Monday, October 31, 2011

Flu Vaccines: Ineffective and "floating dark specks"

It is flu season and the mainstream media is out in full force promoting the big pharma vaccine agenda!
Surely you have seen countless articles extolling the virtues of the jab in the arm?



Despite the fact recent studies demonstrate that vaccine efficacy is substantially less then has been officially promoted.
I will get to that.

Health Canada, giving big pharma free advertising, has dubbed October "Influenza Immunization Awareness Month."
That advertising gift is payed for by Canadian taxpayers to the benefit of pharmaceutical companies. This money is being spent despite the fact that there are no major outbreaks in Canada at this time

" there have been no flu outbreaks reported in Canada yet"

Curious, when did the seasonal flu become such a big deal?

'"While the vaccine does work (sort of, kinda, maybe) and we still recommend that it be used, it does not demonstrate the kinds of efficacy levels we have reported"

Really? Imagine my non-surprise!

From the Lancet study
Moderate protection at best- Evidence for protection in seniors lacking.

"Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking."


"Can provide"? They did not even claim they do provide, using the word "can" which means it is possible. And it isn't possible. Still the msm media pushes the get a vaccination mantra.
You really got to ask yourself, why?
They are not effective at all in seniors. Not effective in the obese. There effectiveness is really lacking in the population as a whole. So why throw good taxpayer money after bad?
Other then to subsidize the pharmaceutical industry? I can't see any good reason.

Look at this headline -It's No Guarantee, But You Should Get the Flu Shot Anyway
It's no guarantee, but, get it anyway?
Does this push to vaccinate make sense to any rational thinking human being?
When you read a bit further into the article, the Lancet isn't the only study that notices the absolute ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine. The CDC did one also, with equally appalling results-

"The findings may come as a surprise to the average consumer, but public health officials and vaccine makers are familiar with the flu shot's imperfect performance. Based on its own recent, unpublished data on the 2010-11 flu season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that the vaccine was 60% effective in all age groups combined, cautioning that protection may vary widely:

Indeed, a study published on Monday found that the vaccine may be even less effective than previously thought in overweight and obese people.


So let's summarize the vaccine is really useless in the elderly, the young and the obese.
And almost entirely useless in everyone else.
The only beneficiary of this push the vaccine agenda are the pharmaceutical corporations.
Every year 100's of millions, even billions of dollars are spent to promote a vaccine program that seems to benefit only one party. Big Pharma.

The problems with vaccines are not solely Canadian or American. This is an interesting news article from the Australian Press-
You just gotta love this one. Reported on in 2011. The article is covering vaccines that had "dark specks" in them, but were used during the flu season of 2010. But, don't worry, it's harmless.

Dark specks in flu vaccine 'no risk'

There it is "No risk"

CSL was aware a month before it launched its pandemic vaccine in Australia in September 2009 that "foreign particles" had been found in samples for the US market, the FDA reveals in its 2010 audit of CSL's Melbourne laboratory.

Similar specks were later detected in Australia's stockpile of swine flu vaccine, which cost taxpayers $131 million.


Despite the "dark specks" the reason for there presence was never looked into though the shots were given.

"The root cause of the dark particles has not been identified and corrected," the FDA says in its report of the inspection in April last year.

"The possible root cause is mercury . . . interactions which may be occurring between the product and either the glass vials or the stoppers; however, the firm has not conducted testing to verify if this is the root cause."


"mercury interactions"

The FDA report says CSL was aware on December 17, 2009, that the rubber stopper could react with the vaccine. It says CSL first detected a "black speck" in a sample of flu vaccine for the US market in August 2009 -- a month before the Therapeutic Goods Administration approved its use in Australia.

When the sample was retested two months later, "multiple foreign particles" were found floating in the vial.

Yet by the time FDA inspectors flew to Melbourne for an audit the following April Australia's biggest pharmaceutical company still had not initiated testing to find whether the rubber stoppers were leaching into the vaccine, the FDA report reveals.

What were the dark specks floating around in the vaccines? Maybe it was rubber particles?
Maybe it wasn't? No one knows. No one cared. No one checked. No one corrected it.
Oh and the "no risk" claim, bogus!
CSL's internal "medical assessment" of the dark particles revealed potential side-effects of "allergic reactions, foreign body reaction to the chemical allergen, and effect on the potency or effectiveness of the vaccine," says the report, obtained by The Australian.

Potential side effects be damned- If you took this shot, you got dark specks and all.
Not exactly confidence inspiring is it?


image borrowed from here

Don't forget "dark specks"

3 comments:

  1. hi Pen, this is damage control. People must be paying attention to the stories of others taking the shot and still getting the flu. It is all starting to have meaning now.

    So given the history of the CDC, if it is reporting a 60% effectiveness i think it can be safely assumed that effectiveness would more likely be 6%. Which would put it into the realm of random chance, i would say.

    As for the 'black specs', they're all good. If the pharmaceutical companies are not investigating them, then it can be safely deduced that the 'specks' are not interfering with the agenda of the vaccine and the pharmaceutical company concerned.

    The agenda may be to simply make money. It may even be to harm people. Or both. What it cannot be is to improve peoples health otherwise there would have been immediate moves to remedy the problem.

    These pharmaceutical companies have huge resources. They chose not to do anything so therefore it was their wish that the "black specs" be injected into the public.

    The same argument equally applies to the mercury in vaccines.

    By their actions you will know them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James!
    Hammer meet nail!
    This is damage control!
    I was reading some varying forums and there was commenter after commenter stating, I got the shot and still got the flu.

    I got the shot and was sick immediately afterwards.

    Thinking about all the people out in public who are talking amongst themseleves "I got the shot" but still got the flu"
    These comments add up to the obvious fact that is verified by the studies in the Lancet and the CDC- the flu shots are ineffective.

    The "black specks" in the vaccines is disgusting.

    Though the vaccine manufacturer admits there were problems they did nothing about it.

    Therefore the 'black specks', whatever they hell they were, did not interfere with agenda of the pharmaceutical corporation- pushing out the vaccines for profit.
    Presently and down the road-

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with James - judging from history, the lie coming from the CDC is always outrageous, out of context, and often, made up wholesale.

    60% figure is given as DAMAGE CONTROL, completely agree. That way, if some ordinary person can from personal experience (friends, family coworkers) gather that 80 or 90% of who they know got the shot still go tthe flu . . . they can stretch it in their imagination as possible that it's just an unfortunate coincidence, and assume because of the small sample size it could be closer to 60%.

    It clearly isn't.

    From what I know of at least one insider who used to work for the Pharma industry, they don't actually make much money at all on the vaccines. And although he could be slightly wrong on it, I tend to think that profit is certainly not the motivator.

    Fear to me is the #1 thing to propogate.
    #2 is reliance on the state for help.
    #3 is spread of disease.
    #4 is the possible setting up of a structure for future events.

    It's mind/people conditioning.

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS