Johns Hopkins Scientist Reveals Shocking Report on Flu Vaccines

(alarmist wording in the title is from the link, not me)

Whelp, it's that time of the year again when we're all going to be seeing the "flu shots available here" signs everywhere, and everyone telling you that you need to get the flu shot.

But, why? I ask many people, "Why do you always get the flu shot?" Most respond with the predictable answer that it will keep them from getting the flu--yet many of the same tend to get the flu quite regularly.

I've never gotten the flu shot under my own decision except for one time--when my wife deployed to Iraq and I couldn't afford to get sick since I was single-parenting it with our two-year-old son. Bad decision, as that was the ONLY time in my entire 36 years of life that I have ever contracted the flu. Of course, I can't say that this correlation equals causation, but maybe it's a relatively safe assumption.

Dr. Peter Doshi, a scientist at the well-known Johns Hopkins University, has been doing some research on the influenza vaccines and the effects that they have on patients, both positive and negative. The results may surprise a few here, but honestly, I'm not surprised at all.

source

A Johns Hopkins scientist has issued a blistering report on influenza vaccines in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Peter Doshi, Ph.D., charges that although the vaccines are being pushed on the public in unprecedented numbers, they are less effective and cause more side effects than alleged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Further, says Doshi, the studies that underlie the CDC’s policy of encouraging most people to get a yearly flu shot are often low quality studies that do not substantiate the official claims.

The story continues...

The main assertion of the CDC that fuels the push for flu vaccines each year is that influenza comes with a risk of serious complications which can cause death, especially in senior citizens and those suffering from chronic illnesses. That’s not the case, said Doshi.

When read carefully, the CDC acknowledges that studies finding any perceived reduction in death rates may be due to the “healthy-user effect” — the tendency for healthier people to be vaccinated more than less-healthy people. The only randomized trial of influenza vaccine in older people found no decrease in deaths. “This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes,” says Doshi.

I'd be interested to see a healthy-user effect looked at for healthy people who don't receive the vaccine. But I digress...

For most people, says Dr. Blaylock, flu vaccines don’t prevent the flu but actually increase the odds of getting it. The mercury contained in vaccines is such a strong immune depressant that a flu shot suppresses immunity for several weeks. “This makes people highly susceptible to catching the flu,” he says. “They may even think the vaccine gave them the flu, but that’s not true — it depressed their immune system and then they caught the flu.”

...

Doshi asserts that influenza is a case of “disease mongering” in an effort to expand markets. He points to the fact that deaths from flu declined sharply during the middle of the 20th century, long before the huge vaccine campaigns that kicked off the 21st century.

Why do drug companies push the flu vaccine? “It’s all about money,” says Dr. Blaylock. “Vaccines are a pharmaceutical company’s dream. They have a product that both the government and the media will help them sell, and since vaccines are protected, they can’t be sued if anyone has a complication.”

source

I tend to agree that, while they may have started out with good intentions, vaccines against diseases and illnesses with have a low rate of death and debilitating side effects are nothing more than a money-making effort on the side of pharmaceutical companies. Yes, there are some necessary vaccines, like to polio and other such diseases, but MMR and Chicken Pox and influenza--those types of vaccinations do less good for the human body than they do for the bottom line of the companies producing them.

But that is my opinion--I simply share this article with you all because it's both timely and appears to have some good information contained within it. Plus, it's always good, in my opinion, to have access to evidence from all sides of a debate, especially when that evidence is provided by someone in whom we should be able to place our trust.

I make no claims as to the motives behind the source site nor Dr. Doshi--all I can do is hope that the motives are pure and in the best interest of the human body. But, read the entire article and look at the information, then decide for yourselves.

I'm considered a high-risk group when it comes to the flu (I have asthma), but I never get the shot and will never again, as long as I'm able to keep myself healthy for my age. I'm a firm believer that vaccinations should be optional and the decision should be made by the individual or the parent of a child (or caretaker of the elderly), but I also believe that without a good store of knowledge from all sides of an issue, making educated decisions is difficult, if not impossibly.

So, let the comments begin! I do not claim to be an expert on vaccinations by any stretch, so if you come at me with technical arguments, I may not respond because I try not to do so out of ignorance.

Not that there are ever ignorant claims on either side of the vaccine debate or anything...

Thank you SlapMonkey for posting this find.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

For some reason I have always had a gutt feeling to not take the flu shot , so I haven't.

