(NaturalNews) By Mike Adams The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I’m about to reveal here.
It all started with the CDC’s recent release of new statistics about swine flu fatalities, infection rates and vaccination rates. According to the CDC:
• 61 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu (about 20% of the U.S. population). The CDC calls this a “success” even though it means 4 out of 5 people rejected the vaccines.
• 55 million people “became ill” from swine flu infections.
• 246,000 Americans were hospitalized due to swine flu infections.
• 11,160 Americans died from the swine flu.
Base on these statistics, the CDC is now desperately urging people to get vaccinated because they claim the pandemic might come back and vaccines are the best defense.
But here’s the part you’re NOT being told.
The CDC statistics lie by omission. They do not reveal the single most important piece of information about H1N1 vaccines: How many of the people who died from the swine flu had already been vaccinated?
Many who died had already been vaccinated
The CDC is intentionally not tracking how many of the dead were previously vaccinated. They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated. But this is blatantly false. Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections.
And that means roughly 20% of the 11,160 Americans who died from the swine flu were probably already vaccinated against swine flu. That comes to around 2,200 deaths in people who were vaccinated!
How do I know that swine flu vaccines don’t reduce infection mortality? Because I’ve looked through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that have ever been conducted on H1N1 vaccines. It didn’t take me very long, because the number of such clinical trials is ZERO.
That’s right: There is not a single shred of evidence in existence today that scientifically supports the myth that H1N1 vaccines reduce mortality from H1N1 infections. The best evidence I can find on vaccines that target seasonal flu indicates a maximum mortality reduction effect of somewhere around 1% of those who are vaccinated. The other 99% have the same mortality rate as people who were not vaccinated.
So let’s give the recent H1N1 vaccines the benefit of the doubt and let’s imagine that they work just as well as other flu vaccines. That means they would reduce the mortality rate by 1%. So out of the 2,200 deaths that took place in 2009 in people who were already vaccinated, the vaccine potentially may have saved 22 people.
61 million injections add up to bad public health policy
So let’s see: 61 million people are injected with a potentially dangerous vaccine, and the actual number “saved” from the pandemic is conceivably just 22. Meanwhile, the number of people harmed by the vaccine is almost certainly much, much higher than 22. These vaccines contain nervous system disruptors and inflammatory chemicals that can cause serious health problems. Some of those problems won’t be evident for years to come… future Alzheimer’s victims, for example, will almost certainly those who received regular vaccines, I predict.
Injecting 61 million people with a chemical that threatens the nervous system in order to avoid 22 deaths — and that’s the best case! — is an idiotic public health stance. America would have been better off doing nothing rather than hyping up a pandemic in order to sell more vaccines to people who don’t need them.
Better yet, what the USA could have done that would have been more effective is handing out bottles of Vitamin D to 61 million people. At no more cost than the vaccines, the bottles of vitamin D supplements would have saved thousands of lives and offered tremendously importantly additional benefits such as preventing cancer and depression, too.
The one question the CDC does not want you to ask
Through its release of misleading statistics, the CDC wants everyone to believe that all of the people who died from H1N1 never received the H1N1 vaccine. That’s the implied mythology behind the release of their statistics. And yet they never come right out and say it, do they? They never say, “None of these deaths occurred in patients who had been vaccinated against H1N1.”
They can’t say that because it’s simply not true. It would be a lie. And if that lie were exposed, people might begin to ask questions like, “Well gee, if some of the people who were killed by the swine flu were already vaccinated against swine flu, then doesn’t that mean the vaccine doesn’t protect us from dying?”
That’s the number one question that the CDC absolutely, positively does not want people to start asking.
So they just gloss over the point and imply that vaccines offer absolute protection against H1N1 infections. But even the CDC’s own scientists know that’s complete bunk. Outright quackery. No vaccine is 100% effective. In fact, when it comes to influenza, no vaccine is even 10% effective at reducing mortality. There’s not even a vaccine that’s 5% effective. And there’s never been a single shred of credible scientific information that says a flu vaccine is even 1% effective.
So how effective are these vaccines, really? There are a couple thousand vaccinated dead people whose own deaths help answer that question: They’re not nearly as effective as you’ve been led to believe.
They may not be effective at all.
Crunching the numbers: Why vaccines just don’t add up
Think about this: 80% of Americans refused to get vaccinated against swine flu. That’s roughly 240 million people.
Most of those 240 million people were probably exposed to the H1N1 virus at some point over the last six months because the virus was so widespread.
