The Flu Shot Scam (page 1)

Discovering the Truth About the Influenza Vaccine Program

go to page 2

Flu shot ingredients:

Thimersol (Mercury disinfectant/preservative)

Aluminum (additive to promote antibody response) (implicated as a contributor to Alzheimer's, seizures, fatigue, mental problems)

Formaldehyde (disinfectant) (let's embalm ourselves alive!) (incidentally, it's what aspartame aka NutraSweet converts to at a mere 86 degrees F)

Ethylene Glycol (anti-freeze-deadly-poison) (seems to do nothing constructive at all)

Phenol (disinfectant)

Benzethonium Chloride (antiseptic)

Methylparaben (anti fungal, preservative)

ARTICLE #1 The Great Flu Scam of 2003

ARTICLE #2 Time for the Flu Vaccine? Think Again

ARTICLE #3 The Flu Shot Stampede

ARTICLE #4 Before You Get Another Flu Shot or Take Another Pill

ARTICLE #5 Flu Vaccine Season Revving Up Again

ARTICLE #6 Flu Vaccines: An Interview by Gary Null

ARTICLE #7 Flu Natural Remedies: Advice From a Caring Mom

ARTICLE #8 Why I Never Get Flu Shots: A Testimonial

ARTICLE #9 Taking It To Vaccine Court

ARTICLE #10 Flu Shots Linked To Asthma Attacks

ARTICLE #11 Foggy Thinking as Inhaled Flu Vaccine Nears FDA Approval

ARTICLE #12 Side Effects of Influenza Vaccines Kill Seven in Japan

ARTICLE #13 Manipulating Flu Numbers

ARTICLE #14 This Year's Influenza Vaccine

ARTICLE #15 Flu Vaccine: International Vaccination Newsletter

ARTICLE #16 Open Letter To Pediatricians on Flu Vaccines (Swine Flu)

ARTICLE #17 Flu Vaccination

ARTICLE #18 Flu Vaccine: Stay Out of My Womb

ARTICLE #19 Price Gouging

ARTICLE #20 Radio News Brief Uses Scare Tactics


MESSAGE BOARD: Average People Share Their Knowledge on the Flu Vaccine

The Great Flu Scam of 2003

How flu vaccine makers' profits were boosted by exaggerated government claims


The national near-panic in the fall of 2003 over the supposed spread of a deadly flu epidemic and a shortage of flu vaccine was little more than a joint government/ industry PR campaign -- an operation that greatly increased flu vaccine makers' profits while scaring the bejesus out of millions of Americans.

The U.S. media let itself be led down the garden path without checking into the stories they were being told about the extent of the flu. Perhaps if the health reporters at the big news outlets had talked to the business reporters last fall, someone might have put it all together before 82 million Americans took a needle in the arm.

Instead, media-driven hysteria over what was supposed to be the deadliest flu season in decades drove the American public to set two national records -- one for flu vaccination and another, less widely known, for corporate vaccine profits -- in an industry with a long history of losing money hand over fist on the flu.

Only two things didn't live up to all the flu hype. One was the flu season itself, which in the end was utterly unremarkable. Two was the desperately sought-after flu vaccine, which studies later showed was only about 14 percent effective in preventing the flu.

Suffice it to say, if Americans had known what Wall Street and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had riding on this flu season, the tens of millions of otherwise healthy people who stood in line waiting for a flu shot might have thought twice about it. Instead, panicked parents drove for hours, seeking out clinics in neighboring cities or states when those near them ran out of vaccines. In some states, they jammed doctors' offices at 10 times the normal flu season rate, dragging sniffling children behind them, terrified that the colds they normally let pass without the hassle of a doctor's visit might be the "killer" flu strain they'd been hearing about. Mayors and governors, pressured by constituents the clinics turned away, called Washington to demand more vaccines.

Driving it all was seemingly nonstop media coverage of what was supposedly the worst flu season in decades. For months, the most trusted names in television and print journalism screamed about the flu, using words like "deadly," "severe" and "worst in decades" in their news reports to describe a growing epidemic that they speculated could be made all the more lethal by a killer Fujian flu strain no one had anticipated until it was too late.

What the public didn't know

Across the country, people, especially children, were dying earlier in the flu season and in higher numbers than the experts had seen before. At least that's what they said, and since they were nationally respected experts with impeccable qualifications, no one questioned them, nor the high-ranking government health bureaucrats who shared the microphone with them at press conferences about the flu. After all, what would these well-meaning people have to gain personally by misleading the public about the flu?

As it turns out, quite a lot. All it took to ignite a media feeding frenzy over the flu was a few well-placed suggestions by a few well-qualified people that this season could turn out to be far more deadly than usual. The media did the rest.

What the public wasn't told was that the handful of experts who drove the story, by predicting doom and gloom in national news reports, either worked directly for the flu vaccine companies or served on the boards of special interest groups whose activities those companies funded. The public was also never told that the same pharmaceutical companies, which had peppered Congress with millions in political contributions over the last three years, were pressuring the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- and ultimately its sub-agency, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) -- to increase the number of people who bought their vaccines.

And even though nearly all the literature put out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this season promoted the intra-nasal FluMist vaccine, which debuted on the market this year, no one bothered to mention that the department's researchers spent 20 years helping develop FluMist, the profits for which all go to the private companies selling and distributing it. (Although it helped improve the drug, which was originally invented by a University of Michigan researcher, the federal government holds no legal claim to any profits it generates.)

Often, what these so-called experts and health officials didn't say publicly was at least as important as what they did. A lot of the panic over the flu, which was driven by coverage of child deaths from the disease in the Midwest, would have been quelled if federal health officials and their friends, the ethically compromised flu experts, had emphasized that since this was the first year the CDC had required states to track child flu deaths and verify the flu as the cause of death with a test, there was no way to tell if the 111 child flu deaths the CDC eventually tallied represented an increase or a decrease. That important fact didn't make the cut in a single one of the CDC's press releases on the flu, nearly all of which pushed the use of FluMist.

By early to mid-December, when the CDC and the flu experts were still driving the flu craze in the media with their dire warnings, they had to have been aware, since they were experts, that the CDC's mortality rate estimates, while higher than the previous two years, still lagged behind those of the 2000 season for the same period. Once again, instead of reassuring the public, the CDC put out press releases again urging healthy people to get vaccinated and promoting FluMist.

Yet another important fact was left out of all the "sky is falling" press conferences that predicted the flu would reach epidemic levels this season: the CDC's epidemic threshold is so low that deaths from the flu reach "epidemic" levels nearly every year, as they have for the last three years. The fact that federal officials and flu experts in the employ of the vaccine makers didn't mention this helped stoke the public frenzy -- and, of course, increased the vaccine makers' profits.

Drugmakers demand, government delivers

The real flu crisis this fall, the one that didn't make headlines, was the tug of war between the CDC and the three big pharmaceutical companies that manufacture flu vaccines. In 2002, when 12 million of the 95 million doses of flu vaccine produced by the nation's pharmaceutical companies went unused, the drugmakers absorbed a loss of $120 million. By the fall of 2003, a couple of consecutive mild flu seasons, paper-thin profit margins, and declining vaccination rates had taken their toll. In less than two years, the number of flu vaccine manufacturers in the market had dropped from five to three. The pressure mounted on the CDC to ensure a profitable flu vaccination season by "expanding" the vaccine market. By that, corporate leaders meant that they wanted the CDC to recommend vaccination for young, healthy people, people for whom the CDC didn't recommend a vaccine -- until this year. People who, it could be argued, don't need a flu shot.

The three pharmaceutical manufacturers in the flu vaccine business, all of whom successfully market other drugs, made it clear that if the government failed to find enough arms and noses for their vaccines, they might reduce supply or exit the business, leaving the public vulnerable to a true vaccine shortage.

Drug company executives aren't exactly shy about the issue.

"Raising demand is key to raising supply," Howard Pien, president of Chiron Corporation, told the House Government Reform Committee this month. James Young, president of research and development at MedImmune, Inc., which makes FluMist and other flu vaccines, even went so far as to tell the same government officials that if the CDC would recommend universal vaccination, vaccine manufacturers might then be willing to guarantee that there would be enough flu vaccine to meet routine demand on an annual basis.

Increasing vaccination rates among those vulnerable to the flu, a longtime goal of CDC, is one thing. Increasing demand for flu vaccine regardless of who gets it is another.

Dr. Walter Ornstein, director of the CDC's National Immunization Program, made the agency's goals for last fall clear in a slide presentation in June 2003. The agency would "increase vaccine demand" by "enhancing" its communication efforts and extending its vaccine campaign past the end of November, when flu vaccination typically winds down across the nation.

The result? About $450 million in additional profits for vaccine manufacturers in a single flu season.

FluMist: a government baby

The main factor that dissuades people who can afford to do so from getting flu shots is a distaste for needles. For 20 years, researchers at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a government agency that is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, worked on an invention they believed would remedy the problem. It was a nasal spray made from a live but weakened version of the virus, and from the moment the corporation Aviron began preparing it for market, Wall Street loved it. So did MedImmune, which bought Aviron last year, and drug marketer Wyeth, which joint-ventured with MedImmune to market it for the 2003 flu season.

The companies launched a $25 million marketing campaign, and when stock analysts learned that FluMist would be released in time for the 2003 flu season, MedImmune's stock soared to 63 times the company's earnings at $43.32 per share.

In the case of FluMist, it's hard to tell where the government ends and a corporate marketing campaign begins. NIAID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the CDC, all of which are sub-agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, each put out what can only be described as promotional press releases announcing that FluMist would enter the vaccine market. While NIAID and the NIH were open about the Department of Health and Human Services' role in developing FluMist, the CDC -- the hub from which the national flu vaccination campaign is run -- left out that factoid in its promotional materials and neglected to mention it at press conferences during which CDC officials regularly promoted FluMist as a needle-free alternative to vaccination. Consequently, none of the media's flu coverage last fall mentioned the Department of Health and Human Services' role in developing the vaccine.

Nearly all of the CDC's patient educational materials recommended FluMist, including flu pamphlets it distributes to doctors. But the CDC didn't stop there. As the public scrambled to buy up cheaper, injected vaccines, the agency put out press releases recommending that healthy individuals request FluMist in order to save dwindling supplies of the needle-delivered vaccine for those most at risk from the flu.

From an ethical standpoint, the CDC should have actively pointed out its ties to FluMist when it promoted it, said Calvin College Professor Hessel Bouma, a medical ethicist who studies healthcare's thorniest quandaries.

Despite the joint industry/government marketing campaign, by late September, things weren't exactly going well for FluMist. Executives at MedImmune and Wyeth knew FluMist was in trouble. Wal-Mart had backed out of a distribution agreement and the public was shying away from the drug's price tag, which at $50 or higher per dose was more than five times the cost of an injected vaccine. Within weeks, MedImmune would issue a financial report adjusting its earnings estimates for FluMist downward by $60 million. In addition, with millions of unsold doses still on their hands, injectable vaccine makers Aventis and Chiron weren't faring much better. Something had to give.

Dire Warnings

In early November, much of the news about the flu was confined to the business pages as analysts sounded warnings about MedImmune's troubles and speculated about how vaccination rates would affect the market. But by the end of the month, the flu "epidemic" made an amazing migration from the business pages to the front page as flu experts were suddenly everywhere, speculating about how high the death toll could climb and how many more children would fall to the flu.

With few exceptions, much of the propaganda that drove the flu story and kept it in the headlines can be traced back to one of three places -- the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the payrolls of FluMist manufacturer MedImmune or drug marketer Wyeth, or a nonprofit immunization advocacy organization called the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), whose pro-flu immunization activities are largely funded by the flu vaccination companies.

By mid-November, a small handful of highly qualified flu experts, all of whom had connections to one of the groups listed above, fanned out across the television and print media, preaching doom and gloom. They made headlines at press conferences and were quoted in most of America's daily newspapers. Television and radio news breathlessly carried their predictions and a single, unified message came through -- everyone must be vaccinated.

"We will probably see more excess deaths this year than we saw in the 1968 [Hong Kong flu] pandemic," Dr. W. Paul Glezen, director of the Influenza Research Center at the Baylor College of Medicine told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on Nov. 30.

Despite unremarkable weekly CDC death toll estimates, by December 12, Glezen was predicting 65,000 to 71,000 excess deaths from the flu in media interviews. "That's pretty bad," he told the Washington Post. "Unfortunately, it looks like there could be a lot of children this year."

What the articles didn't mention was that when Glezen wasn't giving interviews about the potential deadliness of the flu, he spent his time running FluMist trials as a clinical investigator working for MedImmune.

The same thing happened in an Associated Press story by medical editor Daniel Haney which ran in dozens of papers across the country, warning that the flu posed a particular danger to children this year.

"The fact that there are deaths among children without serious underlying health problems is very unusual," Haney quoted a Dr. Robert Belshe as saying.

Although the Dec. 18 article referred to him as "Dr. Robert Belshe of St. Louis University," which was accurate, what wasn't mentioned was that Belshe had done clinical research on FluMist and had intellectual property licensed to Wyeth, which markets FluMist.

Like Glezen and Belshe, Dr. Bill Schaffner, chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and a liaison member of the (CDC's) advisory committee on immunization practices, spent a considerable amount of time this fall stumping for flu immunization.

This year's flu season would shape up to be "a very noteworthy epidemic," he predicted to a CNN reporter in early December.

"School closures are one thing, but hospitalizations with pneumonia and death is another," the Associated Press quoted him as saying. "Mostly what we are concerned about are severe illnesses that bring people into the hospital ... at risk of dying."

Schaffner serves on the board of The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID), whose flu awareness activities are largely funded by flu vaccine makers Aventis Pasteur, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune and Chiron, among others, and generally promote the use of the vaccines the companies make and distribute. Representatives of all three companies sit on NFID's board of Trustees. Creative Loafing repeatedly asked NFID officials how much of the group's budget, which averages $2 million to $3 million a year, is donated by the flu manufacturers and distributors. The dollar figures they repeatedly promised were never forthcoming, though they did admit that unrestricted educational grants from the companies fund many of NFID's immunization promotion activities.

Dr. Kristin Nichol of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center was another popular flu source with the media last fall. Nichol spent this flu season warning the elderly that flu immunizations could cut their risk of death from heart attack and stroke.

Young people should also get vaccinated, she told MSNBC and others, "because they underestimate the extent to which they put other people at risk."

That Nichol conducted FluMist studies and is the head of the National Coalition for Adult Immunization, an NFID subgroup, was never listed among her credentials in any of the news reports.

Once again, medical ethicist Bouma says, they should have volunteered their ties to the vaccine industry when commenting on issues that could directly affect its profits.

Death Comes Early in Colorado

Every year, experts estimate that 36,000 Americans die from the flu. According to the CDC's website, the vast majority of those people have weakened immune systems from other illnesses. While tragic, these deaths typically don't draw much media attention, even when the victims are children, which, while rare, does happen.

But this year was different, in part because of an alarm sounded at a joint press conference by the NFID and the CDC, another sub agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the government agency that initially developed FluMist. It was the first of many alarms that, over the next two months, would drive hordes of Americans in search of flu vaccines.

At the Sept. 23 conference, CDC officials warned the media for the first time that healthy children may be in danger of complications from influenza. A study of the previous flu season in the state of Michigan documented 10 cases of serious influenza-related illness and four influenza-related deaths among those under age 21, they said. For the first time in its history, the CDC pushed near-universal flu vaccination for healthy children and urged parents to do it immediately. Officials also used the conference as an opportunity to push FluMist as an alternative to injectable vaccines.

What didn't merit much mention was that like many of NFID's "advocacy" projects, the press conference, held at The Press Club in Washington, D.C., was "sponsored" financially by educational grants from Aventis Pasteur, Chiron Vaccines and Wyeth, the same three flu vaccine companies that, at the time, were trying to sell 83 million doses of flu vaccine to the American public, including FluMist. Obviously, both the CDC and the NFID should have actively disclosed their connections to the media, ethicist Bouma says.

In the weeks after the press conference, for the first time in recent memory, child deaths from the flu became front-page news. Though the numbers were small, the impact of these deaths was powerful when viewed under the media's microscope.

By late November, the Associated Press reported, in an article that ran in papers across the country, that there were four child deaths in Colorado from the flu and that the flu was widespread in Texas as well. The Colorado deaths occurred earlier in the flu season than had previously been seen, and since only two to four kids usually die from the flu in an entire typical season in Colorado, panic set in -- and local papers across the country simply lifted the information about the child deaths and the supposed Texas flu outbreak from national articles and worked it into their own coverage without questioning it, all the while speculating that the flu epidemic could spread to other states.

By the time the CDC, NFID and the American Medical Association representatives teamed up again for a Nov. 25 press conference, they had the media's full attention. As they had done the month before, they promoted FluMist and reiterated the danger the flu posed to healthy children and urged the country to get vaccinated. But by then it didn't matter. The scramble for a flu shot was already on. By early December, the government had bought the last 100,000 remaining doses from Chiron and Aventis to help meet overwhelming local demand. Soon, a national vaccination record was set.

Profits Galore

Though it slashed the price of FluMist by half before the end of the flu season, no more than 800,000 of the 4 million doses of FluMist were purchased by the public. Perhaps people believed that $25 was still too much to pay for a flu shot. Or maybe the fact that the flu virus in FluMist is still alive, as opposed to the dead version used in traditional vaccines, scared people. Either way, despite the best efforts of the CDC, the public turned their noses up at FluMist even while they waited hours in line for traditional flu shots.

Aventis and Chiron, meanwhile, fared much better. According to a Chiron press release, company sales of flu vaccines rose 271 percent, from $90 million in the 2002 flu season to $332 million this year. Aventis' U.S. vaccine sales rose 17 percent to $598 million.

It's not enough, they say. According to its financial forecasts, Chiron envisions 150 million flu vaccinations annually in the U.S. by 2008 and sales of over $1 billion.

A bill called the Flu Protection Act, which is now winding its way through Congress, may make that a reality. Aimed at preventing so-called vaccine shortages like the one this season -- and financial losses like the $120 million hit taken by flu manufacturers the year before when vaccination rates stagnated -- the bill gives tax breaks to flu manufacturers and guarantees that the federal government will buy up any unused doses of flu vaccine each year at the end of the flu season.

It also mandates that the CDC conduct an annual campaign to increase flu vaccination -- and provides $440 million to pay for it over the next four years, more money than is typically spent in a U.S. presidential campaign. (The bill's sponsors, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D-La.), Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill) together took in over $35,000 from Wyeth and Aventis in the last election cycle according to the Center for Responsive Politics.)

In exchange for all this, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for an industry already making double digit profits, the companies merely have to agree to give the government advance warning if they plan to stop making the flu vaccine.

After its losses this season, MedImmune executives are considering dropping out of the flu market. But not Chiron and Aventis. Company spokespeople say the corporations plan to increase the number of flu vaccine doses they'll bring to the U.S. market by up to 50 percent in fall 2004, which they expect will be a banner year for flu vaccination.

Unless the American public catches on, it probably will be.

back to top

Time for the Flu Vaccine? Think Again

---Randall Neustaedter OMD


The flu vaccine gets the most-useless-vaccine-of-all-time award. Now the CDC is recommending the vaccine for children under two years old and all adults over 50. Don't fall for it.

Flu Vaccine

Everyone knows about the flu and the flu vaccine. What people do not know is that flu vaccines are nearly useless in preventing flu, they will cause the flu, and they often result in nervous system damage that can take years for the body to repair. Other nations chuckle at Americans' infatuation with the flu vaccine. The joke would indeed be funny, if it weren't for the damaging effects caused by the vaccine.

The history of the flu vaccine reads like one stumbling fiasco after another. Take an example. Ever wonder how the particular viruses are chosen for next year's vaccine? The answer could be drawn from a 1930s film noir of Shanghai villainy. Scientists kill migrating ducks in Asia, culture the viruses and put those in next year's vaccine, because they have seen an association between bird and pig viruses and the following year's human flu epidemics. Perhaps this desperate guesswork is responsible for so many years when the flu vaccine's viruses had nothing in common with circulating viruses. According to a CDC report of the 1994-1995 flu season, 87 percent of type A influenza virus samples were not similar to the year's vaccine, and 76 percent of type B virus were not similar to the virus in that year's vaccine. During the 1992-1993 season, 84 percent of samples for the predominant type A virus were not similar to the virus in the vaccine.