I have watched my family, father ,sister , cousin, friends, etc etc get sick every year with the flu after getting the shot. But in all my almost 32 years of life I can honestly say I have only ever been sick once when I was 18 i can't rule out if it was the flu . My point is I have been around people who are sick with the flu and not contradicted it . I dono if it's my immune system or what but I feel like I would be worse off if I take that shot. Something just never sat right with me the way they have been pressing people to get it .


Thanks for the thread OP.

Now I'll sit and wait for a pro vaxor to come along and call us all ignorant .


Kap

a reply to: Kapusta

Yeah, okay, lets do this.

Your posting is an anecdotal data.
The studies of the OP are not available, at least I didn't find a way through the BMJ without lashing out (edit) 30 EURs for that article, so I can't write anything about the basis of his .. well, lets call it idea.

So, a healthy person is more prone to try to stay healthy by getting a vaccination against influenza? And that is a proof against the powers of vaccinations? Oookay.

I will wait for some entertaining postings from anti-vaccers in this thread, should be coming in in 3.. 2..

a reply to: ManFromEurope

www.snopes.com...

Origins: On 17 October 2014, a natural news blog published an article claiming
that a "Johns Hopkins scientist ... issued a blistering report on influenza vaccines in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)." The article, timed to the start of flu season, spread rapidly on social media sites and sparked renewed interest in the subject of flu vaccines.

Right off the bat, it's worth noting the October 2014 article was initially published on 13 May 2013 on a different alternative health news site and references a 16 May 2013 feature by Peter Doshi that was printed in the British Medical Journal. It's important to bear in mind that despite BMJ's authoritative reputation in the medical world, feature columns printed in that journal are not research but rather "News & Views." It is easy for readers unfamiliar with that publication to confuse claims made in feature articles for peer-reviewed research findings.

It's also worth noting that Johns Hopkins University had nothing to do with this "blistering report." Peter Doshi is neither a virologist nor a epidemiologist, but rather an anthropologist who completed a fellowship in comparative effectiveness research at Johns Hopkins. He conducted no research about influenza or vaccines at Johns Hopkins, nor does he speak for the university on that subject.
Read more at www.snopes.com...

Snopes says it's a mixture true and false, but this is also from...2013 I believe.

Forbes and multiple other places covered it in 2014.

www.forbes.com...

It's not sound.

~Tenth

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think most people at this point have to admit that this push for vaccines is all about big business and less about the well being of the people of this world. I have to fall back on the adage; Follow the money.

If they are so concerned about the well being of people on this planet they would be working on providing a healthier environment, including access to clean water and to safe, adequate nutrition. Dying of the flu would seem a blessing to some, when they are slowly being poisoned to death. Why would it be of interest to vaccinate a person that is dying of dehydration or starvation? Your contribution is an injection that "may" prevent them from getting the flu? If that is all you have to offer, why the hell would they care.

When we allowed others to have to right to force us through coercion, fear of lost of work, fear of lost of custody of our children, over something they cannot guarantee, nor have enough faith in themselves, to back the failure of their product, or damages caused by their product, with their dollars; we handed over the keys to our soul. We accepted one of the marks of the beast, and it will not stop there.

We are not what we say we are. We lie more often to ourselves then we do to anyone else. We are what we live, what we do, what we don't do, and what we fight for.

When we give up the fight, we give up.

Game over.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Anti-vaccination sites have been misusing Doshi's article since 2013, cherry picking data and statements again:

First and above all, Doshi does not practice medicine and does not do any clinical research, he is just a guest lecturer. His article clearly shows he is only expressing his opinion as he does not do clinical trials and does not do real vaccine research. According to the National Academies of science Doshi is a 'post-doctoral fellow' which means he is not in the faculty, hence I said guest lecturer.

Vaccines work. Children who get the vaccines are 83% less likely to get the flu: www.thelancet.com...

Another link: www.cdc.gov...

Doshi is also an HIV denier... I won't even comment on that.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: Kapusta

Yeah, okay, lets do this.

Your posting is an anecdotal data.
The studies of the OP are not available, at least I didn't find a way through the BMJ without lashing out (edit) 30 EURs for that article, so I can't write anything about the basis of his .. well, lets call it idea.

So, a healthy person is more prone to try to stay healthy by getting a vaccination against influenza? And that is a proof against the powers of vaccinations? Oookay.

I will wait for some entertaining postings from anti-vaccers in this thread, should be coming in in 3.. 2..

