Flu season is approaching, and it’s been a tradition of sorts to prepare with a flu shot. It’s almost ingrained in American culture that the answer to preempt disease is with a ‘harmless’ immunization. With the option to vaccinate at your local pharmacy now, there’s a high chance that many citizens are going to roll up their sleeves, shell out the cash, and take the shot.
It’s interesting to consider, however, that flu shots, while being pushed on the public harder than ever, are shockingly ineffective. There is a noticeable lack of validation for just how effective the flu shot really is at creating a successful immunization.
The science behind vaccines is that they trigger your immune system into responding to a threat. By doing this, the immune system assimilates the capacity to deal with said threat. This makes the effectiveness of a vaccine relative to how it stimulates your immune system. If your immune system is weak, your body will likely skip any immunization process, and you may even end up contracting the virus that you were trying to prevent.
In many cases, the body may not be able to generate a response. If the strain of virus changes, then the immunization you received prior to this becomes useless. Or your immune system may be too burdened to properly respond to stimulus.
It’s noteworthy that flu shots are totally ineffective against new strains of the flu, and they are only partially effective against existing flu strains. Essentially, manufacturers have to play a guessing game in order to produce an effective shot, and if any of the variables change, then the relevance of the flu shot is compromised. This guessing game in creating a flu shot could take 12-18 months, leaving an incredible time lapse in between flu strains and thereby making the guessing game even more difficult to win.
So why take a risk, when we know that vaccines are dangerous and untested? The flu shot has been determined to be 1% effective – odds just about no one would go against if they were told upfront by their doctor. When there are natural alternatives that have proven success in bolstering your immune system’s strength, there is no reason to take this kind of risk in order to lower your flu risk by 1%.
If you take a shot filled with toxic chemicals and an irrelevant strain of a virus, you are actually increasing your risk for illness by weakening your immune system. In contrast, using natural supplements like vitamin D is proven to be much more effective in disease prevention and building up the immune system.
In order to achieve health and wellness, the paradigm of the medical establishment must be eschewed in favor of an individual and personal pursuit of health. The average person is given a halfway response to his health concerns and illnesses. He is given something that may appear good or helpful when in reality it is causing him to become sicker, and depend on the established healthcare system in America.
As the playing field changes, many people are now taking their health into their own hands, empowering them to live stronger, better, and more fully than if they were to blindly trust the answers that are given to them.
3 Reasons to Reconsider Flu Shots
Flu shots are becoming the most widely recommended vaccine on the planet, with The Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changing their flu shot recommendation from children between 6 months and 5 years old demographic to virtually everyone except those between the ages of 19-49 who are in perfectly good health. Even within this category there is a barrage of organizations warning against avoiding the ubiquitous flu shot.
The fact of the matter is that seasonal flu shots are simply not backed by reputable science, and a number of major studies have even shown that the seasonal flu shot is not effective at all in preventing the flu. Adding fuel to the fire, this ineffective shot comes with pages of nasty side effects that will certainly make you reconsider getting one this year. Here are 3 major reasons you, your family, and the medical establishment should reconsider flu shots as effective flu prevention tools:
1. Seasonal flu vaccines have been found to only be 1% effective
A new major study has numerically determined the effectiveness of the flu shot to be 1%. This means that despite the H1N1-loaded flu jab, there is still a 99% chance that you will not be protected against the flu. The reason for this, despite the faulty science behind the development of the vaccine, has to do with flu strains. It is extremely challenging, to the point of guessing, which flu strain will affect your area. With such a wide selection, it is very rare (about 1%, according to the study), for it to be the correct strain.
The researchers from the study stated:
“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” announced the study authors. In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people affected by the influenza virus by just one.
The findings do not stop there. The researchers also highlighted other findings about the flu vaccine, which topple the mainstream concept of their safety and effectiveness:
- “Vaccination had…no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”
- “Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”
- “The analysis howed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
- “There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” — Meaning vaccines do not affect transmission of disease, what they are designed for.
- “In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”
2. Flu shots have been linked to killer nerve disease
Even government health officials have confirmed the link between the H1N1-containing flu shot and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A government agency known as The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the connection following the phony swine flu pandemic. The news came after mainstream media reported on the fact that even 50% of doctors were refusing the H1N1 vaccine over health concerns.
Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
3. Vitamin D is over 800% more effective with no side effects
A major clinical trial performed at the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective in preventing and reversing influenza. Led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the study involved 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. This is actually a very low amount of vitamin D, with many natural health experts recommending around 5,000 IUs per day for most individuals. If the researchers used a higher amount like 5,000 IUs, the findings and subsequent percentage would most likely be even more profound.
What the study found was that 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the 4 month duration of the study, while only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This is in comparison to the flu shot being effective in 1 out of 100 participants, with countless side effects.
This means that vitamin D is 800% more effective in preventing the flu than vaccines at 1200 IUs daily. The percentage could likely climb into the thousands if the dosage was upped to the recommended 5,000 IUs per day, and perhaps even higher beyond that.
