Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Fluoride Truth Hits Australian Television
"Fluoridation is responsible for 40 million cases of arthritis, dental deformity in 8 million children, allergic reactions in 2 million people and overall 10,000 unnecessary cancer deaths every year."
Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile. Fluoride a key dumbing down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas -- poisons of choice for tyrant rats.
The government tests were designed to determine whether water fluoridation results in an increase in human cancer risk. They were conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). PHS is a leading promoter of fluoridation," Yiamouyiannis points out.
The NTP tests confirmed what the Burk-Yiamouyiannis tests 13 years earlier had shown-fluoride is carcinogenic. Fluoride caused bone cancer and increased the rate of oral cancer. "The NTP studies were not the first animal studies to show that fluoride is carcinogenic". Fluoride at levels as low as 1 part per million in the drinking water give rise to an irregular formation of collagen in the body.
Collagen, which makes up about a third of our bodies, is a major component of skin, ligaments, tendons, muscles, cartilage, bones and teeth. The disruption of this collagen is what results in wrinkling of the skin, weakening of the ligaments, tendons and muscles. When fluoride induces the breakdown or irregular formation of collage in cartilage, irreversible arthritis and stiffness of the joints is observed.
Fukushima radiation taints US milk supplies at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA maximums
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to release new data showing that various milk and water supply samples from across the US are testing increasingly high for radioactive elements such as Iodine-131, Cesium-134, and Cesium-137, all of which are being emitted from the ongoing Fukushima Daiichia nuclear fallout. As of April 10, 2011, 23 US water supplies have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/4ig7-...), and worst of all, milk samples from at least three US locations have tested positive for Iodine-131 at levels exceeding EPA maximum containment levels (MCL) (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/pkfj-...), and in once case more than 2000 percent higher than MCL, cumulatively.
As far as the water supplies are concerned, it is important to note that the EPA is only testing for radioactive Iodine-131. There are no readings or data available for cesium, uranium, or plutonium -- all of which are being continuously emitted from Fukushima, as far as we know -- even though these elements are all much more deadly than Iodine-131. Even so, the following water supplies have thus far tested positive for Iodine-131, with the dates they were collected in parenthesis to the right:
Los Angeles, Calif. - 0.39 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Baxter), Penn. - 0.46 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Belmont), Penn. - 1.3 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Queen), Penn. - 2.2 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Muscle Shoals, Al. - 0.16 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Niagara Falls, NY - 0.14 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Denver, Colo. - 0.17 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Detroit, Mich. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/31/11)
East Liverpool, Oh. - 0.42 pCi/l (3/30/11)
Trenton, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Painesville, Oh. - 0.43 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Columbia, Penn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (4442), Tenn. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (772), Tenn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (360), Tenn. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Helena, Mont. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Waretown, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Cincinnati, Oh. - 0.13 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Pittsburgh, Penn. - 0.36 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Oak Ridge (371), Tenn. - 0.63 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Chattanooga, Tenn. - 1.6 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Boise, Id. - 0.2 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Richland, Wash. - 0.23 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Again, these figures do not include the other radioactive elements being spread by Fukushima, so there is no telling what the actual cumulative radiation levels really were in these samples. The figures were also taken two weeks ago, and were only just recently reported. If current samples were taken at even more cities, and if the tests conducted included the many other radioactive elements besides Iodine-131, actual contamination levels would likely be frighteningly higher.
But in typical government fashion, the EPA still insists that everything is just fine, even though an increasing amount of US water supplies are turning up positive for even just the radioactive elements for which the agency is testing -- and these levels seem to be increasing as a direct result of the situation at the Fukushima plant, which continues to worsen with no end in sight (http://www.naturalnews.com/032035_F...).
Water may be the least of our problems, however. New EPA data just released on Sunday shows that at least three different milk samples -- all from different parts of the US -- have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 at levels that exceed the EPA maximum thresholds for safety, which is currently set at 3.0 pico Curies per Liter (pCi/l).
In Phoenix, Ariz., a milk sample taken on March 28, 2011, tested at 3.2 pCi/l. In Little Rock, Ark., a milk sample taken on March 30, 2011, tested at 8.9 pCi/l, which is almost three times the EPA limit. And in Hilo, Hawaii, a milk sample collected on April 4, 2011, tested at 18 pCi/l, a level six times the EPA maximum safety threshold. The same Hawaii sample also tested at 19 pCi/l for Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years (http://www.naturalnews.com/031992_r...), and a shocking 24 pCi/l for Cesium-134, which has a half life of just over two years (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/pkfj-...). Together, this amounts to a level 2033 percent higher than federal limits (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...).