Here is a list of the most common side effects of the flu vaccine as stated by the CDC - fever, fatigue, muscle aches, and headache. Sound familiar?

The primary targeted population for flu vaccine is the elderly, yet the vaccine is notoriously ineffective in preventing disease in that population. According to the CDC, the effectiveness of flu vaccine in preventing illness among elderly persons residing in nursing homes is 30-40 percent (CDC, 2001b). Other studies have shown an even lower efficacy of 0-36 percent (averaging 21 percent). The CDC proudly notes that for those elderly persons living outside of nursing homes, flu vaccine is 30-70 percent effective in preventing hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza. Yet the Department of Human and Health Services found that, with or without a flu shot, pneumonia and influenza hospitalization rates for the elderly are less than one percent during the influenza season. Regardless of vaccination status, 99 percent of the elderly recover from the flu without being hospitalized. The ineffectiveness of flu shots in the elderly led the CDC in 2000 to begin recommending the shots for all persons age 50 years and older. The rationale being that one third of Americans have a risk factor or chronic disease that puts them at risk of increased morbidity from the flu.

Annual flu vaccination is recommended for those individuals with asthma and other chronic respiratory and cardiovascular disorders. However, those people with impaired immune systems are the most likely to suffer adverse autoimmune reactions.

Children are the next frontier for the lucrative flu vaccine campaign. Vaccination is currently recommended for children over six months of age with high-risk medical conditions, but is not recommended for healthy children. Experts in the field suggest that parents of children age six months to two years "be informed that their children are at risk for serious complications of influenza, and allowed to make individual informed decisions regarding influenza immunization for their children" (Neuzil et al., 2001). This statement was made by Marie Griffin (and others), the same author who was implicated in the flawed study that supposedly exonerated the pertussis vaccine of nervous system damage. She is also a paid consultant to one of the world's largest vaccine manufacturers, Burroughs Wellcome. The children's market is the next big hope for vaccine campaigners. A 1998 working group began investigations to not only support, but also to "recommend" flu vaccine for young children.

The next big change in flu vaccines will be the introduction of a live intranasal flu vaccine, a dose that is actually sprayed into the nose. This vaccine has already been tested on young children. Live intranasal vaccine was found 93 percent effective in preventing influenza in children age one to six years old (Belshe et al., 1998). Unanswered questions about the live vaccine include the possibility of transmitting other, more dangerous viruses through the vaccine, the possibility of enhanced replication of the attenuated virus in individuals with compromised immune systems, and the possibility of bacterial superinfection if the replicating live virus disrupts nasal membranes (Subbarao, 2000). This vaccine waits in the wings for its chance as the next big gun in the vaccine arsenal aimed at our children.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome

In 1976 the flu vaccine was dealt a near fatal blow when reports appeared that the vaccine caused Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), an autoimmune nervous system reaction characterized by unstable gait, loss of sensation, and loss of muscle control. A mass vaccination program was mounted that year by the US Government, and 45 million Americans received the swine flu vaccine. Statistical studies have confirmed a causal relationship between the vaccine and GBS. During that year the rate of GBS in Ohio was 13.3 per 1,000,000 in vaccine recipients compared to 2.6 per 1,000,000 in nonrecipients (Marks & Halpin, 1980). A follow-up study also showed a significantly increased incidence of GBS during the first 6 weeks following receipt of the vaccine in patients residing in two other states. The rate of GBS was 8.6 per million vaccinees in Michigan and 9.7 per million vaccinees in Minnesota (Safranek et al., 1991). This episode, which became known as the swine flu catastrophe, left doctors extremely reluctant to administer flu vaccine, and shattered the public trust in the flu vaccine campaign.

The association between GBS and flu shots was not unique to the swine flu. Earlier reports had also summarized cases of nervous system disorders occurring soon after the flu vaccine (Flewett & Hoult, 1958; Horner, 1958). More recently, an increased risk for GBS occurring in patients during the six weeks following the flu vaccine was revealed in the 1992-1993 and the 1993-1994 flu seasons (Lasky et al., 1998).


One of the most bizarre twists on the flu vaccine saga is the CDC recommendation of 2001 that all pregnant women receive the vaccine in their second or third trimester. This recommendation even has doctors confused, since the vaccine remains a category C drug (unknown risk for pregnancy). No adequate studies have been conducted to monitor safety of the vaccine for mother and fetus. The only studies of adverse effects in pregnancy were conducted in the 1970s (Heinonen et al., 1973; Sumaya & Gibbs, 1979). Some flu vaccines still contain mercury as a preservative, despite a 1998 FDA instruction to remove mercury from all drugs. According to the CDC, two groups are most vulnerable to methylmercury---the fetus and children ages 14 and younger. An article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1999 stated, "the greatest susceptibility to methylmercury neurotoxicity occurs during late gestation" (Grandjean et al., 1999). How did CDC committee members determine that flu vaccines were safe for pregnant women? They did not. The committee, despite its own recommendation, states, "additional data are needed to confirm the safety of vaccination during pregnancy" (CDC, 2001b).

Flu Facts

* Flu vaccine manufacturers are notoriously inaccurate at predicting the appropriate viruses to use in an individual year's vaccine, rendering the vaccine ineffective.

* Flu vaccine is relatively ineffective in those patients most at risk of flu complications.

* The vaccine has caused GBS in recipients during several different flu seasons.

* Those most at risk of flu complications probably share a higher risk of adverse reactions to the flu vaccine as well.

back to top

The Flu Shot Stampede

By Mary Starrett

[Editor's Note: I presume that it's unnecessary to explain to readers of this web site that the flu 'pandemic' being hyped by the Illuminated Media outlets is a put-up con job to frighten uneducated people to rush off to the nearest clinic for their FREE flu shot and become 'protected' from this killer flu. I'm guessing that this 'flu' probably has much more to do with the incessant raining down of chemtrails in our skies everyday than by any natural evolution of influenza. This latest scare scam is somewhat similar, but not quite as intense, as the 'swine flu' epidemic that the Illuminati's Gerald Ford (1973 or 74?) tried to convince the American public would sweep across the country like wildfire-if you didn't get your swine flu vaccine in time! Of course, there was no swine flu epidemic or even a swine flu outbreak, anywhere in America (however, lots of elderly people did die from the swine flu vaccine). The entire story was contrived. At the time, I wasn't aware of the NWO or of their takeover agenda, but I talked to my father about getting the shot and we both came to the same conclusion: "Nah, we'll take our chances" and avoided getting the vaccine. Of course, the deceptive minions working out of the Tavistock Institute in London or Stanford Research here in California, who hatch up these disinfo campaigns, want the public to really clamor and stampede to get these shots, so they pepper their propaganda outlets with dire stories of vaccine shortages. So, what else is new? The oldest seller trick in the book: make the customer think that he has to rush to get your product now, or else miss out because of a time limit or product non-availability. The Illuminati's attempt to force mandatory nationwide anthrax or smallpox vaccination fell through, so now it's on to Plan B, their old standby-scare campaigns. Don't buy it folks-and tell your friends: Avoid ALL vaccines. These liars do not have your welfare at heart. Their agenda is genocide and enslavement. Never forget that...Ken Adachi]

back to top


December 12, 2003

A senior executive with pharma-giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in the U.K. said that fewer than half the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually got any benefit from them. Whoa.

How come that story didn't make front page news here in the U.S.? It was reported in the U.K. but pulled from a Reuter's stateside news lineup. Must have been an oversight.

Allen Roses, a GSK vice president admitted something many of us have known in one way or another for sometime; that "the vast majority of drugs- more than 90 per cent- only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people." The public might be surprised to hear this, especially if they're still visiting M.D.'s and leaving with their hands full of little white slips. Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University wasn't saying anything his colleagues didn't already know. GSK, one of the most profitable of all the drug companies, has relied, as have the others, on selling as many drugs as they can to the widest group of people. Doctors have typically used the trial and error approach when prescribing for their patients. Try this, then that and see what chemical cocktail "seems" to "work". In what is the typical modus operandi, Western medical practitioners will consider a drug has "worked' if the symptoms are gone. The underlying dis-ease of the organism hasn't been healed, but the outward appearances of the ailment have been masked. Add to this the damage done by drugs on the body's other systems and you have the reason so many people are sick and getting sicker.

Now that the president has pushed the massive scheme called a "Drug Benefit," it appears the only ones benefiting will be the drug companies. We would all do well to listen-really listen- to what Dr. Roses admits concerning the efficacy of drugs. Consider that, according to him, drugs for Alzheimers work in only one out of three patients, cancer drugs are only effective in one in four patients and drugs prescribed for migraines , osteoporosis and arthritis work only half the time. With doctors working in concert with pharmaceutical companies, most people who enter a doctor's office rarely leave without pills, scripts for pills or the promise of different pills on the next visit- "if those don't work".

Ozzy Osbourne, that mumbling, aging rock star who invited America into his home week after week just had surgery for injuries sustained in an accident. No wonder. The addle-brained performer was taking 42 different physician-prescribed drugs at the time of the accident. His daily intake of chemicals included antidepressants, antipsychotics, opiates, tranquilizers and amphetamines. Drugs like Valium, Adderall, Dexedrine and Mysoline got Ozzy through the day. The drugs were prescribed by a physician. While we tend to believe that only celebrities like Ozzy or Rush Limbaugh wind up being "over-served" by their high-dollar doctors, consider that with fewer than ten minutes to spend on each patient, many, if not most physicians simply prescribe something just to move on.

Take the flu vaccine. You're being encouraged by your doctor, the media and the federal government through all points "sky is falling" flu news bulletins to get a flu shot- a chemical mash including formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury cultivated on chicken embryos. The animal byproducts in vaccines carry the risk of viral contamination. Vaccine companies cannot guarantee the purity of animal cells used in vaccine culture.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny cites research done by an immunogeneticist named Hugh Fudenburgh who's been studying the flu vaccines and reports that if someone has five consecutive flu shots his or her chances of getting Alzheimer's disease is ten times higher. FluMist, a live-virus nasal vaccine is being pushed in a $25 million dollar ad campaign. You may have seen the tv commercials for FluMist. Oddly, the very same symptoms the vaccine is supposed to prevent are mentioned as side effects of taking the highly contagious vaccine. The package insert warns recipients to "avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for 21 days". The number of those considered "immunocompromised" is huge-people on steroids, cancer drugs, folks with eczema, who've had organ transplants or who have HIV are considered at risk. I think it's safe to say that shooting a foreign substance into your nose can usually elicit a sneezing response - the very response that could serve to spread the LIVE VIRUS that is contained in FluMist. Could this be a self-fulfilling prophecy? No wonder they're predicting a worse than usual flu season!

Fear Factor

Headlines scream "Flu Bug Worse This Year: Vaccines Limited". For months we've been warned to get our flu shots. The CDC, physicians and the media have been bellowing about the severity of this year's strain and the potential scarcity of the vaccine. Brilliant marketing I say- just make people think they can't get something and they'll line up for hours to get a toxic fluid shot into their arms that DOESN"T EVEN CONTAIN THE VIRUS THAT"S GOING AROUND! That's right. This year's vaccine doesn't completely match the virus that's supposedly going to make this a record-breaking flu season.

Each year between 20,000 and 40,000 people die from "flu-related" illness. These are people who are already immunocompromised. In other words, they're sick already, even if they're not showing symptoms. It is disingenuous to attribute all these deaths to the "flu". My recommendation is to sit down with your doctor or pharmacist or the stern tv news anchor -all of whom have been pushing this insane public health policy and ask them to read the list of ingredients in the vaccine vial. Then ask them what sense it makes to introduce these chemicals into the human body when more and more research shows severe damage occurs as a result. Ask him. Then roll down your sleeve and go home. Make sure you wash your hands a lot and stay away from people who've had the shots in their arms and up their noses.

© 2003 Mary Starrett - All Rights Reserved


By Catherine J. M. Diodati, M. A.

As summer wanes, and fall approaches, flu vaccine season is revving up again and the mandate still looms heavily over the heads of our valued health care workers (HCWs). The issue is one of coercion, selectively abrogating the legal and ethical rights of one sector of society, with the unsupported promise that their vulnerable patients will be protected from disease.

What do the studies reveal? After an extensive review of various trials, studies and articles, it has become very clear that the documentation used by officials to support the flu vaccine mandate are methodologically flawed.

Studies will suggest that HCW vaccination will prevent influenza transmission to patients but they invariably fail to establish any actual source for influenza outbreaks. It is just assumed that HCWs are responsible for transmitting influenza rather than visitors, other patients, delivery persons or anyone else who may come into contact with vulnerable patients. In one study, for example, vaccination was strongly recommended for HCWs following 3 confirmed cases of flu in a neonatal intensive care unit. (1) At the time, there were 4 unit nurses off duty due to an influenza-like illness. Although it was suspected that they introduced influenza into the unit, they were never tested for influenza and none of these nurses had attended the ill infants. Still, the authors stated that HCW vaccination is "the most effective strategy to diminish nosocomial [(hospitalderived)] infections." This is pure conjecture. There simply are no studies that unequivocally demonstrate that HCWs are responsible for nosocomial influenza infections. There is no evidence.

In nearly every study read, the researchers have failed to actually determine whether upper respiratory infections, in either their unvaccinated control groups or their vaccine groups, were caused by influenza. There are many other pathogens that are known to circulate during flu-season. Adenovirus, RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), coronavirus, rhinovirus, etc., all can cause exactly the same symptoms and complications as the influenza virus and cannot be distinguished unless proper tests are performed.

This was precisely the case for one of the central documents used to support the vaccine mandate for health care workers. (2) In this case, only 5% of all unvaccinated patients, in 12 geriatric care facilities, demonstrated a rise in antibody titre, indicating exposure to the influenza virus, but when symptomatic patients were tested, nasopharyngeal swabs failed to produce a single influenza-positive result. All symptomatic patients were either positive for RSV or adenovirus. Attending HCWs, whether vaccinated or not, were never tested for influenza and no mention was made of any respiratory illness amongst the staff. Nonetheless, without any direct evidence whatsoever, the authors concluded that vaccinating health care workers reduced mortality and influenza-like illness in geriatric patients and Health Canada cites this article in support of HCW influenza vaccination. (3) The same holds true for almost every article Health Canada cites to support the vaccine mandate: no one is ever tested for influenza but HCW vaccination is said to prevent transmission of the disease. There is no evidence.

Safety and efficacy assertions are similarly fraught with flaws. Of particular note, is the frequency with which systemic reactions are dismissed. In one study, for example, 86% of vaccinees experienced local reactions (soreness, redness, swelling) and 49% experienced systemic reactions such as fever, chills, aching/myalgia, tiredness/weakness, lightheadedness/dizziness, sore throat, runny nose, stomach upset/cramps, vomiting, painful neck glands and insomnia. (4) The authors stated that such symptoms are commonly associated with the vaccine but that "the vaccine could not have been responsible for such illnesses." How convincing is this argument when 49% of the vaccinees experienced systemic symptoms, which are the same as flu symptoms, and 24% experienced a cluster of symptoms? If these systemic symptoms are accompanied by viral shedding then we are exposing vulnerable patients to influenza because we are vaccinating our HCWs. Local reactions are of importance too, even if they are transitory, because they will affect HCWs abilities to perform their duties. Lifting patients, intubations, suturing, surgery, etc., all require precision and fitness.

Studies typically state that the influenza vaccine is effective in preventing the flu for at least 70% of the population under 65 and approximately 30%-40% effective in preventing the flu in those over 65. Rarely do these studies ever compare the match between the vaccine strains and the circulating strains for the given year. If the strains do not match-well, how useful is a rise in antibody titre? Even when the strains do match, influenza vaccination creates a cost-deficit. A US study found that during a year when the strains were well-matched, the cost of vaccination was $11.17 per person more than the costs associated with not vaccinating. (5) During another year, when the strains were not wellmatched, the cost of vaccination was $65.59 US over and above the costs associated with not vaccinating. From a financial perspective, this does not comprise a good use of our health care dollars.

Italian Epidemiologist Dr. Vittorio Demicheli made some interesting observations regarding influenza vaccine efficacy. Demichei et al. conducted a metanalysis of existing literature examining live and inactivated flu vaccines and anti-virals. (6) He found that the vaccine could only claim a 24% reduction in clinical influenza cases. Although the vaccine may elicit an antibody response in 70%-90% of individuals, this is not the same thing as preventing clinical influenza. Further, the metanalysis revealed that 69% of vaccinees experienced some type of local reaction and 26% experienced systemic reactions. Antivirals fared no better. Reactions included CNS depression/excitation and gastrointestinal effects. Some individuals (10%-27%) "secreted drug-resistant virus within 4-5 days of commencing treatment." The antivirals were 61%-72% effective in preventing influenza but only reduced the duration of existing illness by about 1 day. Demicheli et al. did state that the inactivated influenza vaccine was the most cost-effective intervention of those studied but this assertion was based upon a "lesser of all evils" philosophy. The other interventions were either extremely ineffective or associated with such horrendous adverse events that the inactivated vaccine won a place of honour by default. In the end, Demichei concludes:

"If assessed from an effectiveness and efficiency point of view, vaccines are undoubtedly the best preventive means for influenza in healthy adults. But when safety and quality of life considerations are included, parenteral vaccines have such low effectiveness and high incidence of trivial local adverse effects that the trades-off are unfavourable. This is so even when the incidence of influenza is high and adverse effect quality of life preferences are lowly rated. We reached similar conclusions for antivirals and NIs even at high influenza incidence levels. We condude that the most cost-effective option is not to take any action."

Studies do not provide any evidence that HCWs are responsible for transmitting influenza to patients. They do not provide evidence that the influenza vaccine reduces transmission or improves the quality of life for HCWs. They do not demonstrate that the benefits of vaccination are greater than the risks and they cannot legitimately claim that this is a wise use of our diminishing health care dollars. Although only a few studies are mentioned here, methodological problems abound in existing literature and there is absolutely no justification, ethically, legally or medically, for abrogating the rights of health care workers.


1. Flor M. Munoz et al., "Influenza A Virus Outbreak in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit," Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 18 (1999): 811-815.

2. J. Potter et al., "Influenza Vaccination of Health Care Workers in Long-Term-Care Hospitals Reduces the Mortality of Elderly Patients," Journal of Infectious Diseases 175 (January 1997): 1-6.

3 Health Canada, "Statement on Influenza Vaccination for the 2000-2001 Season," Canada Communicable Disease Report 26 (ACS-2) (1 June 2000).

4 David W. Scheifele et al., "Evaluation of Adverse Events after Influenza Vaccination in Hospital Personnel," Canadian Medical Association Journal 142 no.2 (1990): 127-130.

5. Carolyn Baxton Bridges et al., "Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit of Influenza Vaccination of Healthy Working Adults," Journal of the American Medical Association 284 no.13 (4 October 2000): 1655-1663.

6 V. Demicheli et al, "Prevention and Early Treatment of Influenza in Healthy Adults," Vaccine 18 (2000): 957-1030.

back to top


Interview of Dr Eva Snead by Gary Null

GARY NULL: (italic) One of the most outspoken, intelligent and absolutely determined physicians on public health issues that's Dr Edith Snead. Nice to have you with us today.

DR EVA SNEAD: Nice to be with you. I appreciated all that flattery.

Well you deserve it. That's because I wouldn't give it if it's not deserved. Let's talk quickly, we have about eight minutes to talk about this latest phenomenon of everybody running out to get their flu shot and they can do that, I'm not suggesting that they should not do that, that's their choice but I'd like a different perspective so at least they have something to counterbalance their existing information. Why don't you share what you consider the pros and cons of the flu vaccine?

Well we have talked about vaccines and that they are all totally unsafe. Now talking about the flu vaccine itself it's prepared on chicken embryo, which mean unborn chicken which means that people who are allergic to these products like egg and chicken can become seriously ill and on the other hand the injection of these proteins into other humans will render them in a large percentage allergic to chicken and egg which means that people who were not allergic before will now become allergic.

The other problem is that all viral vaccines contain not only the particular virus but they also contain traces of leukaemia virus, cancer producing viruses etc. These are not completely removable, they exist in the chicken from which these eggs are taken and although they claim that they are like 98% purified, 2% of several billion viruses is still an awful lot of cancer and leukaemia dangers.