There is simply no reason to receive a flu shot when natural alternatives like vitamin D exist. Deadly nerve disease, narcolepsy, and overall ineffectiveness are but a few of the negative aspects of the flu shot. Spread the word about flu shots during Vaccine Information Week, starting October 1st.
The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines
by Sayer Ji
With the flu season ramping up, many are looking to vaccination as a “preventive” approach. Those who abstain are often accused of being uneducated, or worse, socially irresponsible. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As it presently stands, it is not sound medical science, but primarily economic and political motivation which generates the immense pressure behind mass participation in the annual ritual of flu vaccination.
It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review, which is the gold standard within the evidence-based medical model for assessing the effectiveness of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or propaganda that flu vaccines are safe and effective.
To the contrary, these authoritative reviews reveal there is a conspicuous absence of conclusive evidence as to the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in children under 2, healthy adults, the elderly, and healthcare workers who care for the elderly.
What is even more disconcerting is that only one safety study on inactivated flu vaccines has been performed in children under 2 (the population most susceptible to adverse reactions), even though in the USA and Canada current guidelines recommend the vaccination of healthy children from six months old.
Another alarming finding following the global pandemic declared by the World Health Organization in 2009, is that receipt of the seasonal flu vaccine among Canadians actually increased the rate of medically attended pandemic H1N1 infection. Vaccines, therefore, may actually decrease resistance to viral infection via their immunosuppressive actions.
Can Vaccination Replace Natural Immunity?
At the outset it should be acknowledged that there could be no medical justification for vaccination in the first place if it were not for the observation that periodic infection from wild type pathogens confers lasting, natural immunity. In a very real sense periodic infectious challenges are Nature’s immunizations, without which the very concept of vaccination would make absolutely no sense.
The vaccination process artificially simulates and co-opts a natural process, generating a broad range of adverse unintended consequences, many of which have been documented here. Vaccine proponents would have us believe that natural immunity is inferior to synthetic immunity, and should be replaced by the latter. In some cases they even suggest breastfeeding should be delayed during immunizations because it “interferes” with the vaccine efficacy.
Sounds like naked economic incentives have trumped genuine, serious health concerns for the entire population, especially the very young, the elderly and the sick.
This warped perspective follows from the disingenuous standard vaccine researchers use to “prove” the “efficacy” of their vaccines. The chemical kitchen sink is thrown at the immune system in order to conserve the expensive-to- produce antigen and to generate a more intense immune response – a process, not unlike what happens when you kick a beehive. These chemicals include detergents, anti-freeze, heavy metals, DNA from aborted human fetuses (diploid cells) and other species, etc. Amazingly, vaccine researchers and manufacturers do not have to prove the antibodies actually have affinity with the antigens they are marketed to protect us against, i.e. they do not have to prove “effectiveness,” only “efficacy.” This semantic trick is at the root of how the world has been deceived into accepting interventions so dangerous that their risk, like nuclear power, is underwritten by world governments, not private insurers who know they would go bankrupt paying out claims to the injured.
Another point that can not be understated is that the trivalent (3-strained) influenza vaccines are incapable of protecting us against the wide range of pathogens which produce influenza-like illness:
“Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Cochrane Database).
It is therefore exceedingly clear that it is a mathematical impossibility for influenza vaccines to be effective at preventing wild-circulating strains of influenza. Nutritional support, then, becomes the most logical and reasonable solution.
Immune Status Determines Susceptibility To Infection
The fact is that our immune status determines susceptibility. If the immune system is continually challenged with environmental toxicants, nutritional deficiencies and/or incompatibilities, chronic stress, influenza is far more likely to take hold. If your immune system is strong, many infectious challenges occur, are met with an appropriate response, and often go unnoticed. In other words, it is not a lack of a vaccination that causes infection, rather, the inability of the immune system to function effectively. [Note:
In some cases, we may become infected and the ultimate outcome is that we enjoy even greater immunity.]
While there are a broad spectrum of natural substances which have been studied for their anti-influenza properties, vitamin D deserves special consideration due to the fact that it is indispensable to produce antiviral peptides (e.g. cathelicidin) within the immune system, and can be supported for pennies a day.
A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2010, revealed that children receiving 1200 IUs of vitamin D a day were at 59% reduced risk for contracting seasonal Influenza A infection. Moreover as a secondary outcome, only 2 children in the treatment group versus 12 for the control group, experienced an asthma attack.
There are actually a broad range of preventive strategies that are evidence-based, and available without prescription.
1) Echinacea Tea: J Altern Complement Med. 2000 Aug;6(4):327-34
2) Elderberry: J Altern Complement Med. 1995 Winter;1(4):361-9.
3) American Ginseng: J Altern Complement Med. 2006 Mar;12(2):153-7.
4) Green Tea: J Nutr. 2011 Oct ;141(10):1862-70. Epub 2011 Aug 10.
5) Probiotics: Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):e172-9.
6) Vitamin D: PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11088. Epub 2010 Jun 14.