Johns Hopkins Scientist Reveals Shocking Report on Flu Vaccines

originally posted by: Agartha
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.

The link is down or not working but I will read. Just wondering who paid for the study and what exactly was examined? This would be a breakthrough in understanding the immune system and antibodies. It would also contradict the actual empirical data from the CDC itself.

So sure out of the 18-23 percent of the population that had an effective flu shot upwards of 90 percent are protected last year possibly.

However this vaccine also makes people sick as indicated by the 136 winning court cases in the us VAX court.

It also has the problem of not knowing exactly why people didn't get sick. Hence the problem without large scale control experiments every year. Again point me to one where they track the actual individuals immune response when they give the the flu after vaccines. How big of a study group and what ages with control?

The test has far too many variables imo and the results are not great. The flu vaccine doesn't have a good track record imo and I don't see how you can claim 90 percent effective.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If you do a little research this article seemed quite popular back in 2013...I do have serious reservations about flu shots but there is just as much misinformation on this site as there is in the whitehouse...bottom line people just can't read something on here and assume it's 100% accurate...Unfortunately BMJ requires a membership so one cannot necessarily read his entire article on the subject...

a reply to: luthier

The link is working for me..... strange. Anyway here are the details so you can read it:


"Comparing influenza vaccine efficacy against mismatched and matched strains: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
Authors: Andrea C Tricco, Ayman Chit, Charlene Soobiah, David Hallett, Genevieve Meier, Maggie H Chen, Mariam Tashkandi, Chris T Bauch and Mark Loeb.
BMC Medicine. Published 25 June 2013.

a reply to: luthier

I think one of the things that are forgotten in studies that are done to promote a product, is location.

We live in a global world and the butterfly effect does indeed apply for a lot of things but when studies include global numbers, they do not reflect, necessarily, what is happening in the area where you live work and play.

People dropping dead of common illnesses or diseases, would be of great concern, and would be all over local and regional news. Even when you do hear of an "outbreak" in an area in the United States, the numbers have always been very small, and the number killed are even smaller. Even the CDC numbers of deaths are small. Keep in mind they lump influenza deaths with pneumonia, which a person could develop without having had the flu.

www.cdc.gov...

They don't factor in that people live longer and the numbers of people have increased, which is a factor in the increase in the number of deaths.

Anyway, I don't see the numbers that make it necessary to make flu vaccines compulsory to the degree of destroying peoples lives and the threat of taking their children. If people were dying from the flu at unusual numbers, parents would gladly have their child vaccinated. Many parents are reticent to inject their children with a product that has a very poor track record and numerous, believable reports of children that have been damaged by the product.

I see no reports or studies that makes it necessary to infringe on the right for people to decide what they allow injected into their bodies. Great products don't have to be forced on the public. The public will make a demand for products they want, trust and believe in. These strong-arm tactics to me, speaks volumes.

Never had a flu shot myself and what is so bad about getting the flu? Pretty sure i may have had flu a few times.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: luthier

The link is working for me..... strange. Anyway here are the details so you can read it:


"Comparing influenza vaccine efficacy against mismatched and matched strains: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
Authors: Andrea C Tricco, Ayman Chit, Charlene Soobiah, David Hallett, Genevieve Meier, Maggie H Chen, Mariam Tashkandi, Chris T Bauch and Mark Loeb.
BMC Medicine. Published 25 June 2013.

That was literary study. So was the one in the op.

Its a good study but I can't say it proves anything about the immune response. How does one know if the flu wouldn't be fought off naturally without the vaccine? I would say the research indicated what you suggest but the info I can find on the topic says it is a literary review study not a lab study with a control.

And then there is this:

This systematic review is funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Canada. ACT, DH, MT, CB, and ML have received consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. AC and GM are paid employees of GlaxoSmithKline

So I am cynical but at least it was a published study......but by the flu vaccine manufacturers not exactly unbiased now is it?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Given the opportunity, I too believe our bodies are capable of building natural immunities. When I was growing up, the old timers used the old fashion vaccination process; you had to kiss the kid in the neighborhood that had the childhood disease that you had not been exposed to as yet. Barbaric? Dangerous? I think the number of children that died using that method is not much greater than those that die from the vaccine, and their were no reports of other damages or autism.

The vaccines are made from viruses from past years, the same viruses that we may have already been exposed to, and may have already built a natural immunity to. It would not prevent you from getting the flu that is actively making its rounds. For the argument that it can make for a milder illness by being injected with the old strain, it would also make sense that my natural immunity from exposure would offer the same protection if not more.

I am not pro or anti vaccines. I think people have the right to chose. I am against any vaccine that is forced on anyone, and I cannot back an industry or a government that will take away freedom of choice.

I got a flu shot for the first time as an adult 2 years ago. Guess what I came down with not even 2 weeks later? Yep you guessed it.

I will never have another vaccination regarding the flu or any othet made up virus the media decides to make a big deal about.

I literally never get sick, rarely have allergies. Yet the one time I take a vaccine I get not only the flu but a upper respatory infection. Nope never again.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: luthier

I think one of the things that are forgotten in studies that are done to promote a product, is location.

We live in a global world and the butterfly effect does indeed apply for a lot of things but when studies include global numbers, they do not reflect, necessarily, what is happening in the area where you live work and play.

People dropping dead of common illnesses or diseases, would be of great concern, and would be all over local and regional news. Even when you do hear of an "outbreak" in an area in the United States, the numbers have always been very small, and the number killed are even smaller. Even the CDC numbers of deaths are small. Keep in mind they lump influenza deaths with pneumonia, which a person could develop without having had the flu.

www.cdc.gov...