Why is this milk contamination significant? Milk, of course, typically represents the overall condition of the food chain because cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. In other words, when cows' milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.
And even with the milk samples, the EPA insanely says not to worry as its 3.0 pCi/l threshold is allegedly only for long-term exposure. But the sad fact of the matter is that the Fukushima situation is already a long-term situation. Not only does it appear that the Fukushima reactor cores are continuing to melt, since conditions at the plant have not gotten any better since the earthquake and tsunami, but many of the radioactive elements that have already been released in previous weeks have long half lives, and have spread halfway around the world.
The other problem with the EPA's empty reassurances that radiation levels are too low to have a negative impact on humans is the fact that the agency does not even have an accurate grasp on the actual aggregate exposure to radiation from all sources (water, food, air, rain, etc.). When you combine perpetual exposure from multiple sources with just the figures that have already been released, there is a very real threat of serious harm as a result of exposure.
The EPA and other government agencies are constantly comparing Fukushima radiation to background and airplane radiation in an attempt to minimize the severity of exposure, even though these are two completely different kinds of radiation exposure.
No safe level of radiation from nuclear fallout
Background and airplane radiation is an external emitter of radiation, while Fukushima-induced radiation in food and water is an internal emitter. The former, which is considered "normal" radiation, hits your body from the outside, while the latter goes directly inside your body and into your digestive tract. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the immense difference between the two, and the much more severe consequences associated with literally ingesting radiation verses having it hit your skin.
In reality, there really is no safe level of radiation. No matter how many times the EPA and others repeat the lie that radiation levels are too low to have any significant impact, the statement itself is patently false. Many experts, including Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, have stated that radiation exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.
"There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period," said Patterson. "Exposure to radionuclides, such as Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water."
And now that radioactive levels in some areas have actually exceeded EPA maximums, Patterson's statement is even more chilling. So while the mainstream media continues its near-total blackout on Fukushima, the situation is actually becoming more severe than it has ever been. Time will tell how severe the long-term effects of this disaster will be, but one thing is for sure -- Fukushima radiation cannot and should not be taken lightly..
Sources for this story include:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon...
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html#ixzz1hl53rSnM
As far as the water supplies are concerned, it is important to note that the EPA is only testing for radioactive Iodine-131. There are no readings or data available for cesium, uranium, or plutonium -- all of which are being continuously emitted from Fukushima, as far as we know -- even though these elements are all much more deadly than Iodine-131. Even so, the following water supplies have thus far tested positive for Iodine-131, with the dates they were collected in parenthesis to the right:
Los Angeles, Calif. - 0.39 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Baxter), Penn. - 0.46 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Belmont), Penn. - 1.3 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Philadelphia (Queen), Penn. - 2.2 pCi/l (4/4/11)
Muscle Shoals, Al. - 0.16 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Niagara Falls, NY - 0.14 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Denver, Colo. - 0.17 pCi/l (3/31/11)
Detroit, Mich. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/31/11)
East Liverpool, Oh. - 0.42 pCi/l (3/30/11)
Trenton, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Painesville, Oh. - 0.43 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Columbia, Penn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (4442), Tenn. - 0.28 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (772), Tenn. - 0.20 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Oak Ridge (360), Tenn. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/29/11)
Helena, Mont. - 0.18 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Waretown, NJ - 0.38 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Cincinnati, Oh. - 0.13 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Pittsburgh, Penn. - 0.36 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Oak Ridge (371), Tenn. - 0.63 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Chattanooga, Tenn. - 1.6 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Boise, Id. - 0.2 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Richland, Wash. - 0.23 pCi/l (3/28/11)
Again, these figures do not include the other radioactive elements being spread by Fukushima, so there is no telling what the actual cumulative radiation levels really were in these samples. The figures were also taken two weeks ago, and were only just recently reported. If current samples were taken at even more cities, and if the tests conducted included the many other radioactive elements besides Iodine-131, actual contamination levels would likely be frighteningly higher.
But in typical government fashion, the EPA still insists that everything is just fine, even though an increasing amount of US water supplies are turning up positive for even just the radioactive elements for which the agency is testing -- and these levels seem to be increasing as a direct result of the situation at the Fukushima plant, which continues to worsen with no end in sight (http://www.naturalnews.com/032035_F...).