Another fact is that to separate cells we also may have to use a pork product which is made from raw pork stomach. This is an enzyme that separates the cells called pork trypsin and a lot of people who would not ingest or take pork products for religious reasons are seduced without knowing it into violating their convictions so there you have in a nutshell the beginning of why it is not very wise to take influenza vaccines.

OK. Why don't you give us some of what you have found in the literature, some of the problems with the flu vaccine and also they're claiming all this success. I question whether they can prove the success because you cannot disprove a negative.

That's correct. Imagine, Gary, the gullibility of a public that not only believes that these companies give them a safe and effective product but that they give them the credence of a god that two years in advance when they start making these serums they know which particular kind of influenza is going to be causing the epidemic two years later. I mean you know these people have the utter gall to tell people that they can do it because they can't. This is based on computer predictions and so on which are totally inaccurate. Now, you may remember the horrible epidemic of neurologic illness that we had in '76 and although the present day vaccines don't have that high an incidence even the package insert tells me that there's a higher incidence of Guillaine Barre which is a sort of euphemism for a variety of polio in all people under fifty that take the influenza vaccine. So imagine the risk you are running aside from the viruses, the cancer, the leukaemia. Two or three years ago there was a rash of positive HIV and hepatitis patients in Baltimore among people who would otherwise not be expected to have a positive test. When studied all of these people had received the influenza vaccine four to six weeks prior and this was rapidly covered up by the press as you were saying in your beautiful new article that told that the press in uninquisitive today.

Do you have an example of some of the guaranteed safety vaccines that we have been given over the years only later to find out that the guarantees were unsupported by any credible science and actually were deleterious?

There is no science, credible or otherwise, this is all guess work. I mean you can't test for something that hasn't happened and you can't test compared to what? I mean you don't know that there would have been an epidemic and certainly if you put a certain variety of viruses in the public then you will find they will say "Oh we were right. Virus A or B, Australian or South American or whatever you may call it will be endemic this year". Well you know you become a self-fulfilling prophesy because you created the particular problem and not only that but the other thing that is very, very important that nobody has brought up to my knowledge is about forty years ago a study was done in England on problems with the nervous system in new born and unborn foetuses that were aborted and they discovered that the majority of children who had birth defects in the nervous system particularly and encephalus had been exposed to the flu virus. Flu virus, of course, being now in all the vaccines that people are vaccinated. In the south of Texas we are having a tremendous rash of these particular neurologic problems. Children born without a brain or part of a brain and everybody is telling the public "Oh we have not a clue of what could cause this". Well, we do have a clue, we're just lying to the public.

Why do you think there's such an interest in getting people to get the flu vaccine. I realise that this is subjective and giveus subjective answer.

Well the manufacturer makes money. I mean that a very simple thing. They're seen as a wonderful product because they get the endorsement of government and health affiliations. He produces serum that costs you basically not that much to produce. You seduce the public into needing it and you sell millions and millions of doses so there's an awful lot of money to be made. Now from the point of view of public health, again there's money and grants to be made. I mean there are many people employed in persuading the public this problem exists and persuading them that they need it. And then of course, as you well know, we may suspect that there are other reasons that could be political or genocidal because the product is administered to large amounts of older people and as you well know in nursing homes where they receive flu vaccines there are many, many cases of flu shortly after the vaccination effort which indicates a total association and from a very crude point of view the perpetuation of life in older people particularly in nursing homes is not desirable to those that handle the funds. So of course we cannot prove this but it certainly presents a seductive hypothesis.

Again, that's a little too seductive for my taste. I haven't been able to make any such association but I would suggest that for them to tell us that the flu vaccines are both necessary ... I have not seen that they have either part of that scenario on hand. Dr Eva Snead thank you very much. Nice to always have you with us.

back to top

Flu Natural Remedies

by Jenny Marie Hatch

Flu Season hit early in Colorado and our family was compelled to take a break from life for the past few weeks and focus on getting well. We are not alone. Many, many people are suffering. The school called and said they were closing down two days early for thanksgiving break because so many are sick.

First some headlines:

DENVER - "When it comes to vaccinating children, Colorado is at the end of the list. Colorado is last in the country when it comes to vaccinating children for diseases like chicken pox, whooping cough and even the flu, according to state health officials. "Currently, Colorado is last in the nation -- 50th out of 50 states for vaccinating 19-35 month olds fully," said Dr. Robert Brayden with Children's Hospital."

"The number of confirmed flu cases in Colorado continues to rise dramatically -- up more than 300 percent over last week. The state already has reported 693 cases, months before the flu season is expected to peak. Doctors say it's because this year's flu vaccine does not exactly match the strain that's making people sick.

Officials with the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention say the mismatch is serious and this flu season could be worse than usual. However, health experts are still recommending that people get flu shots because the vaccine can help SOME from getting sick J and avoid a potentially staggering flu season nationwide." - and we wouldn't want the pharmaceutical companies to lose any profits.....JMH (Emphasis added by Jenny Hatch)

Colorado Teen Becomes Season's First Flu Fatality

POSTED: 11:45 a.m. MST November 21, 2003

DENVER - "A 15-year-old has become Colorado's first flu death of the season, 7NEWS reported Friday."

Those are the local headlines from this past week in Colorado, and here is a little blurb on flu vaccine from a national lawyers website.

Influenza (Flu) Vaccine - "For years evidence has been mounting linking the Flu vaccine to serious neurological side effects. There have been occasional cases involving influenza vaccines causing Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and other autoimmune conditions. Guillain-Barré syndrome is a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. The first symptoms of this disorder include varying degrees of weakness or tingling sensations in the legs. In many instances, the weakness and abnormal sensations spread to the arms and upper body. These symptoms can increase in intensity until the muscles cannot be used at all and the patient is almost totally paralyzed.

Additionally critics of the Flu Vaccine argue that the Flu vaccine might be irrelevant. These critics argue that the flu vaccine, for most healthy people, is (1) unnecessary; (2) ineffective; and (3) capable of causing serious neurological injuries. Most cases of so-called flu are not influenza at all, but rather cases involving rhinoviruses and other infections. Getting the flu, for most healthy individuals is not very serious. Flu vaccines are admittedly viewed by many in the public health community as being a monetary vaccine, designed to reduce days lost from work. The most serious indictment of flu vaccines, however, involves the fact that we are always receiving last year's virus to try to protect us from this year's flu. Flu viruses change each year, and sometimes the vaccines are prepared with viruses, which are not the same ones that we are trying to protect against. Despite such mismatches, manufacturers are always quick to sell their product, and recalls are unheard of. There is evidence that the manufacturers do not even conduct clinical trials for the vaccine each year, despite the fact that the components are changed."

So, to sum up, we have a deadly flu virus causing serious illness all across Colorado, and potentially across the nation. The medicos admit the current vaccine is not the right strain and the potential for a widespread flu epidemic is high. We have the lawyers aware of the complications and side effects from the vaccines, prepared to give legal aid to those who have been permanently damaged by the vaccine. Antibiotics don't work on viruses. Hospitalization, Antibiotics and Vaccines are about the only thing the medical profession has to offer to those who are sick. The over the counter cold remedies help with symptoms and can give relief, but these drugs can prove dangerous, causing a variety of other symptoms, especially in children. And because the over the counter remedies interfere with natural immunity, they tend to prolong the illness because the body is constantly being frustrated from purging the disease out of the various channels of detoxification. Fevers and Rashes are the immune systems first line of defense. Do we have some healthy alternative or happy medium between the doctors/pharmaceutical companies and lawyers/courts? And....

What is the parent of a sick child to do?

Before I share the alternative remedies that we have used these past weeks to heal our family, I would like to confess that I have a vested interest in this column beyond sharing some great information. If you decide to purchase some of the Essential oils I recommend, I will receive a kickback from the company for that referral. I was just going to write this article without mentioning the oils, but I know they have played a crucial role in keeping this illness under control and empowering our family to remain self sufficient. I honestly don't care if you purchase the brand I use, even though they are some of the best oils on the market.

My five children have been very sick these past two weeks with a variety of symptoms; fever, rash, body aches, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, and general crabbiness. Now the only lingering symptom seems to be a very nasty cough. I am watching this lung action closely to be certain it does not develop into bronchitis or pneumonia. My children have complained long and loud about being kept home during this time, but I feel passionate about them not developing a secondary infection from this flu.

I have been stretched to my utmost capacity and at one point my fight or flight response kicked in and I was very tempted to run away from home. But I am the Mommy here, and it was/is my job to play nurse. Also, for some reason, I have not developed the flu. Although I have missed the most sleep, am nursing a baby, and have done the most physical work, I am still mostly symptom free. At this point, I am just exhausted. I believe this is because I have doctored myself right along with the children, and am constantly applying oils to them, and in the process have applied them to myself. I also have eaten my soup every day, several bowls a day, and have stayed well hydrated. If you as the caregiver become ill while caring for sick family members, you have my utmost respect and prayers in your behalf. Should this happen to you, I would highly encourage you to ask for help and have another healthy person in to help with care for the family. Ultimately this will be way cheaper than seeking emergency medical help, even if you have to fly someone in to help out.

Let me preface this information by saying, "I am not a doctor, I am not giving medical advice, I take no responsibility for any outcome you may experience if you decide to try some of these remedies".

I am simply sharing what I have done to help my children heal from a terrible flu in the hopes that some of my suggestions may prove helpful to others.

A few months ago I began stocking up on essential oils. I put in a supply of therapeutic grade oils anticipating the cold and flu season. It has been exciting the past two weeks to pull out the oils time and time again to help relieve the various symptoms that have presented. Even with the oils, I have been barfed on twice, and spent a whole night fearing that should my son puke again, he would goob me. While the oils don't stop symptoms, they do encourage the body to work more effectively, and sometimes even strengthen the symptoms. For example, my son was nauseated and had dry heaves and was unable to sleep. I put some peppermint oil on his feet and massaged the arches of his feet. As I massaged I could feel his heaves settle down, then all of a sudden he vomited, then he looked at me and said, "I feel much better" and was able to sleep.

Symptoms are good!

The allopathic model of medicine teaches us that symptoms are bad and must be suppressed at all costs. Over the years, I have come to believe that symptoms serve a purpose, especially with infectious disease. Most symptoms of flu are the body's attempt to cleanse itself, and so I take a different approach in the sense that when a fever or a rash appears, I encourage the symptoms for as long as is necessary. Hippocrates said, "give me a fever and I can cure any disease!" My nine-year-old son had a 103 degree fever for five days. During this time, I focused on keeping him well hydrated, comfortable, and clean. I gave him upwards of four baths a day and helped him vigorously scrub his skin with an essential oil soap and a stiff brush. I also had him brush his teeth several times a day and keep his tongue clean by vigorous scrubbing with an essential oil toothpaste. I massaged his feet over and over again with pure oregano and thyme oils diluted with olive oil. I kept him warm with a hot water bottle/blankets when he would start shivering with chills.

Oils of Gladness!

To help with hydration, I gave all of the children home made juice Popsicles and echinacea tea mixed with grape juice. I also served garlic soup every day. Here is my own recipe for this powerhouse of a soup.


In a soup pot sauté one chopped onion with five cloves of crushed garlic

in three tablespoons of olive oil. Add in 1 tsp sea salt. Peel and

chop five potatoes, five carrots, three large chopped celery stalks, and

one bunch of chopped fennel. Add the vegetables to the onion and garlic

when the onions are translucent. Cover the vegetables with water and

bring to a boil. Then simmer while you make the Stock water and brown rice.


Hard boil two quarts of water with
1 tsp sea salt
1 tsp flax seed
½ C. Oat Straw Tea
½ C. Oatmeal
The potato and carrot peelings
10 additional cloves of chopped garlic
1 thumb size piece of diced fresh ginger

Hard boil for twenty minutes, then strain and add to the vegetable soup pot.


In a third saucepan, cook up one cup of brown basmati rice in three cups of water. Hard boil the water with the rice, 1 tsp salt, 1 tsp chopped garlic, and a one inch piece of diced ginger for five minutes. Then turn down the heat to low and simmer with the lid on for 40 minutes. To finish the soup, add in the cooked rice, garnish with chopped parsley and spinach.


Serve the soup with garlic toast. Sliced whole wheat bread brushed with garlic butter. Heat 3 tablespoons of butter with one clove of crushed garlic, brush on toast, then broil for a minute or two. Serve with the soup. If you can get your child to eat it, you can also add one drop of thyme and one drop of oregano oil to the garlic butter and brush that on the toast. Whenever I did this, my children refused to eat it. However, I read about a woman who used this essential oil toast to treat whooping cough with great success!

I made this soup three times in the past week. With leftovers, my children had plenty of anti-viral food to eat when they were hungry. If they were not eating, I simply served them the potassium/calcium broth. Each child had a few days of natural fasting when they just weren't hungry. This was generally during the worst of the fever. I trust this symptom in children especially. But carefully watch for signs of dehydration while they forego food. Dehydration shows up with a sunken look to the face, pinched skin, and lack of urination. The child may also complain of bladder pain from lack of liquid moving through the urinary tract. On the worst days most of the children were happy to eat a few pieces of fruit or suck on a Popsicle and I was constantly offering them water.


I never felt the need to do this, but was prepared to if necessary. I had read that before the advent of the IV, our ancestors used to use the colon to re-hydrate a sick person. They would gently implant water into the colon using a piece of tubing to help the body to be better hydrated and to flush debris from the colon. I am grateful I never felt the need to do this procedure with my kids, but I would have done that first over going to the emergency room for help with re-hydration. (I do think it is appropriate to seek medical aid for hydration issues, especially with pregnant women and babies) but again, I would first try the colon hydration before exposing myself, or my children, to the germs in the hospital while they were in a weakened condition. To do this, simply purchase a child size enema bulb and fill it with warm water and carefully squeeze the bottle of water into the rectum. It is ideal to do this in the bathtub.

At no time in the past days did I administer any prescription or over the counter flu or cold medicines. (OK, my husband did take some Nyquil one night to help him sleep when he had not slept in three days). But we gave no drugs to the children.

Through quiet, diligent effort we have weathered this horrible, painful, disease. I am confident that all five children have now been effectively immunized naturally from the real current flu virus that is making everyone sick. This is natural immunity at its best! It is nothing to be frightened of. Common sense measures and simple effective cleansing techniques will restore health! And it is way more comforting to me than having them shot up with a synthetic, preserved, cultured, mercury laden flu "virus" that the scientists GUESSED would be the correct strain for the year, and then still have them get the live virus that is running around town, perhaps with their immune systems hindered in the ability to effectively deal with that live virus because they had the flu shot! I believe the public has truly been propagandized into believing the lies from the pharmaceutical companies when it comes to infectious disease. Hopefully with consumer awareness, the Center for Disease Control and the national, state, and local health departments will at some point be held accountable and the truth exposed in this whole vaccine scam. Do thousands of people need to die of a flu virus once again this year before the whole flu shot scandal is exposed?

Money mongering at the expense of the health and well being of citizens should be a crime. And the doctors, hospitals, news agencies, and health community should be ashamed of itself for shoving these toxic chemicals on the innocent. As John Robbins has stated, "the medical profession will get off its pedestal, when we get off our knees!" Have some confidence and take care of yourself and your family!

A few final tips. (These are a ton of additional work, but very important!)

Several times in the past days I have changed all of the bedding, especially the pillowcases, and washed them well in hot water and then sprinkled all of the bedding with essential oils. I also bundled the children up and took them outside for fresh air and sunshine for a few minutes most days. (Some days I could not get certain kids out the door because they were too dizzy). While we were outside, I opened all of the doors and windows and aired out the house. With all of the coughing, sweaty fevers, and mucous flowing, I believe these steps are very important in speeding healing.

I served lots of fresh fruit; Watermelon, Honeydew melon, red seedless grapes, apple and pear slices. The children tended to eat the fresh fruit more than any other food I served. This helps with cleansing the bowel and hydration issues.

I kept the sickest children close to me during the night. This helped me to tune in to them quickly when they were overcome with fever, nausea, or diarrhea. I could quickly get them into the bathroom, and I believe averted a few messes, by helping them to the toilet instead of having to clean up toxic messy beds.

I also deep cleaned the bathrooms more than usual during the worst of the illness. Using Shaklee's Basic G, which is powerful enough to kill the aids virus, helped me to feel confident that we were keeping up with the germs. I had my daughters help to wipe down all surfaces in our home with an essential oil spray called Thieves, which is antiviral.

When my 13-month-old son was at his worst with glassy eyed fever, lethargic, (scary in a baby!) I went to extremes to try to get him to laugh. I took his hand and had him touch my nose - then I exploded with loud sounds, hiccupping and sneezing and laughing whenever he touched my nose. At first he just smiled at silly Mom, but soon he was laughing really hard as I continued to burst each time he touched my nose. Pretty soon, he was completely changed in his demeanor, and I could tell that flooding his system with happy endorphins really helped.

When my children started fighting and complaining, I knew we were getting better. The first time my eleven year old daughter punched her brother and told me if I made her eat one more bowl of soup she was going to scream, I knew we had beat this flu.

I don't claim that this list is complete, and I trust that you will be guided to know what is best for your family, even if that includes traditional medical care. But I hope and pray that you can weather this storm of a nasty cold and flu season and come out of it happy, healthy, and truly immunized from getting the same virus again!

back to top


November 18, 2002

By Chet Day

Every October and November, quite a few people write me and ask, "My Doctor tells me to get my annual flu shot. Should I do it?"

Well, I don't diagnose or prescribe, and what you do with your body remains entirely up to you and your doctor (if you still go to a doctor), but I'll gladly tell you what I do regarding flu shots...

I avoid them like the plague.

In fact, at age 54, I've never had a flu shot, and it would take a Marine nurse and at least four burly wrestlers the size of Jesse Ventura to hold me down and give me one.

Perhaps you already sense I have strong feelings about flu shots?

These feelings stem from personal opinion, reading, and dramatic personal experience.

First off, I don't think toxic chemicals and virus strains grown on living tissue belong in the human body, even when they're packaged in sterile glass vials.

Since my family and I don't rely on doctors anymore, I don't have access to an insert that reveals the composition of this year's flu vaccine, but I did find some general information at the Concerned Parents for Vaccine Safety and Vaccine Side Effects web sites, where I learned about some of the ingredients used to make vaccines.

According to the lawyers at

"For years evidence has been mounting linking the flu vaccine to serious neurological side effects. There have been occasional cases involving influenza vaccines causing Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and other autoimmune conditions. Guillain-Barre syndrome is a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. The first symptoms of this disorder include varying degrees of weakness or tingling sensations in the legs. In many instances, the weakness and abnormal sensations spread to the arms and upper body. These symptoms can increase in intensity until the muscles cannot be used at all and the patient is almost totally paralyzed.

"Additionally, critics of the flu vaccine argue that the flu vaccine might be irrelevant. These critics argue that the flu vaccine, for most healthy people, is (1) unnecessary; (2) ineffective; and (3) capable of causing serious neurological injuries. Most cases of so-called flu are not influenza at all, but rather cases involving rhinoviruses and other infections. Getting the flu, for most healthy individuals is not very serious.

"Flu vaccines are admittedly viewed by many in the public health community as being a monetary vaccine, designed to reduce days lost from work.

"The most serious indictment of flu vaccines, however, involves the fact that we are always receiving last year's virus to try to protect us from this year's flu. Flu viruses change each year, and sometimes the vaccines are prepared with viruses, which are not the same ones that we are trying to protect against. Despite such mismatches, manufacturers are always quick to sell their product, and recalls are unheard of. There is evidence that the manufacturers do not even conduct clinical trials for the vaccine each year, despite the fact that the components are changed."

Let's turn now to some information from the Concerned Parents for Vaccine Safety website. Do you want any of the following vaccine constituents in YOUR bloodstream?

* Ethylene glycol

* Phenol, also known as carbolic acid

* Formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent

* Aluminum, which is associated with Alzheimer's disease

* Thimerosal (used as a mercury disinfectant/preservative)

* Neomycin and Streptomycin (used as antibiotics)

Some vaccines are also grown and strained through animal or human tissue like monkey kidney tissue, chicken embryo, embryonic guinea pig cells, calf serum, and human diploid cells (the dissected organs of aborted human fetuses as in the case of rubella, hepatitis A, and chickenpox vaccines).