They don't factor in that people live longer and the numbers of people have increased, which is a factor in the increase in the number of deaths.

Anyway, I don't see the numbers that make it necessary to make flu vaccines compulsory to the degree of destroying peoples lives and the threat of taking their children. If people were dying from the flu at unusual numbers, parents would gladly have their child vaccinated. Many parents are reticent to inject their children with a product that has a very poor track record and numerous, believable reports of children that have been damaged by the product.

I see no reports or studies that makes it necessary to infringe on the right for people to decide what they allow injected into their bodies. Great products don't have to be forced on the public. The public will make a demand for products they want, trust and believe in. These strong-arm tactics to me, speaks volumes.

I agree. I haven't seen a good independent study of flu vaccines that say they are anything close to 90 percent effective. That alone is very misleading. In terms of simple math that would require them to get the virus strain correct 100 percent of the time and the patients body to fully accept the live vaccine before exposure or if at all (kids under 5 have less chance).

The vaccine in a perfect situation can be up to 90 percent effective. In reality its no where close. To really do a study series of blood work tests would need to be done in combination with patient interviews. Often these studies are left purposely vague to promote a desired result. Or in the case of a literary study can be cherry picked.

Both sides mind you. Anti and Pro

Its getting very hard to find science experiments without a bias towards what the company funding the "study" wants as results. You can actually use science to confuse, mis direct, or tamper results.

You have scientists riding bikes to work at CERN making 50,000 a year vs 100's of thousands working for pharma. One is looking for proof the other proving what they are told to.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I have the influenza vaccine every year, and have for some time. (I get it for free in my country).

As you can see, I'm completely dead.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I have the influenza vaccine every year, and have for some time. (I get it for free in my country).

As you can see, I'm completely dead.

Well its obviously not "completely free". That is ridiculous. You pay for it and were never even asked if it was ok. Its just taxes that do it. Or do you think its the goodness of the vaccine provider doing the research and distribution?

Second its not about that either. Its about whether it works or not.

I get sick of some kind once a year and you can see I am not dead.

a reply to: luthier

The article in the OP and the mega study I provided are different as the first was done by an anthropologist and he was the only author and the latter was peer reviewed, created by vaccine researchers and they compared clinical trials on 94,000 people. And yes, it was funded by GlaxoSK but the clinical trials were not (were from a range of sources such as Medline, etc).

People can take the jab if they want, but I've got a robust immune system and don't require it.

I realize some people are regularly sick and believe they benefit from the shot, but I have no need for it. I respond to my body and rarely get more than the beginning stages of sickness.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: luthier

The article in the OP and the mega study I provided are different as the first was done by an anthropologist and he was the only author and the latter was peer reviewed, created by vaccine researchers and they compared clinical trials on 94,000 people. And yes, it was funded by GlaxoSK but the clinical trials were not (were from a range of sources such as Medline, etc).

Like I said literary studies are very easy to manipulate. I completely understand it is a better study. It still does not prove anything imo. Its a conflict of interest. They were all paid by the manufacturer who would benefit from the results. Two of the researchers are employees. The tobacco companies did lots of studies on cigarettes too. Peer reviewed even.

Peer review is good it keeps out the quacks but it does not always keep out the cheats. Especially when the data is far to vast to be thoroughly examined. These aren't equations being looked over.

Be sure to read the actual source article. Its from 2013.

Interesting issues brought up. I do think this particular vaccine is more of a scam than helpful. I remember when the WHO came out a few years back and announced that they intentionally over-hyped H1N1 in order to sell more vaccines. A little tidbit that one seems to pay attention to.

www.bmj.com... (You have to sign in to see the hole article though)

There was this woman I knew... Total dolt. Type of person that would believe grass was purple if the government told her so. Every year she got flu vaccine, and every year she got the flu. And it's really amazing that she tried to convince me every year to get it to, claimed how great it was. Told me I was putting my family at risk for not getting it myself. I pointed out that she got the flu every year and she blamed "assholes like (me)" that didn't get the vaccine giving the flu to her. But she just couldn't see the error in her logic.

I've had the flu myself maybe 3 times in 25 years, and never got the shot myself.

We generally do not get the flu vaccine in this house. Husband and I always watch the developing strains carefully to see if the severity (i.e. death rate) makes the risks worth it, but it would take a very bad strain for him to feel the shot is worth it. And he makes vaccines and gets vaccinated all the time.

I did receive a flu shot a couple years ago voluntarily because I was just getting over a really bad bought of bronchitis that had aggravated my asthma just as flu season was coming up. With a bruised rib, I figured the last thing I needed was to come down with the flu. So I got the shot. Did not get the flu ... or at last didn't until much later in the season, so the shot had nothing to do with it.

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.

I will make these my words. There are too many researches that show that vaccines are harmless. In fact, i took vaccines my whole life and never experienced serious issues with the exception of my body accepting the vaccine on the first days, which kinda hurted.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If the flu shot decreases your immune system's abilities, then you are open to all of the various flu types out that year, not just the one you are getting protected for. And what about other communicable diseases? Is the window opened for many other in addition to other flu types?

I feel inclined to tell briefly my situation, as I believe word of mouth over Govt websites and Big Pharm. BigPharm and our Govt are together in the $ making business of unnecessary vaccines.

If flu vaccines are SO important, then please explain to me why I, a 15 Year Army veteran who used to get the flu vaccine every year because I was forced to, and also got the flu a month or two later, suddenly stops getting the flu when I started ADAMANTLY refusing. Going on several years now and no flu, but I promise you I got the flu EVERY time I got that damn flu shot or mist.

I believe the flu vaccine is for $. Nothing more. Nothing less.