Water may be the least of our problems, however. New EPA data just released on Sunday shows that at least three different milk samples -- all from different parts of the US -- have tested positive for radioactive Iodine-131 at levels that exceed the EPA maximum thresholds for safety, which is currently set at 3.0 pico Curies per Liter (pCi/l).
In Phoenix, Ariz., a milk sample taken on March 28, 2011, tested at 3.2 pCi/l. In Little Rock, Ark., a milk sample taken on March 30, 2011, tested at 8.9 pCi/l, which is almost three times the EPA limit. And in Hilo, Hawaii, a milk sample collected on April 4, 2011, tested at 18 pCi/l, a level six times the EPA maximum safety threshold. The same Hawaii sample also tested at 19 pCi/l for Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years (http://www.naturalnews.com/031992_r...), and a shocking 24 pCi/l for Cesium-134, which has a half life of just over two years (http://opendata.socrata.com/w/pkfj-...). Together, this amounts to a level 2033 percent higher than federal limits (http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...).
Why is this milk contamination significant? Milk, of course, typically represents the overall condition of the food chain because cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. In other words, when cows' milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.
And even with the milk samples, the EPA insanely says not to worry as its 3.0 pCi/l threshold is allegedly only for long-term exposure. But the sad fact of the matter is that the Fukushima situation is already a long-term situation. Not only does it appear that the Fukushima reactor cores are continuing to melt, since conditions at the plant have not gotten any better since the earthquake and tsunami, but many of the radioactive elements that have already been released in previous weeks have long half lives, and have spread halfway around the world.
The other problem with the EPA's empty reassurances that radiation levels are too low to have a negative impact on humans is the fact that the agency does not even have an accurate grasp on the actual aggregate exposure to radiation from all sources (water, food, air, rain, etc.). When you combine perpetual exposure from multiple sources with just the figures that have already been released, there is a very real threat of serious harm as a result of exposure.
The EPA and other government agencies are constantly comparing Fukushima radiation to background and airplane radiation in an attempt to minimize the severity of exposure, even though these are two completely different kinds of radiation exposure.
No safe level of radiation from nuclear fallout
Background and airplane radiation is an external emitter of radiation, while Fukushima-induced radiation in food and water is an internal emitter. The former, which is considered "normal" radiation, hits your body from the outside, while the latter goes directly inside your body and into your digestive tract. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the immense difference between the two, and the much more severe consequences associated with literally ingesting radiation verses having it hit your skin.
In reality, there really is no safe level of radiation. No matter how many times the EPA and others repeat the lie that radiation levels are too low to have any significant impact, the statement itself is patently false. Many experts, including Jeff Patterson, DO, former President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, have stated that radiation exposure at any level is unsafe, and they are correct.
"There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period," said Patterson. "Exposure to radionuclides, such as Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water."
And now that radioactive levels in some areas have actually exceeded EPA maximums, Patterson's statement is even more chilling. So while the mainstream media continues its near-total blackout on Fukushima, the situation is actually becoming more severe than it has ever been. Time will tell how severe the long-term effects of this disaster will be, but one thing is for sure -- Fukushima radiation cannot and should not be taken lightly..
Sources for this story include:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon...
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html#ixzz1hl53rSnM
FDA finally admits chicken meat contains cancer-causing arsenic
After years of sweeping the issue under the rug and hoping no one would notice, the FDA has now finally admitted that chicken meat sold in the USA contains arsenic, a cancer-causing toxic chemical that's fatal in high doses. But the real story is where this arsenic comes from: It's added to the chicken feed on purpose!
Even worse, the FDA says its own research shows that the arsenic added to the chicken feed ends up in the chicken meat where it is consumed by humans. So for the last sixty years, American consumers who eat conventional chicken have been swallowing arsenic, a known cancer-causing chemical. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loc...)
Until this new study, both the poultry industry and the FDA denied that arsenic fed to chickens ended up in their meat. The fairytale excuse story we've all been fed for sixty years is that "the arsenic is excreted in the chicken feces." There's no scientific basis for making such a claim... it's just what the poultry industry wanted everybody to believe.
But now the evidence is so undeniable that the manufacturer of the chicken feed product known as Roxarsone has decided to pull the product off the shelves (http://www.grist.org/food-safety/20...). And what's the name of this manufacturer that has been putting arsenic in the chicken feed for all these years? Pfizer, of course -- the very same company that makes vaccines containing chemical adjuvants that are injected into children.