Well, I refuse to put any or all of the above in my body, and I hope when your doctor starts telling you it's time for your annual flu shot that you'll require him to defend the annual injection. You or your insurance company's probably paying eighty bucks for a visit, so get your money's worth.

Have your doctor read you the insert that comes with the vaccine.

Then have him/her explain why it makes sense to inject toxic chemicals into the human body and how such substances can aid the delicate immune system.

Chances are he/she will fall back on questionable statistical and demographic explanations that the medical establishment has used for decades to justify immunization.

Try to engage your doctor in a non-confrontational discussion because this is an opportunity for him/her to actually give some serious thought to what he/she is injecting into bodies of patients day after day after day.

Many traditional doctors who haven't studied diet and life style aren't going to change unless we help to educate them to what drugs and vaccines may really be doing long-term to people.

Okay, I'm a realist so if I were still thinking traditionally, part of me would almost buy into the typical rationale for flu vaccines, that so many people are spared the annual flu and only a few die or have their lives ruined after being injected.

I'd buy into that if I were convinced that injecting a filthy substance into the body actually made sense.

Unfortunately, once I stopped buying into the big medical lies about their drug, cut, and burn system, I started questioning all if it.

And when one digs into the vaccine history -- check out the Swine Flu vaccine and smallpox vaccines if you want two real horror stories at

and scientific research (especially in Europe) -- it quickly becomes apparent that nobody really knows what these toxic stews of chemicals and microorganisms do in the human body.

To look at another disturbing possibility, go to

and read an article written by a CFIDS sufferer, an article that shows the cause and effect connection between flu vaccines and terrible immune disorders.

Well, readers and a few medical professionals have called me a simple-minded dolt on more than one occasion, but since 1993 I've approached the yearly flu shot hype with the understanding that if I eat and live properly, I won't have to worry much about catching the flu.

The flu vaccine I use -- eating and living as close to nature as I can -- actually works.

Not only that, but it doesn't cost a dime, and nobody's going to have his/her life ruined because of a "bad batch" of vaccine that triggers some mysterious autoimmune disease that lays a person out of commission for years.

But let's say you don't want to eat and live close to nature.

Okay, I can understand that, but my next question would be "Which is better? Some rest time with the flu or having toxic chemicals injected into your bloodstream?"

I mean, seriously, before I got healthy I almost looked forward to a yearly bout with influenza because it meant I could go to bed and get some rest instead of working practically every waking moment of my life.

I might add that I haven't missed more than two consecutive days of work from an illness for over seven years as I write this update in November of 2002, so a non- vaccine approach does work for me.

This non-drug approach has resulted in a level of health that continually amazes me, especially when I see other men and women my age who are miserable and without energy. Men and women who spend all too much of their time drifting from doctor to doctor in endless pursuit of solutions that don't get to the cause of their problems -- diet and life style.

Thinking about taking a flu shot?

Do yourself a favor and think twice, and before taking that jab in the arm, review some natural approaches to building health at

and for detoxing at

Oh yeah, for the lame, status quo rationale for why the vaccine must be taken every year, courtesy of the Center for Disease Control, visit

Finally, the decision regarding a flu shot is yours to make, but I urge you to make that decision from a position of strength and knowledge.

Do your homework before you agree to a flu shot.

back to top

Taking It to Vaccine Court

Parents say mercury in shots caused their children's autism, and they want drug firms to pay. The industry calls its defense rock-solid.

By Myron Levin

Times Staff Writer

August 7, 2004

As parents of two severely autistic boys, Kevin and Cheryl Dass of Kansas City , Mo. , face a world of heartache and worry.

Last year Kevin, a FedEx driver, and Cheryl, a part-time hairdresser, spent $27,000 on therapy for their sons. Financially exhausted, they are gnawed by these questions:

How will they continue the special help that Dillon and Kyle, their 4 1/2 -year-old twins, so desperately need? Willthe boys — who barely speak, are not toilet-trained and go bonkers when taken out in public — ever be able to live on their own? If not, what will become of them when Kevin and Cheryl are gone?

"It's torn our life apart, it really has," Kevin Dass says. And, he insists, it didn't have to happen. The boys were born prematurely and alarmingly small. Yet at 3½ months, Dass says, they were given four shots in a single day, including three containing small amounts of mercury, a neurotoxin.

"They were still in the hospital on oxygen, staying alive, and they put this poison in them," Dass says. "They were fried. They were totally fried."

Like many anguished parents of autistic kids, the Dasses blame the condition on thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that until recently was added to many routine children's shots.

Thimerosal was used to keep bacteria out of vaccines sold in multi-dose vials. But there were no studies beforehand of its possible effects on the developing brains of infants. And health officials, who aggressively expanded immunizations during the 1990s, did not consider that mercury exposure for millions of children would exceed federal guidelines.

Now, in a dispute overflowing with bitterness and rancor, more than 4,200 families, including the Dasses, are demanding compensation to help pay for their kids' special needs. Their claims have inundated an obscure branch of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington , sometimes called the "vaccine court."

The parents are pushing a disturbing theory: that their children were casualties of the war on disease, suffering brain damage from thimerosal by itself or in combination with measles virus in the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. They blame mercury from vaccines and other sources for an epidemic rise in autism and related neurological disorders.

They theorize that their children were devastated because they were less able than most kids to clear mercury from their bodies.

Vaccine makers and health officials strenuously dispute the claims. While voicing compassion for the children and their families, they say there is no proof that tiny exposures — typically 1 part mercury per 10,000 parts of vaccine — can cause brain damage.

"There's simply no reliable scientific evidence" that thimerosal causes autism, said Loren Cooper, assistant general counsel for GlaxoSmithKline, the global pharmaceutical giant.

Dr. Stephen Cochi, head of the national immunization program at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, argues that only "junk scientists and charlatans" support the thimerosal-autism link.

In May, a committee of the national Institute of Medicine declared that evidence "favors rejection" of the thimerosal-autism link. Opposing studies, the panel said, were riddled with "serious methodological flaws."

In response, parent activists point out that some studies have indicated a link. They also charge that data were manipulated in one key study cited by the Institute of Medicine, and that authors of other studies had ties to vaccine makers.

At stake are not only vast sums of money but reputations and careers. Vaccine makers face a potential litigation nightmare. And the allegations confront two agencies: the Food and Drug Administration, which licenses vaccines, and the CDC, which is in charge of seeing that children are immunized against everything from polio to whooping cough.

The immunization program has been hailed as a spectacular success, responsible for saving countless children from illness and death. But if the parents are right, thousands of their children have become collateral damage.

For now, the main battleground is a tiny tribunal most people have never heard of.

The vaccine court was created in 1986 as Congress' response to a liability crisis. In rare cases, vaccines were being blamed for catastrophic injuries and even death. Makers were threatening to quit the business, which in turn threatened the vaccine supply.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act shielded the industry from civil litigation by instituting a system of no-fault compensation. Under the law, aggrieved families file petitions, which are heard by special masters in the vaccine court. Successful claims are paid from a trust fund fed by a 75-cent surcharge per vaccine dose. The Department of Health and Human Services oversees the fund, with the Justice Department acting as its lawyer.

The autism case is approaching a crucial stage: a hearing within the next few months in which experts will joust over whether mercury causes autism.

If the verdict is no, the case ends there. If the special master finds for the parents, individual claims will be heard. A flood of successful claims could exhaust the $2-billion fund.

Big vaccine makers such as Merck, Wyeth and Aventis-Pasteur, along with Glaxo, are watching with trepidation. Though safe from liability in the vaccine court, they are anxious because claims have begun to leak into the civil courts.

Under the law, petitioners who have gone more than 240 days without a ruling in the vaccine court can opt out and file a civil suit. More than three dozen families who've waited long enough have opted out, and more are sure to follow. A handful of suits are set for trials next year in Texas , Pennsylvania , Maryland and Georgia .

A legal Catch-22 could doom many claims in both the vaccine court and civil courts. The compensation law requires that petitions be filed within three years of the first sign of injury. In many cases, by the time children were diagnosed with autism and parents learned of their mercury exposure, the deadline had passed. This technicality could cause as many as 60% of the petitions to be discarded in the vaccine court, lawyers for the parents say. And some civil courts have decreed that people who did not file on time in the vaccine court can't pursue civil litigation.

"The parents are going through hell. The children are going through hell," said Richard Saville, a lawyer for some of the parents. "What we're trying to avoid - is a situation in which no court ever hears their complaint."

Even so, families who reach the civil courts may gain some advantages there. They will have access to internal industry documents that are not available in the vaccine court. Moreover, whereas the vaccine court pays medical and living costs and up to $250,000 for pain and suffering, civil juries can award punitive damages as well.

Vaccine makers insist that their defense is rock-solid.

The evidence "is so overwhelmingly one-sided that we are confident that juries will overcome their natural sympathy for plaintiffs and decide these cases as science dictates," said Daniel J. Thomasch, lead outside counsel for Wyeth.

Privately, however, some industry figures conceded that when it comes to sick children and brokenhearted parents, science doesn't always win the day.

The companies "are terrified" of huge jury awards because "the injuries are so grave," said Kevin Conway, a lawyer for parents. "It's not just the kids, it's the parents, it's the siblings. These people just live emotionally exhausted and financially devastated lives."

Even if the companies are exonerated, victory will not come cheap. An industry representative, who predicted vaccine makers will win every case, said it could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars to do so.

Autism is the most severe of a range of neurological conditions called autism spectrum disorders. It limits the ability to communicate, form relationships and respond appropriately to the environment. Symptoms can include loss of language and eye contact, extreme withdrawal, violent or repetitive behavior, and extreme sensitivity to light and sound.

One in every 166 U.S. children suffers from an autism spectrum disorder, according to an estimate by the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics. In California , the number of cases rose 273% from 1987 to 1998, according to the state Department of Developmental Services.

It's been suggested that broader definitions and better reporting are behind the apparent spike. But a study in 2002 by the MIND Institute at UC Davis found that these are at most minor factors, and that the increase is real.

In the search for a cause, thimerosal only recently became a suspect.

The compound is 49.6% ethyl mercury, not the methyl mercury found in fish and power plant emissions. Both forms are toxic, though some research suggests ethyl mercury is more quickly purged from the body.

Developed 75 years ago by Eli Lilly & Co., thimerosal has been used in vaccines since the 1930s and was the main ingredient in Merthiolate, an antiseptic daubed on millions of skinned knees before it was taken off the market 20 years ago.

Medical literature includes reports of thimerosal poisoning at a sufficient dose - along with advice to curb its use. Perhaps most alarming was a 1977 report on the thimerosal-linked deaths of 10 babies in Canada .

According to the article in Archives of Disease in Childhood, the antiseptic had been used to treat exomphalos, a type of umbilical hernia. Tissue and blood tests revealed high mercury levels in the dead infants. Moreover, the authors said, it "is extremely unlikely" that babies who survive the treatment "escape neurological damage, which may be subtle."

Mercurial antiseptics should be tightly restricted or banned from hospitals, they wrote, "as the fact that mercury readily penetrates intact membranes and is highly toxic seems to have been forgotten."

However, thimerosal remained the most popular of several preservatives used by vaccine makers to avoid the risk of bacteria from repeated needle insertions into multi-dose vials. Vaccines also come in single-dose vials or disposable syringes that do not require preservative. But doctors and clinics traditionally preferred multi-dose vials because they were cheaper and easier to store.

No one would have cared but for this confluence of trends: autism rates were rising, while more mercury was being injected into kids.

The CDC sets the country's immunization schedule, which, in effect, has the force of law, since in many places children can't enter day care or school or qualify for public assistance unless their shots are up to date.

Mercury exposure increased markedly in 1991, when the CDC added hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenza type b, or Hib, vaccines to the schedule.

Because these were mostly sold in multi-dose vials, children whose dutiful parents stayed current with their shots received as many as nine injections with as much as 187.5 micrograms of mercury in their first six months of life — exposures well above Environmental Protection Agency guidelines.

This was disclosed in 1999 in a federal review, which showed that health authorities had ignored the rising exposures as they added shots.

In e-mails to colleagues at the time, Dr. Peter Patriarca, a senior FDA official, acknowledged that the agencies were open to attack. The FDA could be charged with "being 'asleep at the switch' for decades by allowing a potentially hazardous compound to remain in many childhood vaccines, and not forcing manufacturers to exclude it from new products," he said in a June 29, 1999, e-mail later disclosed at a congressional hearing.

It didn't take "rocket science" to track the rising exposures, Patriarca wrote. Critics may wonder "what took the FDA so long to do the calculations? Why didn't CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded" childhood immunizations?

In July 1999, the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics called on vaccine makers to remove thimerosal as a precaution. Manufacturers began switching to single-dose containers. By 2002, thimerosal was present only in trace amounts in routine vaccines.

Now it is making something of a comeback. This year, the CDC added flu shots to the vaccine schedule for children 6 months and older. Aventis, the only producer of flu vaccine for infants and toddlers, makes it both in single-dose and mercury-containing multi-dose vials. The CDC has spurned appeals to recommend thimerosal-free shots for all children and pregnant women — fearing parents might refuse a shot for their kids if they couldn't get it mercury-free.

Exasperated by the agency's stance, lawmakers have filed bills in Congress and several states, including California , to ban thimerosal from pediatric vaccines.

Cochi of the CDC says such bills are ill conceived. He says children die of the flu, including more than 140 last year, while the risks of thimerosal are at most theoretical. He blames the uproar on those eager "to capitalize on the tragedy of parents with children who have autism, because they see a huge pot of gold at the end of the rainbow."

"That's the other side of this story," Cochi said, "that it has the potential to be a gigantic scam on the American taxpayer."

Of all the resentments of the parents, the idea that they are out for a buck seems to gall them the most.

And when they talk about their lives — the social isolation, financial distress and bleak prospects of their children — many can't help but weep. At such times, it's easy to see why vaccine makers would rather not face them in court.

Kyle and Dillon Dass arrived three months early in January 2000 — weighing 1 pound, 7 ounces and 2 pounds, 15 ounces, respectively. That was six months after the appeal to remove thimerosal from vaccines.

Kevin, their father, keeps a copy of an advisory sent to doctors by the Academy of Pediatrics shortly before his sons were born. "If there are limited supplies of thimerosal-free products available, priority should be given to use in premature infants," it says.

At 3 1/2 months, the boys got four shots in one day. Three contained thimerosal, according to medical records the Dasses later obtained.

At the time, the couple had never heard of thimerosal, but Cheryl Dass said she questioned giving several shots to her tiny babies. She did not put up a fight, however, deciding, "Oh well, you know what you're doing because you save lives everyday."

Lyn Redwood, who lives near Atlanta , says her son Will began receiving doses while still in the womb.

Redwood, a former nurse, had amniocentesis during pregnancy. Because her blood was Rh negative, after the procedure she was given shots of gamma globulin to protect her fetus from an illness called Rh incompatibility disease.

Years later, Redwood said, she was amazed to learn that the two gamma globulin shots during pregnancy, and a third when she was breast-feeding, contained thimerosal.

Will, who has pervasive development disorder, a milder form of autism, had received an additional 237.5 micrograms of mercury in vaccines by the time he was 1 1/2 , Redwood said.

Even so, he seemed to progress nicely until his first birthday. Redwood recalled that he started to walk, talk and generally do things on time — before suddenly regressing and slipping away. "He stopped looking at us. He stopped playing…. It was like 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers,' " she said. "Somebody had taken away my baby's soul and just left a shell of him in there."

The bizarre and disruptive behavior of many autistic children can make their families virtual prisoners in their homes.

Going out in public "is a train wreck," said Cheryl Dass. It's impossible to do the family things others take for granted, like going to a movie or church or "even to pick out a pumpkin."

Kelly Kerns of Lenexa , Kan. , who has an autistic daughter and twin sons, said, "We're not the families that are doing baseball and birthday parties.

"I'm a mother that lives in a tunnel," she said. "I haven't been to a family reunion in four years. My family doesn't understand. They wouldn't understand.

"I used to be a decent person, and I just have acid rolling from my lips every time I open my mouth," Kerns said. "I ask God every day what did I do to deserve this. What did these kids do to deserve what they got?"

Some parents are hopeful, though not holding their breath, for help from the vaccine court. Others say they'd just as soon get a chance to bloody the industry in a civil trial.

Said Georgia Mueller of Kansas City , who has an autistic son: "I want it to hurt" the manufacturers, because they "never did the research to make sure this was safe."

back to top

Flu Shots Linked To Asthma Attacks

By Michael Bradley

Sydney Morning Herald, Australia

Vaccinating asthmatic children against influenza is unlikely to protect them from attacks and may even worsen their condition, say researchers who have found asthma-related emergency department visits are significantly more likely among children who have received a flu shot.

The US study comes a week after Australian authorities said they would consider whether local immunisation recommendations should be brought into line with America's.

Asthmatic children in the US are told to use the vaccine but from September the recommendation will be extended to all children aged between six months and two years. In Australia, influenza immunisation is not recommended for all children; however, a universal program is being considered by the Federal Government's vaccine advisory panel.

Professor David Isaacs, a specialist in immunology and infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital at Westmead and the chairman of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation's committee on influenza, said: "In the United States they say children with asthma should be given a vaccine against the flu because getting the flu could make their asthma worse, but the evidence supporting this idea is far from brilliant."

Professor Isaacs said previous studies had failed to show different rates of asthma attack between groups of children given either the vaccine or a placebo.

"People seem to assume the vaccine will be good [for asthmatics] but the evidence does not show that it is," he said.

"In fact, there are lots of studies now suggesting it does not offer much benefit at all."

The American researchers compared two groups of 400 asthmatic children. One group received the vaccine. Those who were vaccinated were found to be almost twice as likely to seek assistance at an emergency department because of their asthma.

However, one specialist says doctors and parents should not read too much into the research. A medical virologist at Prince of Wales Hospital, Associate Professor Bill Rawlinson, said the findings might only reflect the higher use of the vaccine among children with severe asthma.

"If you are a more severe asthmatic, you are more likely to get the vaccine," he said.

[Financial tip: invest in inhaler futures and in Ritalin futures. The CDC's cranking up its "inject thimerosal via flu shots" campaign.]

back to top

Foggy Thinking as Inhaled Flu Vaccine Nears FDA Approval

NVIC President and Co-founder Barbara Loe Fisher, who served as the consumer

voting member of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory

Committee was the sole dissenting vote opposing licensing of FLUMIST vaccine

on the grounds that the vaccine manufacturer had not proven safety.

It seemed like a great idea. Perhaps a vaccine that could be administered with a simple sniff in each nostril, rather than a painful jab, could revive languishing flu vaccination rates in people at risk for the complications of influenza (mostly those over 65 and those with underlying heart disease, lung disease or diabetes). But then public health and science came into conflict with profit - and we all know how that all-too-often turns out.

Back in 2001, FLUMIST, an influenza vaccine made from live rather than killed virus, came before a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee, seeking approval for use in healthy people aged 1-64 years. But the Committee soon detected hints that the vaccine was causing asthma in young people and requested more information. The vaccine's sponsor reached deep into its bag of corporate tricks and came up with the notion not of redesigning the vaccine to minimize its asthmatic propensity, but rather of seeking approval only for people 5 years old and above.

Sure, FLUMIST's market would be reduced, but MedImmune's stockholders would be happy that the vaccine was approved. Besides, everyone knows that doctors often prescribe "off-label" (outside of FDA guidelines) and drug companies' "detail men" are famous for encouraging such off-label prescribing. But this created a small scientific problem. The best designed study demonstrating FLUMIST's effectiveness (because it measured actual decreases in laboratory-proven influenza vaccination) included 1-7 year olds, but now most of that age group was excluded from the new target population. And the study in adults 18-64 only measured clinical disease, rather than the more accepted standard, in which laboratory proof of the presence of influenza virus is required. Moreover, the adult study failed to demonstrate statistical improvement in the main clinical outcome ("any febrile illness"), although it did for many of the secondary outcomes (e.g.,"febrile upper respiratory infection"), and included relatively few people over the age of 50.

