,nfluenza vaccines, in other words, have no important role whatsoever in preventing influenza infections' This goal can be accomplished more safely, reliably and at far lo&er cost by promoting vitamin 0 supplements for the population at large' Ghat &e really need to see from the scientific &orld is a study comparing vitamin + supplements to influenza vaccines 3and using realistic vitamin 0 doses, not ,ust 200 or *00 1Hs per day4' 1 have absolutely no doubt that healthy-dose vitamin 0 supplementation 3*000 1Hs a day4 &ould prove to be significantly more effective than influen/a vaccines at preventing flu infections' 5ut such a study &ill almost certainly never be done 3at least not anytime soon4 because it &ould e.pose the false propaganda of the vaccine industry &hile giving consumers a far better &ay of protecting themselves from influen/a that doesn7t involve paying money to vaccine manufacturers' 1n medicine, as in &ar, truth is often the first casualty' And &hen the lies are repeated &ith enough fre:uency, they begin to be believed' The flu shot lie has been repeated &ith such ferocity and apparent authority that it has snookered in virtually the entire 8scientific8 community' That even rational-minded scientists can be so easily hood&inked by the vaccine industry is causing more and more people to :uestion the credibility of not ,ust modern medicine, but the entire scientific community as &ell' 5ecause if so-called 8rational8 scientists and thought leaders can be so easily suckered into an obvious falsehood, &hat other fictions might they be promoting as factD !edicine, you see, makes all the other sciences look bad' The obvious scientific fraud going on in the name of 8science8 in the pharmaceutical industry makes a mockery of real scientific thought' The ease of &hich medical scientists have been hood&inked by the drug industry calls into :uestion the rationality of all sciences' And in doing so, it brings up an even bigger :uestion: 1s science the best path to gaining kno&ledge in the first placeD This is obviously a philosophical :uestion, not a scientific :uestion, and it7s beyond the scope of this article, but it7s one 1 &ill likely visit here on 9atural9e&s very soon in an upcoming article' There are many paths to truth, you see' Science -- good science -- is one of them, but it is not the only one' Any scientist &ho believes that science has a monopoly on all kno&ledge is himself a fool' Eust read a little 2eynman and you7ll :uickly come to discover that the very brightest minds in the history of science consistently recogni/ed there &ere other path&ays leading to truth' 1 believe if 2eynman &ere alive today and sa& the vaccine propaganda taking place in the name of 8science,8 he &ould respond &ith something like, 8Surely you7re ,oking'8

-rticles .elated to !his -rticle M 2acebook cro&dsourced investigation e.poses vaccine denials of S1@A Technologies M 2lu vaccines revealed as the greatest :uackery ever pushed in the history of medicine M 9atural9e&s e.clusive: 1nternational !edical ?ouncil on Faccination refutes vaccine propaganda &ith myth-busting report M The great thimerosal cover-up: !ercury, vaccines, autism and your child7s health M Are mandatory vaccinations acts of violence against childrenD M 2lu Faccines, pharma fraud, :uack science, the ?0? and G"6 -- all e.posed by #ichard @ale and @ary 9ull

$earn more: http:%%&&&'naturalne&s'com%02()* +vaccines+,unk+science'html-i.// 0r(STcEe

10