With all due respect my good man from Europe. I'll save us a long debate here . I posted my experience nothing more nothing less , I can't say definitively if the flu vax is good or bad for you I just simply chose not to take it , can you tell me why I should?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I believe that vaccines are important but I have been of the opinion for a long time that the information on the flu shot is sketchy and biased by profit motive.

I have to say that my own experience with the flu vaccine mimics your own. Although I have had the shot three times and every single year I got that shot I got a late season (February) flu. And it was the flu, I got checked. I am an asthmatic and they push that shot pretty hard for me and so sometimes in the past I would capitulate. The last time was eight years ago. I got that shot and got the flu. I said never again, and I haven't gotten either one since. There is no explanation for it and of course health care professionals look at me like I'm daft if I try to explain my experience, but that is what happens. It could be a coincidence but...

That flu mist they give kids at school is a bad mama jama, I got sick from kids getting it and getting it from them while they fault it off. It was one of the worst flu symptoms I've ever had.

I wish not to go through that again, since if I get the flu naturally, it's never that bad.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Anti-vaccination sites have been misusing Doshi's article since 2013, cherry picking data and statements again:

First and above all, Doshi does not practice medicine and does not do any clinical research, he is just a guest lecturer. His article clearly shows he is only expressing his opinion as he does not do clinical trials and does not do real vaccine research. According to the National Academies of science Doshi is a 'post-doctoral fellow' which means he is not in the faculty, hence I said guest lecturer.

Vaccines work. Children who get the vaccines are 83% less likely to get the flu: www.thelancet.com...

Another link: www.cdc.gov...

Doshi is also an HIV denier... I won't even comment on that.

Well its a sort of genetic fallacy to disregard the actual studies sited. But yeah it was completely and unnecessarily misleading in titles.

It does stand to reason it is more risky than effective.

chemistry.about.com...

www.m.webmd.com...

My kids all have their "required" vaccines so I am not an antivaxer but would never get a flu shot..

a reply to: luthier

I have actually read his article on BMJ, and I was not impressed. I am absolutely pro-vaccine as I have read tons of research that shows their benefits (see my second link). In the UK vaccines are not compulsory but as I work in healthcare I have always had all my vaccinations, mostly to protect patients with a weak immune system or long term conditions that may risk their lives if they get the flu.

The flu vaccine does work with a 90% + effectiveness. But it's effectiveness varies year to year, depending on the virus and it can usually protect against three strains per season (www.cdc.gov...).

Like with everything else I am pro-choice and I think the UK is doing the right thing by not making vaccination compulsory, even though I disagree with those against it. Vaccines have been saving lives and money for decades.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: luthier

I have actually read his article on BMJ, and I was not impressed. I am absolutely pro-vaccine as I have read tons of research that shows their benefits (see my second link). In the UK vaccines are not compulsory but as I work in healthcare I have always had all my vaccinations, mostly to protect patients with a weak immune system or long term conditions that may risk their lives if they get the flu.

The flu vaccine does work with a 90% + effectiveness. But it's effectiveness varies year to year, depending on the virus and it can usually protect against three strains per season (www.cdc.gov...).

Like with everything else I am pro-choice and I think the UK is doing the right thing by not making vaccination compulsory, even though I disagree with those against it. Vaccines have been saving lives and money for decades.

Sure just not the flue vaccine. I read your articles and they contradict chemistry and the actual year to year effectiveness. Its no where near 90 percent nor effective for children under 5. But you work in health care so you should have at least a limited understanding of chemistry and the immune system.

How well did those children's flu nasal vaccines work?

I am talking about flu vax not anything else. Like I said my family has all the proven vaccines.

Did you read my articles? How can you contradict them? Show me their errors I am very much science minded and would willing change my opinion if I saw real conclusive study data with real controls.

a reply to: Agartha

Yeah, I meant to note in the OP that I have not done any research on Doshi yet, so I can't confirm nor deny what you're saying.

That said, I do find it concerning that the source does not link to (or even name) the studies mentioned. But I also find it concerning that you would try to counter the information in the source--which cites inaccuracies in CDC claims--with a link to the CDC's links to pro-vaccination publications.

Also, while the The Lancet link does somewhat (sort of, but to a lesser extent) back the claim that the current influenza vaccinations are less effective than what the marketing for the vaccines claim or imply, it doesn't go into much of the topics that Doshi discusses.