In fact, in an analysis of the 50-64 year olds planned after the study was complete, there was little evidence of vaccine efficacy, even for the secondary outcomes. The studies also showed that, despite investigators' efforts, many patients with asthma, who were supposed to have been excluded from the trial, slipped through and were vaccinated. This is likely to be even more common in actual clinical practice.In a complicated vote, the Advisory Committee decided that there was insufficient evidence of vaccine efficacy in 50-64 year olds. The Committee thus in effect recommended approval exclusively for those for whom the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, like FDA, a part of the Department of Health and Human Services) does not recommend flu vaccination: healthy people aged 5-50.

The vote was also a landmark in that, with the support of the FDA, it permitted approval for a vaccine based on clinical rather than laboratory outcomes (recall that laboratory-confirmed outcomes were available only for the five, six and seven year olds). And a live virus vaccine at that, with concomitant risks of transmission to unvaccinated persons.

Compounding these problems was the FDA's failure to insist on any studies comparing FLUMIST to the existing killed virus vaccine. So consumers and physicians are left in the lurch, devoid of the data that should have been produced prior to approval and now probably never will be generated.

We also do not recommend the use of RELENZA (zanamivir) and TAMIFLU (oseltamivir) in the treatment of influenza.

back to top

Side Effects of Influenza Vaccines Kill Seven in Japan

Wednesday, February 5, 2003

The side effects of influenza vaccines killed seven people in the two years through last March, and more than 80 people suffer from the adverse effects of such shots each year, the health ministry said Tuesday.

The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry, which gave the data to the Diet at the request of a Democratic Party of Japan lawmaker, said the number of reported side effects totaled 82 cases in fiscal 2000, rising to 87 the following year.

The symptoms include fever, vomiting and shock. Most have recovered, but 21 people who took the vaccines are still suffering side effects.

The seven people who died after being injected with flu vaccines were all older than 60, the ministry said. The causes of death included acute hepatitis and acute pneumonia.

In fiscal 2001, according to health ministry data, 10 million flu shots were shipped and 6.4 million people aged over 60 were vaccinated.

Influenza vaccines are extracted from virus cultures implanted in chicken eggs. Unlike polio and other preventive vaccines, influenza vaccines do not give total immunity to recipients. However, they are effective in reducing the chances of contracting the illness as well as preventing serious complications, including pneumonia.

The Japan Times: Feb. 5, 2003

back to top

Manipulating Flu Numbers

The following article is nothing more than another one of the contrived media manipulations by flu vaccination proponents. Just as it is outlined in the CDC blueprint presentation on how to artificially scare people into getting the flu vaccine that we sent out last week, ( this article claims that there has been a "substantial climb" in hospitalizations because of the flu. This article is being sent out because of one very important line tucked away that needs to have the spotlight shining brightly on:

"the researchers used a broader category of flu-related illnesses to reach the new estimate."

That's right - broaden the category to confuse and needlessly scare people. However, last flu season according to the CDC themselves, only 18.9% of the circulating flu-like illnesses out there were of the three strains selected to be in the vaccine. ( In other words, last winter, 4 out of 5 times, the sniffles, fever or aches were not caused by anything a vaccine can prevent. The media manipulation campaign continues to irrationally scare people into the vaccine.

In the words of Mark Twain: "There are 3 types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."]

back to top


This year's INFLUENZA vaccine

by Hilary Butler.

Virus Lays Side Low

The Warriors fly to Canberra today hopeful they've seen the last of a -flu virus that has dropped half the side over the past fortnight, despite pre-season injections. (Weekend Herald, July 3-4, 1999, C6)

The last article I wrote on influenza was in Volume 9, Number 3, (Feb-Apr 1997) in which I detailed then up-to-date information on New Zealand and USA, and made some "future pointers".

Firstly, that someone would start promoting a combined flu/pneumonia vaccine, since most of the deaths from influenza are from pneumonia. It's not far away.

Secondly, that the influenza vaccine would be extended to all age groups, including children, because the manufacturers now have the ability to make enough vaccine to multi-jab everyone in the world every year. No longer are they restricted to "at-risk" groups, which was an arbitrary allocation due to the then available supply. The New Zealand Herald, 31/1/2000, A15, discusses two studies which concluded that influenza vaccination may be warranted in children under two because they were hospitalised for influenza "at rates similar to those for adults at high risk." Interesting. Ever heard of a baby with the flu? The babies, however, would need two flu shots.

Thirdly, I discussed some little gems from an apparently still embargoed American document (briefly discussed in JAMA, 17/1/1996, Vol. 275, No. 3 pg. 179–180) which mysteriously appeared in my letter box one day-and I predicted that this document would become the basis of the "rule the world" approach for blanket coverage with this vaccine. And it's happening!

Fourthly, that a National Immunisation Register would become the main tool.

I have to admit that I have not scoured the medical literature recently for all the studies of the effectiveness of flu vaccines. I stopped doing that religiously in 1992, when I got sick of the continual drip, drip of the media saying "flu vaccines will stop you getting the flu", while the literature said something else. As a result, this article is not "exhaustive", nor the last word on the flu vaccine. Nothing ever will be. It was also written at very short notice, so had to utilise on-hand facts. We can always update you later, if you feel the need.

This year, the media has gone mad on influenza early, with the Otago Daily Times 23/2 saying that in New Zealand, 470 people die every year from the flu, and influenza causes 2000-5000 hospitalisations. The Dominion 22/2 says, "Overseas studies suggest flu immunisation cuts hospitalisation by half and deaths by two-thirds for people aged 65 and over." But there are some additional twists to the promo-blurb. One of the most prominent features has been the assertion of the Health Department that the flu vaccine does not cause flu. Reported in the Gisborne Herald, 16/2/2000: "No excuses, jab not cause of flu". This has been repeated in several articles. If it never happens, why major on it or could it be that where there is smoke there is fire?.

News from the sick bay:

Despite a flu shot, Sen. Ted Kennedy is expected to spend the next few days at Sibley Memorial Hospital, where he's recovering from a flu-like "viral illness." (The Washington Post, Tuesday, 8/2/2000, C3).

So now we hear that Ted Kennedy, and no doubt others like him, have a "flu-like viral illness", when they get flu after the vaccine. And where is the evidence to prove that is was an unrelated strain? Can't find it. Is the "prosecution, defence, judge and jury" holding all the strings, and using that lack of evidence to suit themselves?

Another little complication is the story behind why two new drugs were developed, called Tamiflu and Relenza, and why it was attempted to keep them away from the public. A fishy piece if ever there was one. When news of potential anti-flu drugs leaked to the surface around 1992, I wondered how vaccine manufacturers might view the potential impact on their profits. When I read that 19 experts on the FDA committee spent hours bogged down in amazingly technical arguments about the clinical tests and what they proved, then refused to approve the drug (NZ Herald, 1/3/99) the first question that came to mind was "What were the vested interests of the committee members?" History, in the form of medical journals and Senate hearings, has shown that often the medical people on these committees have links with the relevant manufacturers or "conflicts of interest". Did it happen in this case? During that week, the company which manufactured Relenza, Biota, had seen a huge rise in stock prices to $9.30, which on FDA's snub of the product, crashed, with some brokers calling it worthless, or a buy at 60 cents at best.

Then someone remembered that since approval had already been given on two other continents, the FDA ruling didn't mean much, and the price recovered slightly to $4.00 by the end of the week. And they were right. In the Wall Street Journal 11/1/2000 is an extraordinary article detailing the rise and rise of these two drugs. This Northern Hemisphere flu season, the two manufacturers of Tamiflu and Relenza began an aggressive new marketing campaign, even though the incidence of the flu is neither higher nor more serious than in previous years. Tom Skinner, a press spokesperson at the CDC commented that they were getting the highest level of media calls about the flu that they had ever seen:

"While difficult to document, the intense promotional activities by Roche and Glaxo appear to be driving much of the flood of media interest in the flu. Roche is being particularly innovative, blanketing local reporters in different cities with nearly identical press releases about outbreaks of the flu in their area, that differ only in their references to local-area doctors and hospitals being swamped by flu patients"

Marketing strategies extended to employing grandmotherly actresses who handed out packets of freeze-dried chicken soup, the message supposedly being that while grandma's chicken soup might be good for flu, Tamiflu disables the virus, and is much better.

It is all part of a $50 million campaign being waged by Roche and Glaxo, and they are succeeding, with doctors writing only 16,000 prescriptions for Tamiflu and Relenza in the week ending December 10, 80,000 the week after and a staggering 160,000 in the last week of December. "We are seeing tremendous consumer demand," said Charles Alfaro, a Roche spokesperson.

Meanwhile, other medical people appear very annoyed, judging by the material flowing from their pens. It appears they are worried that Relenza and Tamiflu have the potential to reduce the number of people having the vaccine (The Press, 25/1/2000). The same FDA committee that got their noses in a snit about the drugs in the first place, has gone on the offensive, sending letters to doctors reminding them that vaccines are the best protection, and that people with flu can develop severe bacterial infections which must be treated with antibiotics. They also made Glaxo change an advertisement which they thought overstated the drug's potential. In fact, the arguments have an echoing familiarity with the New Zealand Health Department's recent moaning to TVNZ about the publicity surrounding the Lyprinol TV exposure.

The ultimate in reasons as to why Relenza and Tamiflu are a bad thing is an inference made by the chairman of the National Coalition for Adult Immunisation, Dr Greg Poland, a vaccine "expert" at Mayo Clinic whose slogan is "Up to 60 times more adults die from vaccine-preventable diseases than children." To quote NZ GP, 9/2/2000:

"They go and they sit in crowded places like the doctors and emergency waiting rooms, so if you didn't have influenza when you came in you have it when you leave."

Meanwhile, back at the fort, American Health Departments enlisted 'Giant' food stores in America to be a venue for in-store influenza vaccination programmes to try to increase uptake (Greenbelt News Review, 14/10/99, pg. 3). If Mohammed won't go to the mount.

The Washington Post 17/10/99, A15, put out full page ads saying:

"From now through November 13th, licensed health care professionals will be giving flu shots in selected Giant stores for $10. And by getting vaccinated early, you can greatly reduce your risk of getting the flu this season. Now that's a healthy idea that's a real shot in the arm."

But in New Zealand we are being told that immunisation campaigns have not achieved their targets in many countries (NZ Herald 17/1/2000, A 10). The tenor of newspaper articles is changing as well. In the past, it was just "at risk" people. Now, we are being told that not only should older people get vaccinated, but anyone who has contact with them:

"Anyone who has not had the strains of flu circulating in the community could catch it and get seriously ill – some may even die, even the fit and healthy. The only protection was to have the flu vaccine, Mr Jennings said."

That's funny. I read in a 1990 medical article that: "In the general community attack rates during an influenza epidemic are around 1% and the vaccine is estimated to give 70 – 80% protection." (Brit. J. Gen. Practice, Jan 1990, Vol. 40, pg. 10)

Now, the news media tells us that "attack rates often reach 10 to 40% of the population over a five to six week period." (Gisborne Herald, 21/1). How things change – will it soon be 100%?

Four years before, the Dominion, 12/3/96 reported Dr Jennings (New Zealand's resident flu expert) as saying:

"children, unless they fall into one of the at-risk categories, are not usually vaccinated. Dr Jennings says their immune systems are more intact, so they react more severely to the vaccine. And though children get the flu, it is seldom life-threatening for them."

Now they want to vaccinate children, because it appears that children give it to everyone else. Especially in Manukau:

"In the past two years the harsh Sydney A flu virus has emerged in poor areas of Manukau before spreading to other parts of the region. Statistics show the high incidence of flu in Manukau is a combination of poverty and a large population of children, says Nicholas Jones, Public Health's physician for disease surveillance." Manukau Courier, 1/2/2000:

"He [Dr Nicholas Jones] says GPs working in poorer areas should make sure people living in crowded situations get a free vaccination if they are eligible." NZ Doctor 2/2/2000.

Might malnutrition be a factor? I looked in vain to find anything in any of the clippings about the use of non- patented medicine in this year's publicity. Apart from one reference to eating good food I could find nothing. Dr Lance Jennings goes on about how serious influenza is, but nowhere do I see any mention of his study (mentioned in North and South, June 1996) "conducted at the University of Wisconsin in 1988 which demonstrated that a daily dose of 2000 mg of vitamin C reduces the severity of a cold by one half, and alleviates influenza symptoms."

Nor is it mentioned that a recent review (Paed Infect Dis J, 1997;16: 836-7) of three vitamin C studies found huge decreases (³ 80%) in pneumonia in people who took vitamin C as opposed to those who didn't, and mentioned Sabin's findings that no cases of pneumonia were found in monkeys with adequate vitamin C.

This would seem very important, since the focus of the medical people's loving-kindness seems to have been the elderly. So why doesn't Lance Jennings tell them that zinc is vital for colds (and the flu)? The last time he mentioned that was in the Sunday Star Times, 7/7/96. Since vitamin C is his interest, why doesn't he tell the group most at risk from the flu that they could not only lessen the severity of, if not prevent, both flu and pneumonia by taking supplements, but that vitamin C would increase their iron absorption (Nutrition Reviews Vol. 45, No 7 July 1987) and greatly enhance the Th1 cellular immunity which is all important in fighting the flu (Paed Inf Dis J, 1999;18: 283-290). Vitamin C and E supplementation also reduces the risk of cataracts by at least 50% (Canadian study, mentioned in Time, 6/4/92). Vitamin C reduces coronary mortality by 50% in comparison with those who don't take it (BMJ Volume 314, 1 March 1997), vitamin E significantly improves cell mediated immune responses in the elderly (JAMA, May 7, 1997, Vol. 277, No 17:1380-1386), a high level of vitamin C means you have a far lower chance of having a stroke (BMJ, Volume 310, pg. 1563-6), men with a history of cardiac disease who were given beta carotene supplements of 50 mg every other day suffered half as many heart attacks, strokes and deaths as those popping placebo pills (Harvard study 22,000 male physicians Time, 6/4/92), and that supplementation with vitamin E reduces the pathogenesis of arthritis, diabetes and systemic lupus erythematosus (Am J Clin Nutr, 1993; 57: 650-656, Metab Clin Exp 1990;39:1278-1284).

I could go on and on, filling pages with medical references to studies which, if doctors took seriously and educated people, would help and save the lives of millions. Instead we read that Professor Matthew During, who has developed a vaccine against the effects of strokes, now wants to manufacture a vaccine against depression and obesity (The Herald 26/2/2000). Never mind that Dr Carl C. Pfeiffer, PhD, MD, has successfully treated even the most intractable schizophrenia with individually tailor-made vitamin programmes (Mental and Elemental Nutrients – A Physician's Guide to Nutrition and Health Care, Keats Publishing Inc, ISBN; 0-87983-114-6).

And that's the key, and the rub isn't it? These things need to be individually tailored. People need to be educated to learn about what their bodies need, and to take responsibility for themselves. And this means taking time, talking, sharing and convincing. It is so much easier to push a desk, a laboratory. The articles flow regularly, the conferences are timely breaks, and the Nobel award at the end sounds wonderful, not to mention financial security. Pardon me if I sound cynical – but no longer is there the same altruism in medicine that my parents once saw.

Meanwhile real PREVENTIVE medicine goes begging while others search for patented acclaim. "Deficiencies of vitamins and trace elements are observed in almost one third of all elderly" (Nutrition of the Elderly, NY Raven Press 1992) and JAMA Vol. 277, No. 17, pg. 1398-99: "Graying of the Immune System." It is literally that – caused in large part by nutritional deficiencies. I believe that the call for vaccines for everything is the biggest medical rip-off of the millennium - because if every doctor educated their patients about nutrients based on just the last 10 years of medical literature, and even half of them took it seriously, our health budget would immediately be dramatically slashed. But that might mean doctors in hospitals don't have a job any more.

As for the elderly, the influenza vaccine is the biggest rip-off of their lives. If they were educated as to nutrients, micronutrients, and simple preventive measures available at their back door, not only would the statistics they are emotionally blackmailed with become meaningless, and the impact of influenza on them be minimal, but many of their other health problems would be resolved by the same actions. And they don't know that. Why? Maybe they don't want to know? And maybe that apathy is partly because these researchers do what they are paid for, to develop and push products with a Wall Street Journal rating.

What do these experts recommend to the poor and elderly in Manukau? Just immunise and that is all. It's quick, easy, and takes no time. Contrast that with these extracts of advice in the Taupo Weekender, 10 February 2000:

Being fit and healthy is first defence against flu: "Doctors say people should bolster their general fitness and health to ward off an impending virulent flu strike. Dr Alastair Fraser says a vaccine should be available late next month. Alastair says the vaccine is only active for around three months, so it is no use giving it too early, But he advises that people should improve their fitness and eat healthy foods to help reduce the risk of infection. Keep hydrated, get lots of sleep, eat good food and keep fit to keep the body's natural immune system in shape, he says. Alcohol should be cut as it suppresses the immune system."

Here's someone who cares! But even this is controversial. Dr Rod Ellis-Pegler's attitude sums it up: "Eat well, stay fit, catch it anyway" (North and South June 1996 pg. 97)

Back to the vaccine story. In Wellington, The Dominion, 23/2/2000 was telling everyone:

"Doctors in most parts of New Zealand are cancelling patients' appointments for influenza vaccinations because national supplies have run out as a result of exceptional demand."

And the Christchurch, Press, 24/2/2000:

"Early demand exhausts flu vaccine -a rush on demand has exhausted national supplies of the vaccine Canterbury Health Virologist Lance Jennings said a national influenza immunisation strategy group formed this year had also boosted awareness of the need for vaccine Dr Jennings said doctors had got organised earlier this year as a result, and demand for the vaccine outstripped supply. He said it was important for people to get immunised before the flu season hits. It usually peaked during June, July and August."

Hmmm! and if Dr Alastair Fraser is right, and the vaccine is only active for three months, all those people Dr Jennings organised to have the vaccine early will be most vulnerable by May, way before the season even peaks. He has support too, in research results which show that among the elderly antibody rates decline between 1-3 months after the shot (J Clin Micr, Dec 1989, pg. 2669). Amazing, then, how a public health nurse, Joan Painter, can get away with saying in the Gisborne Herald, 16/2: "After several years of vaccination a person's resistance to all strains of flu was far greater". Does she not know that there are thousands of unvaccinated elderly in this country who have maybe only ever had one attack - or none - of influenza in their lives? And by this very fact, thousands of the vaccinated elderly in this country don't need the vaccine? Another interesting facet of this story is that this is not the first year for the A strain in New Zealand. The West Coast Times, 11/1/2000, in detailing the expected strain, said:

"Dr Jennings said in some ways having a fourth outbreak of Sydney flu (A) in New Zealand would be useful because it was incorporated in the new vaccine that would be available next month. If a new strain emerged, the vaccine might not be effective."

Now pardon me for being dense, but isn't the incorporation of a new strain in a vaccine to protect against whatever is known to be coming up? Or are there some things we're not being told here? This expected strain is one that regular imbibers of the vaccine are rushing to have for the fourth time in a row!

The fact is that the history of the influenza vaccine is paved with verbal evasions, political manoeuvrings and pharmaceutical shenanigans that most people have no idea about. It seems that truth is dependant on "circumstances".

Consider the following extracts 8 years ago, from an "eminent" Australian World Health Organisation doctor:

"Hundreds of Victorian doctors and pharmacies have run out of influenza vaccines, and there are fears that the stock has been depleted by healthy people who could be doing themselves more harm than good by taking the vaccine.

"Patients who want protections from an expected outbreak of the lethal flu strain A-Beijing are being turned away. New supplies of the vaccine are expected to be ready in the next few days, but the director of the World Health Organisation's Melbourne influenza centre, Dr Alan Hampson, said there was no guarantee supplies would keep up with the demand.

"I think it will be touch and go. I think we will use all the vaccine we had planned to release, and if anything happens to create additional demand we will have to look at ways of getting more, he said. Dr Hampson said the solid take-up of the vaccine was good news if at-risk people such as the elderly or chronically ill, were receiving the vaccine.

"But he was concerned some healthy people were seeking vaccination, wasting supplies and damaging their own natural immunity. Unnecessary vaccination was a particular problem with children who, if otherwise healthy, should be allowed to go through mild bouts of influenza to build up resistance." (Deborah Stone, Health reporter, Sunday Age 26/4/92).