Technically, the company making the Roxarsone chicken feed is a subsidiary of Pfizer, called Alpharma LLC. Even though Alpharma now has agreed to pull this toxic feed chemical off the shelves in the United States, it says it won't necessarily remove it from feed products in other countries unless it is forced by regulators to do so. As reported by AP:
"Scott Brown of Pfizer Animal Health's Veterinary Medicine Research and Development division said the company also sells the ingredient in about a dozen other countries. He said Pfizer is reaching out to regulatory authorities in those countries and will decide whether to sell it on an individual basis." (http://www.usatoday.com/money/indus...)
Arsenic? Eat more!
But even as its arsenic-containing product is pulled off the shelves, the FDA continues its campaign of denial, claiming arsenic in chickens is at such a low level that it's still safe to eat. This is even as the FDA says arsenic is a carcinogen, meaning it increases the risk of cancer.
The National Chicken Council agrees with the FDA. In a statement issued in response to the news that Roxarsone would be pulled from feed store shelves, it stated, "Chicken is safe to eat" even while admitting arsenic was used in many flocks grown and sold as chicken meat in the United States.
What's astonishing about all this is that the FDA tells consumers it's safe to eat cancer-causing arsenic but it's dangerous to drink elderberry juice! The FDA recently conducted an armed raid in an elderberry juice manufacturer, accusing it of the "crime" of selling "unapproved drugs." (http://www.naturalnews.com/032631_e...) Which drugs would those be? The elderberry juice, explains the FDA. You see, the elderberry juice magically becomes a "drug" if you tell people how it can help support good health.
The FDA has also gone after dozens of other companies for selling natural herbal products or nutritional products that enhance and support health. Plus, it's waging a war on raw milk which it says is dangerous. So now in America, we have a food and drug regulatory agency that says it's okay to eat arsenic, but dangerous to drink elderberry juice or raw milk.
Eat more poison, in other words, but don't consume any healing foods. That's the FDA, killing off Americans one meal at a time while protecting the profits of the very companies that are poisoning us with their deadly ingredients.
Oh, by the way, here's another sweet little disturbing fact you probably didn't know about hamburgers and conventional beef: Chicken litter containing arsenic is fed to cows in factory beef operations. So the arsenic that's pooped out by the chickens gets consumed and concentrated in the tissues of cows, which is then ground into hamburger to be consumed by the clueless masses who don't even know they're eating second-hand chicken sh*t. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027414_c...)
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032659_arsenic_chicken.html#ixzz1hl4YtNND
Even worse, the FDA says its own research shows that the arsenic added to the chicken feed ends up in the chicken meat where it is consumed by humans. So for the last sixty years, American consumers who eat conventional chicken have been swallowing arsenic, a known cancer-causing chemical. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/loc...)
Until this new study, both the poultry industry and the FDA denied that arsenic fed to chickens ended up in their meat. The fairytale excuse story we've all been fed for sixty years is that "the arsenic is excreted in the chicken feces." There's no scientific basis for making such a claim... it's just what the poultry industry wanted everybody to believe.
But now the evidence is so undeniable that the manufacturer of the chicken feed product known as Roxarsone has decided to pull the product off the shelves (http://www.grist.org/food-safety/20...). And what's the name of this manufacturer that has been putting arsenic in the chicken feed for all these years? Pfizer, of course -- the very same company that makes vaccines containing chemical adjuvants that are injected into children.
Technically, the company making the Roxarsone chicken feed is a subsidiary of Pfizer, called Alpharma LLC. Even though Alpharma now has agreed to pull this toxic feed chemical off the shelves in the United States, it says it won't necessarily remove it from feed products in other countries unless it is forced by regulators to do so. As reported by AP:
"Scott Brown of Pfizer Animal Health's Veterinary Medicine Research and Development division said the company also sells the ingredient in about a dozen other countries. He said Pfizer is reaching out to regulatory authorities in those countries and will decide whether to sell it on an individual basis." (http://www.usatoday.com/money/indus...)
Arsenic? Eat more!
But even as its arsenic-containing product is pulled off the shelves, the FDA continues its campaign of denial, claiming arsenic in chickens is at such a low level that it's still safe to eat. This is even as the FDA says arsenic is a carcinogen, meaning it increases the risk of cancer.