From The Lancet:

Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons.

The thing is, your average individual seems to assume that once they get the shot, that they are protected for the season--the reality that, at best with the link you provided, the protection is moderate should be cause for speculation as to the need for the vaccine if you're healthy and have a strong immune system.

I tend to think that the reality of the efficacy of the vaccine lies somewhere between your link and mine.

a reply to: redhorse

...but it could also not be.

That's the entire reason why I posted the OP to begin with...there are too many maybes surrounding the vaccine with not enough absolutes. I'm not saying the opinions in the OP are absolutes, but just another maybe to add to the pile.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Agartha

Yeah, I meant to note in the OP that I have not done any research on Doshi yet, so I can't confirm nor deny what you're saying.

That said, I do find it concerning that the source does not link to (or even name) the studies mentioned. But I also find it concerning that you would try to counter the information in the source--which cites inaccuracies in CDC claims--with a link to the CDC's links to pro-vaccination publications.

Also, while the The Lancet link does somewhat (sort of, but to a lesser extent) back the claim that the current influenza vaccinations are less effective than what the marketing for the vaccines claim or imply, it doesn't go into much of the topics that Doshi discusses.

From The Lancet:

Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons.

The thing is, your average individual seems to assume that once they get the shot, that they are protected for the season--the reality that, at best with the link you provided, the protection is moderate should be cause for speculation as to the need for the vaccine if you're healthy and have a strong immune system.

I tend to think that the reality of the efficacy of the vaccine lies somewhere between your link and mine.

Not to mention by far the most dangerous vaccine in the US. The vax court has paid out more to victims in flu shots than any other by far. Strange how so many drs push it without solid conclusive evidence. The rate of deaths from flu has also not seen a decline once introduced that can account for it being the vaccine. In other words the RATE of decline is inconclusive for being effected by the vaccine itself.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: Kapusta

So, a healthy person is more prone to try to stay healthy by getting a vaccination against influenza? And that is a proof against the powers of vaccinations? Oookay.

Well, vaccinations are not proof against the power of staying healthy, either.

If you were to ask me and some doctors and nurses and biologists and the like, it's healthier to allow your immune system to naturally fight off these types of illnesses than it is to get an injection and artificially prop up the system until that "immunity" fails and you need another.

A perfect example is the MMR vaccination, where the death rate in America from measles is somewhere in the .00xxx% of people infected with the disease--but, you allow your body to fight the disease without artificial aid of vaccinations, and you have a life-long immunity. You use vaccinations and rely on them, you're going back for booster after booster as they wear off.

Health isn't just about avoiding getting sick, it's about what's doing the best for your body in the long-term. Vaccinating against polio is probably best for your body in the long-term; vaccinating against measles is not, barring very few instances of complications from measles.

There are certainly massive benefits to some vaccines, but I'd argue for at least half of what they want to pump my children full of before age 5, they can do without and have better long-term (and probably short-term) health because of it.

a reply to: luthier

Some studies have shown that the flu vaccine was 93% effective with those aged 51-60 and 92% with pregnant women (from my links).

Regarding the chemistry you mentioned, I guess you are talking about how antibodies work and that for each virus you need one specific antibody. And that's true but every February the WHO makes educated guesses as to which strains are needed for the coming winter (and hence I said that usually the vaccine protects against approximately three stains per year). New evidence suggests that even with a mismatched strain the vaccine can be effective, as the strains have changed but they are still related to the antibodies that have been produced (which means the antibody can still latch onto a changed virus). A mega-study in 2013 has confirmed that even when the vaccine has a different strain from the virus it is still 50% effective. Here is the link: www.biomedcentral.com...

Influenza viruses do change every year and they do so by 'drifting', which is a very small gradual change which occurs on a genetic level. Drifting means the virus is still related to its previous form. Every so often a flu virus will change by 'shifting' which creates a whole new type of virus which escapes any known vaccine: this is what happened with the famous H1N1 pandemic in 2009.

This is the best explanation I can give you and I hope I have been clear enough.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It may or may not make a difference but his article was actually published in 2013..."Peter Doshi is neither a virologist nor a epidemiologist, but rather an anthropologist who completed a fellowship in comparative effectiveness research at Johns Hopkins."

Read more at www.snopes.com...

Keep in mind I am not on the Flushot bandwagon but I was suspicious...

a reply to: chrismarco

Hell, even Snopes can't be taken at face value like we possibly could have years back...