Way back then, a high-up doctor stated that the influenza vaccine could damage the immune system of healthy people? Amazing how advice has now changed - because manufacturing techniques have become more advanced and universal supply is now guaranteed?

But what about that remark about healthy people having the vaccine and damaging their own natural immunity?

How could this be - if it is fact?

A 1999 medical article has shed light on a possible connection, and also confirms previously discounted "history". J Inf Dis, 1999; 180: 579 – 85 should be compulsory reading for all medical people who still insist that any vaccination is "natural". Interestingly enough, it is one of the few articles on influenza vaccines not funded by vaccine manufacturers.

This very carefully worded article used animal experiments to determine the type of immunity given by the currently used inactivated influenza vaccine. Which, of course, leaves the experts the opening to say that mice aren't humans. But if there is no similarity, then there was no point in the study in the first place, and the funding would not have been granted. So, let's work on the assumption that the findings are valid and applicable to humans. The first two sentences read:

"Immunisation with live influenza virus expands Th1 memory cells and facilitates more rapid recovery after heterosubtypic virus challenge. Immunisation with inactivated virus generates a Th2 response and does not lead to heterosubtypic immunity."

So far, so good. How does this relate to humans?

"Evaluation of memory responses of mice immunised by the various protocols demonstrated that the type of immunisation imprints T cell memory dictating the nature of the response to subsequent infection."

"Live, or live attenuated virus immunisation primes for heterosubtypic immunity, but inactivated virus does not. It is generally believed that this results from a failure of inactivated virus to enter into the endogenous pathway (natural method of acquiring immunity) and stimulate cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) generation (the manufacture of virus-specific CD8+ memory T cells capable of killing virus-infected cells) inactivated virus may expand Th2 cells and prime for the wrong type of immunity."

They went on to describe the three experiments they did.

1. They injected live virus, which led to the release of interleukin 12 (IL-12) from dendritic cells, and culminated in the production of Th1 immunity which was also cross-reactive against other similar heterosubtypes, and cytotoxic CD8 cells with subsequent rapid clearance of virus infected cells on rechallenge of the influenza virus.

2. They injected inactivated virus on its own, which induced Th2 immunity only to the type injected, and when re-challenged with live virus, produced only a Th2 type of immunity, leading to the production of interleukin 4 (Th2 specific hormone) and virus-specific antibodies of the Ig G1 type (Th2). The report states " in addition to failing to generate CTLs, inactivated virus induces the wrong type of cellular immune response, that is, Th2 immunity."

3. They injected inactivated virus AS WELL AS interleukin 12 and anti-IL-4, with the result that a Th1 immunity was created. Interestingly, they repeatedly observed a more rapid clearance of heterosubtypic virus from the lungs after live virus challenge, which correlated with the observation that the addition of IL-12 and anti-IL4 converted the immune response to a Th1 response, with the proper balance of IgG1/IgG2a (Th1). But although they cleared the virus more rapidly, the clearance was not as effective as in animals immunised with live virus.

But the authors wanted to go further and see if the vaccination would

then determine how the immune system would react, if it came into contact with the virus again. They found that immunisation with different forms of the virus had imprinted immunological memory, resulting in animals injected with inactivated virus only responding with a Th2 response, and:

"In contrast, animals immunised with inactivated virus alone continue to make a Th2 response even after live virus infection."

The last paragraph of the article was interesting:

"We do not mean to imply that inactivated virus plus IL-12 and anti IL-4 would be superior to the currently employed trivalent influenza virus vaccine, but the data suggest that a renewed interest in inactivated virus vaccines may be warranted. If engineered to create the correct cytokine environment, they may be able to prime for some degree of cell-mediated immunity that might be crucial in host defence."

And is there historical precedent for these comments? Of course. After all, the article above was written with the full knowledge that the flu vaccine is not that good.


Some of you may have heard the presentations in New Zealand by Dr J. Anthony Morris in 1992 and 1995. But what you might not know is that his expertise and reputation for strict honesty was honed to a fine edge on the political carving board of the Influenza vaccine. There are lessons to be learned by the current medical profession, if only they cared. So who is Dr Morris, and what are these lessons?

Here are some extracts from an article in the Washington Post, 13th March 1977:

"The major impetus behind criticism of flu vaccines can be traced back to the work of J. Anthony Morris. In the mid-1950's, Morris was recalled from Asia to take a major job, in a reorganised laboratory within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). His task was to investigate vaccines, and assess the risk factors involved in their use.

"Morris began to concentrate on flu vaccines, and became alarmed at what he found. He discovered, for example, that there was no way to measure the potency of vaccines. No matter what the labels on a batch said, the actual strength of the dose might vary. But far more serious, Morris says, as a result of his experiments, he was convinced we had scientific evidence that flu vaccines didn't work.

"By the mid-1960's Morris was deeply involved in experiments on the long-term effects of flu vaccine and his research was indicating that, far from stopping flu, vaccination might well increase an individual's susceptibility.

"The scientist's criticism of flu vaccination ran directly counter to national medical strategy, and he began to run into fierce opposition from his superiors at NIH. I don't know for certain why,' Morris says, 'but there is a close tie between government scientists and manufacturing scientists. And I was hurting the market for flu vaccine.'

"Gradually his laboratory staff was whittled down. Publication of his scientific articles was blocked by superiors. Thousands of experimental animals, crucial to his work, were ordered destroyed. Finally he was forced from his laboratory and given a small room with no telephone. His research materials were crated and taken away."

"It was at this point that Morris in desperation went to the law offices of Edward Bennett Williams to seek help. They said it looked like another 'Ernie Fitzgerald case' and turned him away. Fitzgerald is a civil servant in the Pentagon who was victimised for exposing cost overruns in the Defence Department."

"At this point, Dr Morris was introduced to James Turner, one of Ralph Nader's lawyers whose concern was health:

"He got in touch with Morris, checked out his scientific credentials and spent six months poring over Morris' work. 'I was very impressed,' Turner says 'and I thought we had a chance to win.'

NIH Accused.

"Together they drew up a detailed memorandum charging irregularities in the NIH's handling of flu vaccines and alleging that the government had long been certifying for public consumption watered-down vaccines. This report became the basis for a grievance proceeding on behalf of Morris within the government and it sparked an investigation by Sen. Abraham Ribicoff. Soon the General Accounting office was called in to investigate.

"In the face of the Turner attack, NIH officials could only retort that Morris 'was extremely difficult to death with.' Ribicoff's Senate hearing prompted then Secretary of HEW, Elliot Richardson, to transfer Morris' laboratory to the Food and Drug Administration, where he resumed his work. Morris had been vindicated, but his lonely watchdog role was by no means over. The government continued its flu vaccination program as if nothing had happened.

"Morris then began to investigate the new 'live' flu vaccines that the government hoped would be the eventual conqueror of the flu. The vaccine administered to the public has been composed of 'dead' viral material. A live vaccine, which can be inhaled or taken in the form of nose drops, contains living virus modified in such a way that it produces a mild case of the disease. It is thought to produce the right kind of antibodies to protect against the disease. This live vaccine was given to humans, including small children, in the early 1970's in a test program. Morris began to test the live vaccine in mice - a precaution which had not been taken. He found that the live vaccine accelerated the growth of tumours in the test animals.

"The alarming finding that live flu vaccine might be carcinogenic was acutely embarrassing to federal health experts, since the vaccine already had been tested on people, had won special Congressional support as a potential cure-all for flu and was indeed earmarked for eventual public use. Morris' unpopularity among the health bureaucrats increased markedly.

"The General Accounting office, a congressional watchdog agency, concurred with some of Morris' criticisms, which eventually led to changes in the regulation of vaccines (Washington Star, 5/1/79, A2.). In 1978, Dr Morris became a prominent public critic of the Swine flu vaccine program. He had sent memoranda to various officials pointing out that the vaccine was dangerous, that it was impossible to accurately measure vaccine potency, and that his tests showed that it might result in hypersensitivity and trigger neurologic illnesses ranging from persistent head-aches to paralysis to Guillain-Barré, and maybe even death. He also insisted that the virus was probably not related to the one that caused a global epidemic in 1918-19, and that there was no evidence that the Swine flu could spread from person to person. (In 1988 a swine-flu virus killed a 32-year-old Wisconsin woman - J Clin Micr 1989, pg. 1413-1416 – but presumably the lessons had been learned, since there was not even the whisper of a vaccination campaign. JAMA 1988, Vol. 260, No 21, pg. 3116 subsequently confirmed that "continuous transmission of Swine influenza virus in humans has not occurred."). The Swine flu virus had not been isolated anywhere since it had been suspected in one person in Fort Dix, New Jersey, and that even if the virus could spread, the vaccine did not produce the right sort of antibody to protect. In other words, it wouldn't work, and was dangerous. He was ignored by his superiors. Specifically, as stated by the Washington Star, 5/1/79:

"Two Harvard Professors concluded that the failure of the Swine-flu program illustrated fundamental weaknesses in the nation's scientific decision-making process. Specifically, they said the director of the Center for Disease Control, who conceived the mass immunization effort, had "put a gun" to the head of President Ford by overselling the program."

"Since his superiors would not listen, Dr Morris appeared on the Phil Donahue show, stating who he was, and why he was concerned about the vaccine. As the Washington Post 13/3/77 said about Dr Morris's continual whistle-blowing:

"This was just too much for the FDA, and Commissioner Alexander Schmidt fired Morris for insubordination."

The final paragraph of this article went on to say: "After nearly 20 years of struggle within the federal government Morris fights on. It's a medical rip-off,' he says of the flu vaccine program. 'We should recognize that we don't know enough about the dangers associated with flu vaccine. I believe the public should have truthful information on the basis of which they can determine whether or not to take the vaccine.' And, he adds, 'I believe that, given full information, they won't take the vaccine."

But the public were not given full information, more than 40 million took the vaccine, and Dr Morris was proven correct in his predictions, with the result that the vaccination campaign was called off in total disarray to the political and medical embarrassment of many of Dr Morris's colleagues.

The Washington Star 5/1/79 reported that a Civil Service Review had ordered reconsideration of the FDA's dismissal of Dr Morris:

"Expressing new concern for the welfare of 'whistle blowers.' A Civil Service review panel has ordered a reconsideration of the FDA's decision to fire a scientist who outspokenly challenged the Swine flu program in 1976."

"Schmidt, in his letter firing Morris, said, 'Your direct disobedience of your immediate supervisor signifies to me your unwillingness to exist within a necessary chain of administrative command.'

"Dr Morris said yesterday, that he was 'tremendously encouraged' by the latest Civil Service ruling, and added: 'My biggest concern is not me. It's what this case might mean to other people. Hopefully, other persons in Government will feel free to express themselves more openly."

So what has this to do Relenza or mice? Dr Morris did his research in the days when no-one knew anything about Th1 and Th2. They called it cellular and humoral immunity, but there was no scientific proof that these two could and did work autonomously. But Dr Morris asserted then, and still asserts now, that the influenza vaccine did not, and still does not, provide the right sort of immunity. And I believe he is right. The work with mice proves it.

And he was not the only one to think so. The Australian Sunday Herald-Sun (13/9/92, pg. 28) stated:

"Professor Graeme Laver, a colleague from the John Curtin School of Medical Research, has joined scientists in the US and Britain to map the precise shape of a key protein in the influenza virus."

"Before he left for an international conference in the Palau Islands on efforts to find a flu blocker, Professor Laver warned the mutant influenza virus would make the AIDS virus look like a picnic (in the event of a pandemic). He said vaccinations were almost useless and a super-flu could develop at any time."

Another Professor not convinced about the vaccine! Most of you will be wondering how effective this vaccine is. Here are the main points from a sampling of articles:

Brit. J Gen. Pract, Jan. 1990 Vol. 40, pg. 10 - 12. Outbreak of influenza A in a boarding school in 1986:

"In the first out-break there was a higher attack rate in the children who had been vaccinated twice in the period 1985-86 (39%, 20/52) than in those who had never been vaccinated (31%, 21/68). Similarly, in the second outbreak, the more recent vaccination in the autumn term of 1986 showed no protective effect – 39% attack rate in those vaccinated (151/387) and 37% in those not vaccinated (31/83)."

"Vaccination is a fairly expensive and time consuming procedure and there is some evidence to suggest that immunisation with influenza A (H3N2) vaccine merely delays natural infection. It might therefore be better to experience the inconvenience of a natural infection at an early age, particularly for the often milder H1N1 strains, avoid annual vaccination and gain more lasting immunity in the long term."

JAMA, 1992, Vol. 267, No 3, pg. 344-346:Outbreak of Influenza A in Washington nursing home.

Influenza occurred among 21 (19%) of 113 vaccinated residents, and 14 (16%) of 88 unvaccinated residents. Vaccine efficacy for preventing influenza was 20%. Tests showed the virus was antigenically similar to the A(H3N2) component of the vaccine administered.

MMWR 1986; 35:729-731:

Influenza outbreak among personnel on a Florida naval base, with an attack rate in those who received the current vaccine (A/Chile/1/83 H1N1, A/Mississippi/1/85 H3N2 and B/Ann Arbor/1/86) was higher in the vaccinated (37%, 23/63) than in the unvaccinated (33%, 11/33).

MMWR, February 28, 1992, Vol. 41, No 8:

A(H3N2) influenza vaccine administered to 88% of residents of a nursing home. An outbreak of influenza A occurred. Influenza occurred among 18% vaccinated and 31% of unvaccinated; Pneumonia following influenza occurred in 9% of vaccinated and 17% of unvaccinated. 29% required hospitalisation and 2 died – (vaccination status not reported!). The calculated vaccine efficacy for preventing influenza was 43%, and pneumonia was 45%. 10% of employees (33) were vaccinated, 19% of whom got influenza. The calculated vaccine efficacy for preventing influenza in the employees was 86%. Tests identified the virus as A(H3N2).

Journal of Clinical Microbiology March 1991, pg. 498 – 505:

"Rates of protection against influenza illness afforded by commercially available inactivated virus vaccines have generally been lower in elderly individuals, particularly those who are institutionalised, than efficacy rates reported in studies of younger populations. These observations, which suggest that the immune response to inactivated influenza vaccines may decline with advancing age, have prompted the search for alternative approaches to vaccination that will more effectively stimulate immunity to influenza in elderly individuals."

Research Resources Reporter September 1990:

"A substantial proportion of individuals with AIDS and Aids related complex remain unprotected against influenza even after two doses of influenza vaccine."

J Inf. Dis1990;161:869-877: (one of three different references dated 1989 – 1990 detailing 3 different studies)

"Evidence from previous studies suggests that live influenza A virus vaccines may be more effective than inactivated virus vaccine in inducing immunity against wild-type influenza virus"

J Clin Micr November 1990, pg. 2539 – 2550 concluded that the live- attenuated influenza A virus vaccine induced a higher level of cytotoxicity and a response cross-reactive among influenza A virus subtypes compared with inactivated virus.

Journal of Infectious Diseases 1990, 161 pg. 333: "Questions have repeatedly been raised about efficacy in the elderly especially with regard to the type B component."

I thought the efficacy of A was low, but if they're concerned about the B strain as well.???

And here's one reference to back up Dr Alastair Fraser's assertion that you shouldn't give the vaccine too soon, because it lasts three months (at the most).

J Clin Micr Dec 1989, pg. 2669: (live vaccine, dead vaccine, and combination A influenza vaccine given to elderly). "Information regarding the duration of antibody responses to influenza vaccination in elderly population is limited we had previously found in seronegative young adults serum IgG HA antibody induced by live or inactivated influenza A virus vaccines remains elevated for at least 6 months after vaccinations the present study shows that the levels of both serum IgG and nasal wash IgG IIA antibodies declined in all three groups of vaccinees between 1 and 3 months after immunisation our findings suggesting short duration of systemic and local antibody responses have obvious implications with regard to the scheduling for the elderly so that they can derive maximum protective immunity against influenza."

Maryland Medical Journal October 1988;

Vaccine combination A/Taiwan, A/Leningrad, B/Ann Arbor. 126 residents, 5 status unknown, 87 had vaccine, 36 got A/Leningrad flu, attack rate 41%: 15 of 34 non-vaccinated also got flu – attack rate of 44%. One of the five pneumonia cases was not vaccinated, - pneumonia in vaccinated = 11%, unvaccinated 7%. "Incidence of illness and complications were not significantly different in vaccinated and nonvaccinated residents. This study found no protective effects of influenza vaccination in a nursing home population."

Why don't we hear about these studies any more?

Because, stung by such reports, medical people no longer want to talk about such articles. They consider them "unreliable." Instead North and South, June 1996 said:

"A USA 1994 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vaccination against influenza in 849 healthy working adults was carried out in the Minneapolis-St Paul area and published in The New England Journal of Medicine on October 1995 and came out in favour of immunising the well. It is one of the first reliable recent studies on the subject and revealed significant health and economic benefits: upper respiratory illnesses decreased by 25 percent, absenteeism from work decreased by 36 per cent and visits to the doctor by 44%."

Why the change in discussion from elderly to the well? Why is this one reliable, and everything else not?

Scand J Infect Dis 29: 181-185, 1997: The study preamble mentioned a previous randomised control trial among 1950 employees during a 5-month period in which acute respiratory infection was clinically observed in 8% of the vaccinated group and in 15% of the controls. The mean sick leave was 0.5 days less among vaccinated employees. The 1997 study was conducted among 458 municipal homemakers between the ages of 18 and 62, most of whom worked with elderly people in the high-risk category. The vaccine offered was Fluzone with 2 influenza A components, and 1 B component. 47% accepted vaccination. No incentives other than free vaccinations were offered. The cost of an influenza infection was FIM 1,183, while the cost of an averted infection was FIM 6,270, which resulted in a negative cost-benefit ratio. Under "conclusions" it was stated "Influenza vaccination had a marginal protective effect on illness and absenteeism among healthy employees vaccination costs clearly exceeded the benefits evidence for the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating healthy adults during low or medium influenza activity remains inconclusive." Absolutely amazing! I looked for other suggestions as to what could be recommended, and found another interesting gem... the last sentence of the abstract: "Optimal vaccination strategies for healthy adults need to be planned individually with minimal loss of working time."

An even more recent double blind study in the Paed Inf Dis J, 1999, Vol. 18, pg. 779-783 showed this:

"the results of this study show that conventional inactivated influenza vaccine reduced absenteeism by 28%.... The vaccine did, however, not decrease the number of days the subjects suffered from any symptoms of respiratory infections. The immunisation also failed to significantly reduce episodes of respiratory infections.

"We therefore conclude that health care providers of paediatric hospitals who are exposed to patients with respiratory infections and who work with severely immunosuppressed patients should be encouraged to take the vaccine, or should at least be informed about the potential benefits of influenza immunisation. Improved immunisation rates among HCWs would most probably not only increase the quality of life of health care providers, but also reduce absenteeism and the frequency of nosocomial infections."

Confused yet? I can't understand why not?!@#$%

The only recent study I have regarding elderly is Arch Intern Med., 1998; Vol. 158, No 16, pg. 1769–76. This interesting little article compared the benefits of influenza vaccination for low, intermediate and high-risk senior citizens because "Uncertainty about the benefits of influenza vaccination for healthy senior citizens may contribute to lower rates of utilisation in this group". The authors maintain that vaccination reduced hospitalisation for pneumonia and influenza by 29% in high risk patients, 32% in intermediate risk, and 49% in low risk. Effectiveness for reducing hospitalisation for all respiratory conditions was 19%, 39% and 22% respectively, and reducing deaths from all causes was 49%, 64% and 55%.

The total group break-down of all risk groups combined looks like this:

Reduced number of Pneumonia hospitalisations =39%

Respiratory conditions – all causes =32%

Congestive heart failure =27%

All mortality =50%

Their conclusion was that healthy senior citizens as well as senior citizens with underlying medical conditions benefit from vaccines and that everyone over 65 should be vaccinated. In spite of a funny little sentence under "cost benefits" which says, "within the subgroups these findings did not reach statistical significance." If the figures didn't reach statistical significance, then just how did they come to such sweeping conclusions?