The National Chicken Council agrees with the FDA. In a statement issued in response to the news that Roxarsone would be pulled from feed store shelves, it stated, "Chicken is safe to eat" even while admitting arsenic was used in many flocks grown and sold as chicken meat in the United States.
What's astonishing about all this is that the FDA tells consumers it's safe to eat cancer-causing arsenic but it's dangerous to drink elderberry juice! The FDA recently conducted an armed raid in an elderberry juice manufacturer, accusing it of the "crime" of selling "unapproved drugs." (http://www.naturalnews.com/032631_e...) Which drugs would those be? The elderberry juice, explains the FDA. You see, the elderberry juice magically becomes a "drug" if you tell people how it can help support good health.
The FDA has also gone after dozens of other companies for selling natural herbal products or nutritional products that enhance and support health. Plus, it's waging a war on raw milk which it says is dangerous. So now in America, we have a food and drug regulatory agency that says it's okay to eat arsenic, but dangerous to drink elderberry juice or raw milk.
Eat more poison, in other words, but don't consume any healing foods. That's the FDA, killing off Americans one meal at a time while protecting the profits of the very companies that are poisoning us with their deadly ingredients.
Oh, by the way, here's another sweet little disturbing fact you probably didn't know about hamburgers and conventional beef: Chicken litter containing arsenic is fed to cows in factory beef operations. So the arsenic that's pooped out by the chickens gets consumed and concentrated in the tissues of cows, which is then ground into hamburger to be consumed by the clueless masses who don't even know they're eating second-hand chicken sh*t. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027414_c...)
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032659_arsenic_chicken.html#ixzz1hl4YtNND
Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)
A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"
This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn't even bother to read the study itself (as usual).
NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these "scientific" studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.
The "60% effectiveness" claim is a total lie - here's why
What we found is that the "60% effectiveness" claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that "60% effectiveness" means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won't get the flu!
Thus, the "60% effectiveness" claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.
This is utterly false.
In reality -- and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis" -- only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!
See the abstract at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...
Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots
Let's start with the actual numbers from the study.
The "control group" of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.
The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.
The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.
So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:
Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!
Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...)
In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines "don't work on 99 out of 100 people." Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).
So where does the media get "60% effective?"
This is called "massaging the numbers," and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.
First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.
You can then say that 0.43 is "43% of 2.73," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "57% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "57% effectiveness rate" claim.
The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.
So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.
Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.
But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.
How to lie with statistics
This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.
You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"
But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.
But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!" And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"
And yet that's utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.
Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies
At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don't), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.
In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let's suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:
"This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!"
You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality -- scientifically speaking -- you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)
How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?
Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!
It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.
So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)
Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).
Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors."
Good news for children?
If there's any "good news" in this study, it's that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.
So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).
Guess who funded this study?
This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.
For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. (http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)
The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called "Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine," (http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/a...) which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.vppartners.org/sites/def...).
Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet study
Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:
Problem #1) The "control" group was often given a vaccine, too
In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the "control" groups were given so-called "insert" vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The "control" group, in other words, wasn't really a proper control group in many studies.
Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy children
It's the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It's no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against "never vaccinated" children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.
Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin D
Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more effective than flu shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v...). Read the article to see the actual "absolute" numbers in this study.
Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines
Vaccines are considered "effective" if they merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer's two decades later? Is that still a "success?" If you're a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer's pills, too. That's probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.
Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis
There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were "selected" for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.
Remember: Scientific fraud isn't the exception in modern medicine; it is the rule. Most of the "science" you read in today's medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the language of science.
Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers
I haven't had time to follow the money ties for each individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I'm willing to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in "scientific" circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing about vaccines who hasn't been in some way financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don't expect the medical journals to print that article, of course. They'd rather not reveal what happens when you follow the money.
Problem #7) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!
Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we're going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?
That's a lot like listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?
Just for fun, let's conduct a thought experiment and suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?
Or to put it another way, even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza to appear. That's the far more likely reality of the situation.
Flu shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people. That's why the people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people who got flu shots! (Just ask 'em yourself this coming winter, and you'll see.)
What the public believes
Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are "70 to 90 percent effective." This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.
It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be "only" 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, "Vaccines don't work as well as you might have thought." These headlines were followed up with explanations like "Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!"
I hate to break it to 'em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.
Outright fraudulent marketing
Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!
So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?
It's truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit's foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as "science" today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.
That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn't difficult these days. Just shroud it all under "science" jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!