And when it comes to the subject of the New Zealand medical establishment having a handle on all relevant issues – on one of my recent visits to a medical library I came across a wonderful influenza notice, and purloined it off the notice board. It requests staff be vaccinated with the influenza vaccine. There is a lovely

little sentence which reads:

"The vaccines are accepted as being effective, providing the great majority of staff are vaccinated."

Now wouldn't you think that any vaccine worth its salt would either work, or not, regardless of how many are vaccinated?

And as for my prediction on the baying of doctors for the use of Pneumonia vaccines, sure enough:

"North Shore doctors are leading a push for free pneumonia vaccines for people with chronic respiratory problems." (North Shore Times-Advertiser, 11/2/2000, Front page).

Here are some statistics to chew over. But before you do, don't forget the reference to vitamin C reducing pneumonia by 80%..

(All these studies support the maximum possible universal use of pneumococcal vaccines. As usual.)

New Engl. J Med., April 29,1993 pg. 1252:

"Recent case-control studies have demonstrated an overall protective efficacy of 56%"

Drugs & Ageing 1994: 5 (4) 242-253, pg. 246:

"For all patients over 65 years of age, the vaccine efficacy is 44 – 61%"

Genitourin Med. 1995; 71: 71-72:

"Physicians and patients should be aware that the vaccine is not fully protective and that episodes of sepsis, pneumonia and meningitis could still be pneumococcal in origin and should be treated appropriately."

Clinical Infectious Diseases 1995; 21:616-20:

"Controlled clinical studies have not shown convincingly that pneumococcal vaccination offers protection against pneumococcal pneumonia in elderly persons."

Clinician Review 11/3/97

This article starts: "Despite widespread endorsement by numerous medical organisations, the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine is administered to only 30% of individuals for whom it is indicated." On page three it says "The pneumococcal polysaccharide 'prevents pneumococcal infection in as many as two thirds of people who are vaccinated' for invasive diseases the vaccine ranges from 56% to 81% effective for other types of pneumococcal infections, e.g., non bacteremic pneumonia, the vaccine may be less effective. The antibody response is diminished or absent in people who have compromised immune systems, and poor or inconsistent in children younger than age 2 years because their immune systems are immature." Then is a long discourse about how badly under-utilised it is -etc etc.

An article called "Fixing the black eye given to pneumococcal vaccination"(found on April 1998, Atlanta, published the study results of Swedish investigators who were discharged from hospital after admission for pneumonia due to any cause. There were 339 in the vaccine group and 352 in the placebo group. The study showed that 63 (19%) in the vaccine group and 57 16% in the placebo group developed community acquired pneumonia. They determined that "the 23 valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine did not prevent pneumonia overall or pneumococcal pneumonia in middle-aged and elderly individuals." They then concluded that the vaccine is between "50% and 80% effective in the prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease in this population."

(Does that sound contradictory to you???)

All of which said about as much as had been said before. But this time Dr David S. Fedson, MD, director of medical affairs, Pasteur Merieux MSD, came out swinging, shredding everything about the study that he could think of, even stating that the study was seriously under-powered. (The reality is that these criteria would probably eliminate all medical literature on all studies for influenza and pneumonia so far). But his most interesting comments are these:

"Even if, as the Swedish investigators state, pneumococcal vaccination did not have a wide impact on the total number of pneumonia cases in the community, it is simply inaccurate for them to state that vaccination would therefore be of limited value. Pneumococcal vaccine should be recommended and used because it prevents invasive pneumococcal disease; that is all we really need to know."

One of the lessons to be learned from the Swedish study is that attempts to increase pneumococcal vaccine use no longer require the undertaking of randomised, controlled trials to prove efficacy:

"The failure to use pneumococcal vaccine can no longer be attributed to limited protection of the vaccine itself," said Fedson. "It is the result of limited imagination regarding the burden of pneumococcal disease and the limited understanding of the protection afforded by vaccination. The effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination is firmly established and requires no further demonstration." For more information: Fedson DS. A commentary on the report of the Swedish pneumococcal vaccination study group. Presented at the 1998 National Adult Immunization Conference, March 3-4, Atlanta.

In which case we'd better not ponder the recent findings in Emerging Infectious Diseases. 1999, Volume 5, No 3, that three trials of pneumococcal vaccines have shown that those vaccinated simply carry different serotypes in their throats not present in the vaccine, compared to those not vaccinated, because the number of types is so vast:

"Furthermore, the epidemiological findings of these studies should be the impetus for further research into the role of serotype and other factors in determining the variation in pneumococcal virulence, the nature of immune responses to organisms like the pneumococcus at the nasopharyngeal mucosal surface, and other questions in the biology of bacterial carriage."

Not only were these trials unnecessary, according to Fedson, but they too were probably a result of limited imagination and understanding. And as to being the impetus for further research??? Why do we need to do ANY research anyway? After all, according to the gospel of Dr Fedson, he knows all there is to know.

And they truly wonder why, world-wide, there are so many vaccination organisations just like us, questioning their wisdom and intellectual superiority.

back to top

Flu Vaccine

International Vaccination Newsletter

Influenza is a specific syndrome, provoked by a specific viral agent, the influenza virus. The symptoms may be severe, or even lead to exitus in people with a weakened general condition.

Two main families have been detected, influenza A and B. But there are many strains of influenza viruses, and, moreover, existing strains mutate all the time. It is, therefore, an extremely difficult task to 'foresee' the causative agent of a new influenza epidemic, and even more difficult to produce a corresponding vaccine in time. The constant mutation of the viruses, and the unpredictability of which virus will show up where and when, makes the whole influenza vaccination business into a giant poker game.

The most intriguing deception of the public, however, is the suggestion that the patient who gets an influenza-vaccination will not get the flu. What is generally known to the public as 'a flu' is an influenza-like syndrome, with symptoms like fever, chills, muskel- or joint pains, a headache, a runny nose, and general malaise. This disease, however, has got nothing to do with the real influenza, neither can it in any way be prevented by an influenza vaccination. Thus, if doctors guarantee their patients that they will not get the flu after they came in to get their jab, this is an unethical manipulation, the basis for which most probably is simply profit for both those who produce the vaccine and those who administer it.

Apart from this manipulation, questions have to be answered as to the efficacy and the safety of the vaccine.


The lack of efficacy of the vaccine is well illustrated in a Dutch article (1) about a home for elderly people, where in spite of vaccination of two thirds of the population, a severe flu struck 49% of them, with strong morbidity (bacterial infections, pneumonia) and high mortality (10%). An important observation was that in the vaccinated population, 50% got the disease, compared to 48% of non-vaccinated. Also, complement binding antibodies for influenza A were positive in 41% of vaccinated compared to 36% in non-vaccinated. This clearly shows that the vaccination status did not have a protective influence at all. Further laboratory investigation confirmed that antibody building against the vaccine was normal, but the causative influenza A virus had not reacted to the vaccine the patients had been given.

Comparison with a similar situation in 1988 in a home for elderly people shows that in that second case both morbidity and mortality were significantly lower, namely 37 and 3%, respectively. The main difference, however, was ... that in this second home patients had not been vaccinated!

Induction of antibodies in elderly people never is higher than 52-67% (2). Morris even declares the efficiency is not more than about 20% (3). Mistakes in production, transport, conservation and administration can be responsible for a further decrease of efficacy (4).


Questions about the safety of influenza vaccines are not new. As early as 1973, Rabin wrote that between 1966 and 1970 almost all USA-made influenza vaccines were toxic (5).

I. Neurological complications

For many years, neurological complications of influenza vaccination were simply denied. In 1966, Stuart-Harris wrote that "There is little direct evidence that any of these neurological illnesses during or after influenza are specifically caused by the influenza virus" (6). And in 1971, Wells still believed that "There is at present no way of proving or of disproving the aethiological relationship" (7).

Later on, USA studies proved that there was indeed a relationship between both. Observations during and after the A/New Jersey mass vaccination campaign in 1976 lead to convincing statistics (see GBS). German authors calculated the frequency of neurological complications at 1/0.7 million doses for influenza B vaccines and at 1/1.3 million vaccinations for influenza A vaccines (4). It is clear that for these figures, only documented cases have been taken into account, whereas as a rule not all cases have been properly diagnosed and reported. The real figures, thus, are likely to be higher. The first syndrome to be clearly correlated with the influenza-vaccination was the Guillain-Barre paralysis (1977). But only one year later, researchers discovered that neurological complications were not at all restricted to this one syndrome; on the contrary, they found a good number of neurological affections (8). Hennessen call the spectrum of syndromes "remarquably wide" and notice that in the course of a postvaccination disease process it is not rare for them to mingle into many different mixtures.

Although the first syndromes were detected after the A/New Jersey mass vaccination, complications after influenza vaccination can in no way be attributed or limited to this one vaccine. All 28 cases described by Hennessen et. al. e.g. were vaccinated with vaccines that did not contain this A/New Jersey strain.

More epidemiological data were gathered by Hennessen et al. The incidence of affections was significantly higher in autumn (September-November), four times more common in males than in females, in all age groups (16-73 years old) with an average age of 38,9 years. The interval between vaccination and first symptoms varied between 24 hours and 4 weeks, with an average of 11.3 days (8).

A. Paralysis

1) Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

The relationship between influenza-vaccination and GBS was proven after the 1976 A/New Jersey mass vaccination in the USA. In eleven states, comparable samples of vaccinated and non-vaccinated proved that in those vaccinated GBS occured in 1,55/million, compared to 0,17 in non-vaccinated (9,11 times more frequent in those vaccinated). (Hennessen quotes different figures: 8,0/million in vaccinated compared to 1,8/million in non-vaccinated 8). 31% of cases were over 60 years old. Only 12% occured within 7 days after vaccination, 74% between 8 and 28 days, and 14% even after one month 9. Most cases were diagnosed between 2 and 4 weeks after vaccination. Single cases occured up to 9 weeks after vaccination. Ehrengut & Allerdist mention that, within 3 weeks after vaccination, the frequency already is up to 3,12 cases per million vaccinees 4, which would raise the risk factor for vaccinees to 18,35.

Ehrengut and Allerdist describe a case which progressed from paralysis of the extremities to affection of the intercostal muscles and facial paralysis (4). This complication may occur in normal, healthy individuals without any preliminary disease.

More cases were described during an IABS Symposium in Geneva, 1977 (10).

2) Facialis paralysis

This symptom generally occurs as part of a Guillain-Barre Syndrome (4, 8). 3) Paralysis of the extremities

Paralysis of both upper limbs occured in a 40 year old man, with severe pain, atrophy of deltoideus muskles and hypoesthesia of the right arm after inoculation in the left upper arm (4).

Paresis of both lower limbs in a 58 year old man (4).

Wells describes two cases of myelitis transversa (7).

4) Landry syndrome (8)

5) Hypoglossus nerve paralysis (11)

B. Polyneuritis

Polyneuritis may occur in hands and feet, eventually accompanied of paralytic symptoms (4). Cases of polyradiculitis, polyradiculomyelitis and polyganglioradiculitis are documented.

1) Hypoesthesia

2) Paresthesia (formication and numbness) have been noticed (4, 8).

3) Neuralgia

a) Trigeminus neuralgia (8)

b) Ischialgia (right sided) (8)

c) Intercostal neuralgia (chestpain) (8)

d) Sensory brachial plexus neuropathy (Parsonage-Turner Syndrome) (8, 12, 13).

C. Meningitis

Meningeal infection and a stiff neck with positive lumbar punction can exist separately, or as part of a GBS syndrome (4).

D. Encephalitis

Encephalomyelitis and encephalopathy after influenza vaccination have been documented. A case was described by Ehrengut & Allerdist with loss of sight, then complete loss of consciousness and paralysis (4). Case 10 described by Hennessen had encephalitis with central disturbance of the N. Vestibularis (8). Also case 13 in the same study had encephalitis. Case 20 & 21 were diagnosed as meningoencephalomyelitis. Woods describes a case of encephalitis in a healthy seven year old girl in 1963 (14), Warren in 1956 (15), and another two cases were documented in 1962 (16).

E. Multiple Sclerosis

Some authors described a "recurrent encephalomyelitic syndrome" after vaccination (17, 18). Hennessen et al saw a similar case, where they were able to make the certain diagnosis of MS (8).

An exacerbation of symptoms was noticed in 1 out of 93 MS-patients vaccinated against influenza 19, 20.

F. Ataxia

Difficulties in walking in a 34 year old man were noticed, nine months after his influenza vaccination. The sensitive polyneuritis which also started shortly after vaccination had not subsided by that time. Right sided ataxia of lower limbs (8).

G. Headache

A strong headache (8) occuring within hours after vaccination is suggestive for meningeal or brain irriatation and deserves immediate further investigation.

H. Disorientation about places (8)

I. Unconsciousness

Multiple drop attacks occured in a case described by Stör & Mayer (21).

J. Trembling of upper limbs (21)

K. Automatic motions of fingers and toes (21)

L. Aphasia (loss of speech) (8)

II. Respiratory Infections

A. Bronchitis

A strong bronchitis with fever was noticed in a 29-year old man who also developed GBS later on (4).

B. Bronchopneumonia

This occured in a 41 year old man, where symptoms started with paresthesia of fingertips, and ended up with death, 4 weeks after vaccination. Pneumonia 14 days after vaccination (8).

III. Gastro-intestinal problems

A. Vomiting

This happened to a man 13 days after vaccination; paralytic symptoms were noticed later on (4).

B. Nausea (8)

C. Rectal incontinence (8)

IV. Urinary symptoms

Dysuria or paralysis of the bladder

Difficulties with urination bothered a man 13 days after vaccination; a distention of the bladder was diagnosed. Complete paralysis of the bladder with necessity of catheterisation followed. Paralytic symptoms of the extremities were noticed later on (4).

V. Sexual problems


Lessening of sexual potency lasted for over 3 months in a patient who suffered GBS (4). Sexual impotence (4).


A. Vertigo

Vertigo with tendency to fall to the right side, 5 days after vaccination, accompanied an encephalitis in an eighteen year old male 4. Vertigo with nystagmus, within minutes after vaccination, so strong that the 13 year old, healthy boy could not even stand up or sit anymore (4). Affection of the N. Vestibularis in combination with encephalitis (8).

B. Noises in the ears (8)

C. Impeded hearing (8)

VII. Eyes

A. Prooptosis (8)

B. Oedema of the retina (8)

C. Diminished vision; blurred vision (8)

D. Diplopia (8)

E. Nystagmus (8)

F. Paralysis of eye muscles (cranial nerves VII & IX) (8)

VIII. Circulatory problems

A. Collapse (8)

B. Transient livid discoloration of the hands (8).

C. Allergic thrombocytopenia in a 58 years old man 7 days after vaccination.

D. Disturbed blood pressure (both increased of decreased) (8).

E. Angor pectoris (8).

F. Collapse (8)

Hennessen et al describe some cases, both in elderly men with either hyper- or hypotonic crises, but also in a young man with ophistotonus, and tonic-clonic fits within minutes after vaccination.

IX. General symptoms

A. Fever

Fever occurs together with other syndromes, e.g. meningitis or GBS.

B. Somnolence

This may also be part of a larger neurological syndrome, such as GBS (4), (8).

C. Fatigue

Fatigue can be part of a general decrease of functional capacities (21).

Chronic fatigue is known to last for years after the infection subsided (4).

D. Anaphylactic reactions

Typical for anaphylactic reactions is the short incubation time.

Ehrengut & Allerdist describe such a reaction in an allergic person 1/2 h after vaccination (4). Warren describes a case where the reaction followed 4 to 5 hours after vaccination with fever, coryza and bronchospasms (15).

X. Mental problems

A. Difficulty in thinking (21)

B. Loss of initiative (21)

C. Confusion (14)

D. Hallucinations (14)

XI. Emotional problems

Sadness (21)

XII. Death

A 41 year old man died 4 weeks after vaccination, after progressive polyneuropathy and bronchopneumonia had developed (4). Death within 4 days (7).

Age Distribution

The many case descriptions available in medical literature prove that all age groups are susceptible to side effects.

Particularly important is the frequency of patients with serious side effects after the vaccine had been given for several years without any problem. This means that a lack of side effects after a vaccination is not a guarantee of safety of administration of the same vaccine in that patient later on.

From those who suffered GBS after vaccination, 11% were under 30 years of age, 58% were between 30 and 59, and 31% were 60 and more.


Different mechanisms can play a role in the development of a post-vaccination neuropathy.

a) Hypersensitivity reactions of the nervous system (serogenetic) are responible in a good number of cases. Poser and Fowler describe similarities between GBS and serum disease.

b) Toxic reactions may occur soon after inoculation of the patient in the absense of specific allergies.

c) Viral infection of the brain by vaccinal viruses (4) or by reactivation of latent germs (21).

d) Activation of latent auto-immune diseases (21).

The fact that different vaccines from different manufacturers lead to similar complications, suggests that these are not the consequence of the impurity of a certain vaccine, but a risk inherent in any influenza vaccine.


Any impairment of the immune system should be considered a contra-indication.

1. Allergies, especially to any substance of the vaccines; allergy to proteins, cowsmilk etc.; hay fever... Allergic constitutions often lead to hypersensitive reactions (8).

2. Akute infections with or without fever must be a reason to postpone or abandon vaccination.

3. Chronic impairment of the immune system (auto-immune diseases) imply an increased risk in case of vaccination.


1. Beyer, W.E.P.; et. al. Influenza-epidemie in een verpleeghuis door een virus dat niet in het vaccin was opgenomen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd, 1993; 137/39:1973-7

2. Palache, A.M.; Influenza subunit vaccine - ten years experience. Eur J Clin Res, 1992; 3:117-38

3. Coulter, H.L.; Fisher, B.L. DPT, a shot in the dark, p 275. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

4. Ehrengut, W.; Allerdist, H.; Über neurologische Komplikationen nach der Influenzaschutzimpfung. Münch. med. Wschr., 1977; 119/705-710 5. Rabin, J.; JAMA, 1973; 225:63

6. Stuart-Harris, C.H.; BMJ, 1966; 149:1(1966)217

7. Wells, C.E.C.; BMJ, 1971/2:755

8. Hennessen, W.; Jacob, H.; Quast, U.; Neurologische Affektionen nach Influenza - Impfung. Der Nervenarzt, 1978; 49/90-96

9. Morb. a. Mort.; Wkly Rep. 25 (1977) 430; 26 (1977) 7; 26 (1977) 52

10. Bryan, J.; Noble, G.R.; Guillain-Barré Syndrome after administration of killed vaccines. Genf: Ref: IABS Symposium on Influenza Immunization 1.6-4.6.1977

11. Felix, J.K.; Schwartz, R.H.; Myers, G.J.; Isolated Hypoglossal Nerve Paralysis Following Influenza Vaccination. Amer. J. Dis. Child., 1976; 130/1:82-3

12. Furlow, T.W.; Neuropathy after Influenza Vaccination. Lancet, 1977; i: 253

13. Schumm, F.; Neurologische Komplikationen nach Grippe-Impfung. Fragen aus der Praxis. Dtsch med Wschr, 1976; 101/18:720-21

14. Woods, C.A.; Ellison, G.W.; Encephalopathy following Influenza Immunization. J. Pediat., 1964; 65,5:745-8

15. Warren, W.R.; Encephalopathy due to Influenza Vaccine. A.M.A. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1956; 97:803

16. JAMA, 1962;181:70

17. Miller, H.; Cendrowski, W.; Schapira, K.; Multiple Sclerosis and Vaccinations. BMJ 1967;April 22: 210-3

18. Yahr, M.D.; Lobo-Antunes, J.; Relapsing Encephalomyelitis Following the Use of Influenza Vaccine. Arch Neurol, 1972; 27:182-3

Hennessen et al

19. Sibley, W.; Foley, J.; Infection and Immunization in Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Ac Sci fenn , 1965; A 122:457-68

20. Sibley, W.; Bamford, C.R.; Laguna, J.F.; Influenza vaccination in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. JAMA, 1976; 236, 17:1965-66

21. Stöhr, M.; Mayer, K.; Neurologische Erkrankungen nach Grippeschutzimpfung. Med. Welt, 1976; 27/912-14

back to top



Let us examine then the CAUTION displayed by the CDC in the Great Swine Flu Vaccination Disaster. When swine flu, or what was thought to be swine flu, broke out in a small epidemic at Fort Dix, New Jersey, public-health officials panicked and jumped to a lot of unwarranted conclusions. This panic set in motion the greatest public-health fiasco in the history of the United States thus far.