The real story on flu shots that you probably don't want to know
Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren't for halting the flu. We've already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the "science" on that.
So what are flu shots really for?
You won't like this answer, but I'll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to "soft kill" the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v...) and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated "public health" message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.
Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.
And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.
Also worth reading:
Flu Vaccines -- The Mainstream Admits, We Want an Epidemic!
http://liamscheff.com/2011/10/flu-v...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html#ixzz1hl446QCL
This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn't even bother to read the study itself (as usual).
NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these "scientific" studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.
The "60% effectiveness" claim is a total lie - here's why
What we found is that the "60% effectiveness" claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that "60% effectiveness" means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won't get the flu!
Thus, the "60% effectiveness" claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.
This is utterly false.
In reality -- and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis" -- only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!
See the abstract at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...
Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots
Let's start with the actual numbers from the study.
The "control group" of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.
The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.
The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.
So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:
Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the vaccine!
Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...)
In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines "don't work on 99 out of 100 people." Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).
So where does the media get "60% effective?"
This is called "massaging the numbers," and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.
First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.
You can then say that 0.43 is "43% of 2.73," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "57% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "57% effectiveness rate" claim.
The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.
So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.
Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.
But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.
How to lie with statistics
This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.
You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"
But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.
But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!" And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"
And yet that's utterly false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.
Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical lies
At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don't), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.
In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let's suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:
"This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!"
You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality -- scientifically speaking -- you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)
How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?
Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!
It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.
So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)
Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).
Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors."
Good news for children?
If there's any "good news" in this study, it's that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.
So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).
Guess who funded this study?
This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.
For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. (http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)
The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called "Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine," (http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/a...) which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.vppartners.org/sites/def...).
Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet study
Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:
Problem #1) The "control" group was often given a vaccine, too
In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the "control" groups were given so-called "insert" vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The "control" group, in other words, wasn't really a proper control group in many studies.
Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy children
It's the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It's no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against "never vaccinated" children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.
Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin D
Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more effective than flu shots (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v...). Read the article to see the actual "absolute" numbers in this study.
Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines
Vaccines are considered "effective" if they merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer's two decades later? Is that still a "success?" If you're a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer's pills, too. That's probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.
Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis
There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were "selected" for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.
Remember: Scientific fraud isn't the exception in modern medicine; it is the rule. Most of the "science" you read in today's medical journals is really just corporate-funded quackery dressed up in the language of science.
Problem #6) Authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers
I haven't had time to follow the money ties for each individual study and author included in this meta analysis, but I'm willing to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine industry (drug makers). The corruption, financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in "scientific" circles today that you can hardly find a published author writing about vaccines who hasn't been in some way financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to explore and reveal all these financial ties. But don't expect the medical journals to print that article, of course. They'd rather not reveal what happens when you follow the money.
Problem #7) The Lancet is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the vaccine industry!
Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles. Does anyone really think we're going to get a truthful report from a medical journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very existence?
That's a lot like listening to big government tell you how great government is for protecting your rights. Or listening to the Federal Reserve tell you why the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?
Just for fun, let's conduct a thought experiment and suppose that The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity. Do you realize that even if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults?
Or to put it another way, even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent reviews with no financial ties to Big Pharma! Do you think the results would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more cases of influenza to appear. That's the far more likely reality of the situation.
Flu shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people. That's why the people who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same people who got flu shots! (Just ask 'em yourself this coming winter, and you'll see.)
What the public believes
Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are "70 to 90 percent effective." This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.
It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be "only" 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, "Vaccines don't work as well as you might have thought." These headlines were followed up with explanations like "Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!"
I hate to break it to 'em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.
Outright fraudulent marketing
Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!
So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?
It's truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit's foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as "science" today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.
That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn't difficult these days. Just shroud it all under "science" jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!
The real story on flu shots that you probably don't want to know
Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren't for halting the flu. We've already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the "science" on that.
So what are flu shots really for?
You won't like this answer, but I'll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to "soft kill" the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v...) and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated "public health" message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.
Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.
And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.
Also worth reading:
Flu Vaccines -- The Mainstream Admits, We Want an Epidemic!
http://liamscheff.com/2011/10/flu-v...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html#ixzz1hl446QCL
Gardasil HPV vaccines found contaminated with recombinant DNA that persists in human blood
In seeking answers to why adolescent girls are suffering devastating health damage after being injected with HPV vaccines, SANE Vax, Inc decided to have vials of Gardasil tested in a laboratory. There, they found over a dozen Gardasil vaccine vials to be contaminated with rDNA of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The vials were purchased in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Poland and France, indicating Gardasil contamination is a global phenomenon.
This means that adolescents who are injected with these vials are being contaminated with a biohazard -- the rDNA of HPV. In conducting the tests, Dr. Sin Hang Lee found rDNA from both HPV-11 and HPV-18, which were described as "firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant."
That aluminum is also found in vaccines should be frightening all by itself, given that aluminum should never be injected into the human body (it's toxic when ingested, and it specifically damages the nervous system). With the added discovery that the aluminum adjuvant also carries rDNA fragments of two different strains of Human Papillomavirus, this now reaches the level of a dangerous biohazard -- something more like a biological weapon rather than anything resembling medicine.
As SANE Vax explains in its announcement, these tests were conducted after an adolescent girl experienced "acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours" of being injected with an HPV vaccine. (http://sanevax.org/sane-vax-inc-dis...)
rDNA found in Gardasil is genetically engineered
The rDNA that was found to be contaminating Gardasil is not "natural" rDNA from the HPV virus itself. Rather, it is a genetically engineered form of HPV genetic code that is added to the vaccines during their manufacture.
As Dr. Lee, the pathologist who ran the laboratory tests identifying the biohazard contamination of Gardasil said:
"Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not 'natural' DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) -- genetically engineered -- to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA."
Innocent girls being injected with genetically engineered HPV rDNA
What all this means is that through Gardasil vaccines, innocent young girls are being injected with the recombinant DNA of HPV, and that this biohazardous substance persists in their blood. The implications of this are rather scary, as Dr. Lee explains:
"Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA."
The vaccine industry, of course, has a long and dark history of its vaccines being contaminated with cancer-causing viruses and other frightening contaminants. Watch this astounding video of Merck scientist Dr. Hilleman openly admitting that polio vaccines were widely contaminated with SV40 viruses that cause cancer:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=13EAA...
It's called "Merck vaccine scientist admits presence of SV40 and AIDS in vaccines - Dr. Maurice Hilleman" and was partially narrated by Dr. Len Horowitz. You can view the full transcript of this extraordinary interview at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_D...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033585_Gardasil_contamination.html#ixzz1hl2lE8WP
This means that adolescents who are injected with these vials are being contaminated with a biohazard -- the rDNA of HPV. In conducting the tests, Dr. Sin Hang Lee found rDNA from both HPV-11 and HPV-18, which were described as "firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant."
That aluminum is also found in vaccines should be frightening all by itself, given that aluminum should never be injected into the human body (it's toxic when ingested, and it specifically damages the nervous system). With the added discovery that the aluminum adjuvant also carries rDNA fragments of two different strains of Human Papillomavirus, this now reaches the level of a dangerous biohazard -- something more like a biological weapon rather than anything resembling medicine.
As SANE Vax explains in its announcement, these tests were conducted after an adolescent girl experienced "acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours" of being injected with an HPV vaccine. (http://sanevax.org/sane-vax-inc-dis...)
rDNA found in Gardasil is genetically engineered
The rDNA that was found to be contaminating Gardasil is not "natural" rDNA from the HPV virus itself. Rather, it is a genetically engineered form of HPV genetic code that is added to the vaccines during their manufacture.
As Dr. Lee, the pathologist who ran the laboratory tests identifying the biohazard contamination of Gardasil said:
"Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not 'natural' DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) -- genetically engineered -- to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA."
Innocent girls being injected with genetically engineered HPV rDNA
What all this means is that through Gardasil vaccines, innocent young girls are being injected with the recombinant DNA of HPV, and that this biohazardous substance persists in their blood. The implications of this are rather scary, as Dr. Lee explains:
"Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA."
The vaccine industry, of course, has a long and dark history of its vaccines being contaminated with cancer-causing viruses and other frightening contaminants. Watch this astounding video of Merck scientist Dr. Hilleman openly admitting that polio vaccines were widely contaminated with SV40 viruses that cause cancer:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=13EAA...
It's called "Merck vaccine scientist admits presence of SV40 and AIDS in vaccines - Dr. Maurice Hilleman" and was partially narrated by Dr. Len Horowitz. You can view the full transcript of this extraordinary interview at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_D...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033585_Gardasil_contamination.html#ixzz1hl2lE8WP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)