The Fort Dix epidemic comprised 12 cases of the "swine flu." And, although no new cases were discovered at Fort Dix after the initial outbreak, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, the Centers for Disease Control began a headlong rush into disaster.

MOST EXPERTS SAID that since immunization attempts against the flu epidemics of 1957 and 1968 had been completely unsuccessful, this would be a very expensive and DANGEROUS FOOL'S ERRAND by the CDC. Dr. E. Russell Alexander, Professor of Public health, University of Washington, said: "Our general view is that you should BE CONSERVATIVE about PUTTING FOREIGN MATERIAL into the human body." That's always true---especially when you are talking about TWO HUNDRED MILLION BODIES. The need should be estimated conservatively. "IF YOU DON'T NEED TO GIVE IT, DON'T."[Emphasis added].

But CDC officials were assuring everyone that the vaccine was PERFECTLY SAFE--"just like water"--in the words of Dr. Walter Dowdle. IS THIS WHAT YOU CALL CAUTION? HAS ANYTHING CHANGED?

The CDC set up a staff of "experts," including those darlings of the medical-political complex, Salk and Sabin. You will probably not be surprised to learn that Dr. E. Russell Alexander, who urged caution, was not included on this August body of experts.


What happened recently to Dr. Andrew Wakefield at the Royal Free Hospital in London when he discovered that the vaccine caused changes in the gut which, in turn, could trigger autism? How many scientists are going to sacrifice their entire career and any future research grants by reporting the truth about these increasingly dangerous vaccines?

Even the head of the CDC admitted later that the panel of experts was merely a rubber stamp, a bunch of medical stooges.

IS IT ANY DIFFERENT NOW? - YOU ARE OUR BABIES AND CHILDREN'S LAST AND ONLY DEFENSE! This vaccine is against a disease that even the CDC admits is less than one in a million chance. AND YOU ARE CONTINUING TO RELY ON PANELS OF "EXPERTS," in the CDC, the PHS, the FDA and your AAP who are RUBBER STAMPS, a bunch of MEDICAL STOOGES! Can any of you honestly say that these panels are any different today? And, like the little trusting children that you all want to serve in the best possible manner, you trust these "experts" just as the children trust their parents.

In one of the topics, a pediatrician mentioned that he often thought like the children that he treated. Perhaps that is one of the qualities that it takes to be a good pediatrician, to relate well with children, to be able to see and feel like a child, and to trust parental figures without question. BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, for the sake of your little patients, THINK CAREFULLY and CRITICALLY evaluate this SAME propaganda, from the SAME agencies, who are serving the SAME masters!

So President Gerald Ford, accepting what he assumed was the best advice available, and flanked by Salk and Sabin, signed the go-ahead bill in the White House press room with cameras rolling.

This vaccine was made from the yokes of eggs, and a certain number of people could be expected to have violent allergic reactions to the egg protein. But this would turn out to be the least of the problems. The American Medical Association, always in the forefront of any type of immunization drive, strongly supported the program but would soon, like the public health establishment, have egg on its face.

Although everyone was assured by the CDC that the vaccine was 90 percent effective and had little or no side effects, their own study in 1968-69 proved that "optimally constituted influenza vaccines at standard dosage levels have little, if any, effectiveness..." The Office of Management and Budget suggested that the CDC rethink its program: "The main reason for a possible change in approach is that there have not been any further cases of swine flu ANYWHERE in the world since the 12 Fort Dix cases..." The emphasis on "ANYWHERE" is in the original report, unusual in a government report. But the political juggernaut was on its way.


Matters got rapidly worse. Incredibly, the planners forgot to allow in the trials for a two half-dose regimen for children, those considered most vulnerable and those most likely to spread the infection. "We just didn't think of it," one field worker later admitted.

Adding to the chaos, the Park-Davis Pharmaceutical Company had somehow managed to use the wrong virus. Millions of doses (and dollars) were discarded and the program was set back another six weeks. No one seemed to notice that the virus yield from the chicken eggs was only one vaccine dose per egg, which indicated that their Fort Dix swine flu, or whatever it was, grew slowly and was therefore non-virulent. It was unlikely to cause an epidemic. Or did they notice, and were afraid to say anything. There are powerful forces promoting these vaccines. Because, of course, they are so concerned about our babies and children!

Although children were to be the main target of the program, they were excluded because it was discovered that it didn't work in children. To avoid the American people seeing their total incompetence, this information was withheld from the public. Did you read that in your AAP journal? Pediatricians were saved by this then. This time there is little hope since the vaccines (20, 25 or 50?) involve children.

When it became clear there would be no epidemic, Sabin abandoned ship and urged the abandonment of the entire program. By mid-summer, CDC officials were admitting there was no need for the program. But then a strange thing happened, which illustrates how dangerous your congressman can be when mass emotion, rather than good scientific judgment and common sense, rules events.

The Congress passed the swine flu vaccination bill because of the outbreak of Legionnaire's disease. Jerry Ford, not known for his intelligence or grasp of logical concepts, told Congress that, although Legionnaire's Disease caused the deaths in Philadelphia and not swine flu, they could have been caused by swine flu! Following this peculiar logic, the bill passed overwhelmingly. Is this kind of peculiar logic limited to Congress?

Things got worse. It was discovered that a surface protein, the one that was supposed to make the vaccine effective, had been left out. This meant that the vaccine, even to those who believe in vaccines, was about as useful as chicken sweat. But the program went relentlessly forward--to disaster.

The CDC lied on the "registration from" saying that the vaccine was safe in pregnancy, even though it had not been tested on pregnant women.

Very CAUTIOUS, aren't they?

The form was actually a disguised "informed consent" which protected the CDC from lawsuits.

Yes, you could honestly say they were CAUTIOUS.

The CDC was not told the vaccine was probably useless because of the omission of the surface protein and they struck out the warnings from the manufacturers that neurological damage was a possible side effect.

Very CAUTIOUS, maybe they didn't want anyone to worry.

When three people dropped dead shortly after receiving the swine-flu vaccine in Pittsburgh, the program was temporarily closed down and nine states quickly followed suit. The panic subsided when President Ford and his family got their flu shots (or was it really saline?) on national television, and the fiasco continued. As people were dropping dead or becoming permanently paralyzed from the shots, it was decided to drop the tag line on the promotion: "Swine flu shot. Get It Before It Gets You." It sounded like a bad joke.

You know the disaster that followed: After a thousand cases of paralysis had been reported, the CDC reluctantly admitted that they were caused by the vaccine. The program was suspended "temporarily--in the interest of good medicine"--and was never heard of again. The American people, being smarter than these public-health bureaucrats, stayed away from the shots by the millions. If they hadn't, the tragedy could have been much worse.

But our babies and children are NOT going to have that choice, are they?

Their ONLY hope is to have a RARE pediatrician that uses his own capacity to critically evaluate and think thoughts like, "If I'm very busy and inoculate one and a half million infants, I might prevent one infant from contracting and dying of Hepatitis-B. On the other hand if this vaccine is the straw that breaks the camel's back, I might cause a permanent injury or death of 900,000 infants!"

Why have I taken so much space to relate this incredible story?

These new vaccines have been RAMRODDED through these SAME kind of "EXPERT" panels, with the SAME "RUBBER STAMP" mentality, with the SAME total disregard for the safety, health and well-being of those innocents who were and are subjected to these SAME fraudulent assurances of effectiveness and safety. ONLY THIS TIME IT WILL BE INFANTS AND CHILDREN who, unlike those adults who chose to trust the CDC and their "experts," they WILL NOT have a CHOICE, or as it seems, even a CHANCE.

These are the SAME people who will manage the forced/coerced vaccination of our babies and children with 20 or more injections most of which are for mild or non-fatal illnesses, and NONE of which are to be studied for safety or effectiveness. With their tiny IMMUNOLOGIC functions OVERWHELMED and/or OVER-COMMITTED to these useless vaccines, their synthetic immune system will be unable to counter an organism of even low virulence.

And these are the SAME people who have gone into the medical business to solve the "health-care crisis"--which they created.

Are you going to use this SAME degree of CAUTION with your tiny patients?
"Failing to do anything is also an experiment."

Yes, and, MAYBE you may be able to save that far less than one in a million infants (by the CDC's own account) from contracting and dying from Hepatitis-B, but what if your "experiment" becomes a disaster with the other millions of infants and children? What is the risk benefit ratio of your "experiment."

I would like to mention that Oath that we all took, "first do no ..." but apparently that has become irrelevant since most physicians are paid by the Federal government, the state, the HMO, the insurance company, etc. or no longer feel a responsibility to their patient, since their mission is now for the "good of the community" ....

But don't worry - I can see the headlines: "Babies dying from a horrible virus/bacteria that has suddenly become virulent. The CDC says we need a VACCINE to stop this lethal organism. The AAP says pediatricians want MORE vaccines to fight this drug resistant infection!"

No one will know. The entire newsmedia will dutifully report that the babies died from this "virulent" infection and that we need MORE vaccines.

Tom Stone

back to top

Flu Vaccination

by Dr Mendelsohn MD

Even though it is almost now winter and these shots are to be given before the flu season begins, plenty of people still are under pressure to be vaccinated against influenza and against pneumonia. That pressure to immunize emanates from at least three sources --one's own doctor, public health doctors, vaccine manufacturers and their public relations firms.

This triad (triumvirate? troika?) will, of course, try its best to frighten people about the dangers of the diseases. Just take a look at the very name of last year's flu --Taiwan flu. Haven't you ever wondered why doctors name flu strains after Asiatic countries? Do you remember the Hong Kong flu? The Singapore flu? The Bangkok flu? The Asian flu? The Russian flu, etc.?

Did you note that, when a strain finally originated in the U.S., doctors didn't call it the New Jersey flu? Instead, they named it after an animal that has a thick, bristly skin and a long, mobile snout --swine flu.

When the scare campaign heads in your direction, don't panic. Instead, keep in mind the fact that the doctor's treatment may be even more dangerous than the disease. Before your doctor fills the syringe, ask him to hand you the prescribing information for the vaccine. When you carefully read the four columns describing Merck Sharp & Dohme's pneumococcal vaccine, Pneumo- vax, you will learn that, while this vaccine is particularly recommended for older folks who are more likely to be ill, the manufacturer warns that caution should be exercised in giving Pneumovax to individuals "with severely compromised cardiac and/or pulmon_ary function in whom a systemic reaction wpuld pose a significant risk." Thus, the very people for whom the vaccine is recommended may be the same ones for whom it is the most dangerous!

You also will learn that, in addition to the more common reactions - soreness, redness, fever-neurologic disorders including Guillain-Barre paralysis have been associated with the penumococcal vaccine.

After you have read the small print on thc pneumococcal vaccine, read the small print on Fluzone, Squibb-Connaught's influenza virus vaccine. Under the section on warnings, you will learn that this vaccine interacts with anticoagulants, theophylline and anti-convulsants. You will learn that if jet injection is used, special precautions must be taken during sterilization to. prevent the transmission of.hepatitis or other infectious agents. You will learn that neurologic disorders such as encephalopathy (brain damage) have been linked to this vaccine. These reactions can begin as soon as a few hours and as late as two weeks after vaccination. You also will learn that, when the doctor or his nurse brings in the tray for your injection, the tray should be carrying two syringes-the second containing adrenalin, in case you go into shock from the vaccine.

Writing for Scripps-Howard News Service, Dr. William Proschauer reports (November 5, 1986) that healthy people under age 65 should not take the flu vaccine because "the risk of suffering serious complications from the vaccine is far greater than that of having serious effects from the flu."

Maybe after you read all this information, you will lean toward rejecting the vaccine. If you still need a clinching argument to help you make up your mind, ask your doctor if he himself has taken those shots.

back to top

Flu Vaccine: Stay Out of My Womb

Commentary by Dawn Richardson

Pregnant women everywhere know the feeling of making it to the milestone oftheir second trimester. For most, queasiness starts to subside, energy returns in spurts, and of course there is that indescribable feeling of becoming aware of your developing baby's movements.

You've altered your diet, exercised, stayed away from over the counter medications, your true hair color is revealing itself, and that wonderful bottle of wine with the Surgeon General's warning will continue stay buried in the back of the refrigerator awaiting the skinnier days ahead.

You ask yourself, "Is there anything more that I can do for me and my baby during the remainder of my pregnancy?" Well, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the federal government's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) there is - get the flu vaccine before this year's flu season hits. According to the CDC and ACIP, it was estimated that an average of 1 to 2 hospitalizations among pregnant women could be prevented for every 1,000 pregnant women immunized. (Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations of ACIP. MMWR - May 1, 1998; 47)

My initial pregnant maternally protective hormonal response to this was utter disbelief. How could a biological pharmaceutical product be recommended for routine use for all healthy second and third trimester pregnant women? As I looked into this further, I became outraged and inspired to share the truth with pregnant women so they could make up their own minds. Here is what I found.

There are four drug manufacturers for this year's flu vaccine. The product package inserts published by the manufacturers state the disclaimer that "Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with influenza virus vaccine. It is also not known whether influenza virus vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman...Although animal reproductive studies have not been conducted, the prescribing health-care provider should be aware of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices...The ACIP states that, if used during pregnancy, administration of influenza virus vaccine after 14 weeks of gestation may be preferable to avoid coincidental association of the vaccine with early pregnancy loss..."

Additional reading and phone calls to the manufacturers confirmed that all four flu vaccines contain thimerosal, a mercury derivative preservative banned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in over-the-counter (OTC) drug preparations because of questions over safety. (Federal Register: April 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 77)][Page 19799-19802].

On July 7, 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (PHS) issued a joint statement that because of the "neuro-developmental effects posed by exposure to thimerosal", "thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible." The PHS and AAP recognized that because of thimerosal in vaccines, some children would be exposed to "a cumulative level of mercury over the first six months of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines on methyl mercury." Hospitals around the country responded this summer by halting the administration of the thimerosal containing vaccine for hepatitis B at birth, deferring vaccination until the baby is older and more developed. What about my beloved little baby that isn't even developed enough to live outside the womb yet?

A quick internet search showed that even the CDC, in a revealing self-contradiction at another location, posted "Q. Who is most vulnerable to mercury? A. Two groups are most vulnerable to methyl mercury: the fetus and children ages 14 and younger." ( More searching on the National Library of Medicine site almost effortlessly produced hundreds of articles and studies in medical and scientific journals clearly documenting the damaging effects of prenatal exposure to mercury. The results of one recent study published in the August 1, 1999 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology stated that "the greatest susceptibility to methylmercury neurotoxicity occurs during late gestation, while early postnatal vulnerability is less" which is the precise point in time that ACIP and the CDC is recommending we get the shot.

I then decided to call the CDC's Influenza Division myself, as a pregnant mother baffled by this scientifically unfounded and potentially unsafe recommendation. Maybe I was missing something that an "expert" could reveal for me. I was told that there was no scientific proof that the flu vaccine caused fetal harm. Well of course not, the manufacturers are right up front when they state that this hasn't been studied - isn't that convenient. I was also told that the CDC had no intention to change the recommendation for pregnant women because of thimerosal. The doctor blamed the recent concerns on "politics" rather than science. What a shame.

Even though the CDC does claim that a single study of a small number of pregnant women have demonstrated no adverse fetal effects associated with influenza vaccine; they continue and say, "however, more data are needed." Maybe this scientifically unsubstantiated recommendation is how the CDC plans on getting that data. So much for the Nazi war criminal trials at Nuremberg outlawing human experimentation without informed consent.

While I would absolutely hate to be one of the 1 in 1000 pregnant women needing to go to the hospital for the flu this winter, at this point, I feel far more threatened by the public health bureaucrats recklessly willing to experiment on me and my unborn child with a flu vaccine not proven safe for my baby.

back to top

Price Gouging

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Associated Press

(Is the CDC catching on? Or are they still part of the big picture....the scam?)

WASHINGTON — Caught off-guard by a last-minute flu vaccine (search) shortage, hospitals and health officials are grappling with a side-effect perhaps more virulent than the bug itself: price gouging.

Around the country, officials say some vaccine suppliers are trying to cash in on the flu shot shortage by hiking up prices for hospitals and pharmacies. A recent survey found that the vaccine is sometimes being offered for 10 times its original value.

Federal prosecutors could use a variety of fraud, conspiracy and other charges to pursue individuals or companies thought to be engaging in price-gouging. Some states are taking their own action.

Attorneys general in Kansas and Florida are suing Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Meds-Stat for allegedly trying to seek "unconscionable profits" by offering pharmacies flu shots for prices way above normal.

Connecticut officials have received numerous complaints about price gouging, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. He said his office is investigating and may announce action against some flu shot providers as early as Thursday.

When a flu shot leaves the factory, Aventis charges $8.50 for it, and the company says it has not raised the price since Chiron's announcement. But prices easily can rise under the existing distribution system, which allows vaccines to travel from manufacturer to middleman before it reaches a hospital or doctor's office. Those inflated costs are then passed on to consumers.

A recent survey by the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists indicated that the price of the vaccine went up more than four times the original market value. In some cases, the survey showed, the vaccine is being offered at $800 or more per 10-dose vial, which is more than 10 times the original value.

"There are companies out there that buy up and speculate on drugs that they think are at short supply and turn around and resell them at 10 to 100 times the mark up," said Bryant Herring, assistant pharmacy director for Wellmont Health System in Kingsport, Tenn., which has declined flu shot offers ranging from $65 to $100 a dose.

( I can not believe people fall for these tactics regarding the flu shot vaccine. After all, we are just talking about the flu, aren't we? Do Americans see other countries laughing at us? It's all a scam and scare for profit, wake up people, wake up)

back to top

Radio News Brief Uses Scare Tactics

I was listening to the radio on October 15, 2004. A news brief came on about the flu shot.

This is a quote:

"A woman dies because of flu shot! Not because she got it, but because she didn't have one!"

"She collapsed in line from the heat and died"

I was curious. I looked up the news item.

This is the article they were trying to cite:

East Bay woman dies during long wait for flu vaccine

Friday, October 15, 2004

(10-15) 09:42 PDT (AP) --

LAFAYETTE, Calif. (AP) -- A 79-year-old woman who stood in line more than five hours for a flu shot collapsed and died after striking her head.

Marie Franklin and her husband, Robert, had been standing with hundreds of other seniors outside a Safeway supermarket on Wednesday when she became pale and weak. She collapsed as she walked toward shade.

Franklin, an award-winning local artist, died from those injuries Thursday. The Contra Costa County coroner's office ruled the death an accident.

"We see it as a fluke accident and choose not to blame anyone," said the Franklins' daughter, Ginni Poulos of Portland, Ore., who flew to her parents' home in the San Francisco Bay area city of Orinda. "We do think it could have been better organized. People wouldn't have had to wait so long if they had more workers or created a better system."

The nation's limited supply of flu vaccine has led to long lines at offices and stores offering vaccinations. Most of those waiting in line are the elderly and young children, those most susceptible to influenza.

The Franklins arrived at the Safeway at 8 a.m. and found hundreds of people already in line. At 1:15 p.m., Franklin got out of line to wait in the shade, leaving her husband to hold their spot.

"She was standing the entire time, with nowhere to sit and no shade," Poulos said.

Teena Massingill, Safeway public affairs manager, said employees brought out chairs, snacks and water for people waiting in line. Many had lined up well before the shots began at 10 a.m. and employees handed out numbers in the early afternoon, sending people home who were not going to be able to get one of the 500 shots available.

"It wasn't a drastic number of people who were told they couldn't be seen," Massingill said. "We're trying to provide these vaccines in the best way that we possibly can."

Police in Concord, another East Bay city, reported that two other seniors, women ages 76 and 83, were hospitalized Thursday after collapsing outside a Costco store from possible heat exhaustion while waiting in a long line for the vaccine.

The government has urged healthy adults to skip the shots after British regulators shut down shipments of vaccine that accounted for nearly half the nation's supply after some batches were contaminated with bacteria.

This is amazing! The media is in the game of distortion and scare tactics! To imply that she died from the flu was a total misrepresentation and only holds to the testament that the depth of this scam has no boundaries.

What a surprise!

back to top