How many of those 240 million people were actually killed by H1N1? Given the CDC’s claimed total of deaths at 11,160, if you take 80% of that (because that’s the percentage who refused to be vaccinated), you arrive at 8,928. So roughly 8,900 people died out of 240 million. That’s a death rate among the un-vaccinated population of .0000372
With a death rate of .0000372, the swine flu killed roughly 1 out of every 26,700 people who were NOT vaccinated. So even if you skipped the vaccine, you had a 26,699 out of 26,700 chance of surviving.
Those are pretty good odds. Ridiculously good. You have a 700% greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime, by the way.
What it all means is that NOT getting vaccinated against the swine flu is actually a very reasonable, intelligent strategy for protecting your health. Mathematically, it is the smarter play.
Because, remember: Some of the dead victims of H1N1 got vaccinated. In fact, I personally challenge the CDC to release statistics detailing what percentage of the dead people had previously received such vaccines.
The headline to this article, “Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots” is a direct challenge to the CDC, actually. If the CDC believes this headline is wrong — and that the number of vaccinated Americans who died from H1N1 is zero — then why don’t they say so on the record?
The answer? Because they’d be laughed right out of the room. Everybody who has been following this with any degree of intelligence knows that the H1N1 vaccine was a medical joke from the start. There is no doubt that many of those who died from H1N1 were previously vaccinated. The CDC just doesn’t want you to know how many (and they hope you’ll assume it’s zero).
Where are all the real journalists?
I find it especially fascinating that the simple question of “How many of the dead were previously vaccinated?” has never been asked in print by a single journalist in any mainstream newspaper or media outline across the country. Not the NY Times, not WashingtonPost.com, not the WSJ, LA Times or USA Today. (At least, not that I’m aware of. If you find one that does, let me know and I’ll link to their article!)
Isn’t there a single journalist in the entire industry that has the journalistic courage to ask this simple question of the CDC? Why do these mainstream journalists just reprint the CDC’s statistics without asking a single intelligent question about them?
Why is all the intelligent, skeptical reporting about H1N1 found only in the alternative press or independent media sites?
You already know the answer, but I’ll say it anyway: Because most mainstream media journalists are just part of the propaganda machine, blindly reprinting distorted statistics from “authorities” without ever stopping to question those authorities.
The MSM today, in other words, is often quite pathetic. Far from the independent media mindset that used to break big stories like Watergate, today’s mainstream media is little more than a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that runs our nation. The MSM serves the financial interests of the corporations, just as the CDC and WHO do. That’s why they’re all spouting the same propaganda with their distorted stories about H1N1 swine flu.
But those who are intelligent enough to ask skeptical questions about H1N1 already realize what an enormous con the pandemic was. In the end, it turned out to be a near-harmless virus that was hyped up by the CDC, WHO and drug companies in order to sell hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines that are now about to be dumped down the drain as useless.
Sources for this story include:
Support the Health Ranger: Vote for him with the Shorty Awards!
Help the Health Ranger (the author of this article) win the Shorty Awards for the category of health! Any Twitter user can vote from this page: http://shortyawards.com/healthranger
Or, simply send a tweet from your Twitter account as follows:
#shortyawards @HealthRanger #health (because… write your short supporting comment here)
(You must insert a comment of WHY you vote for the Health Ranger in order for your vote to count.)
Thank you for your support!
Mr. Adams, you wrote, “The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign.” May I ask, is your statistical spin any less devious? You fail to mention that the majority of the 61 million H1N1 vaccine recipients were among the initial target group of 160 million persons. The H1N1 vaccine was only recently made available to the general public; therefore, your statement that “80% of Americans refused to get vaccinated against swine flu” is a canard.
It is true that the efficacy of influenza vaccines in preventing mortality in individuals over 65 years of age is in question. What is not in question is the efficacy of influenza vaccines preventing morbidity in individuals under 65 years of age. Since the majority of influenza deaths usually occur in those over 65, the effect of an influenza vaccine on overall mortality may seem negligible. Keep in mind that healthy people over 65 years of age were not in the initial target group and, like the rest of healthy individuals in the U.S., have not been eligible for H1N1 immunization until a few weeks ago.
Based upon these omissions from your analysis, your conclusions that “thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots” is yet another canard.
Is it the flu killing the elderly in relatively large numbers, or is it really pneumonia that is? As Dr Mercola pointed out the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grossly distort the facts about flu deaths, making the flu virus seem far more dangerous than it really is.
He wrote that on the CDC’s main flu page, they state that about 36,000 people die from the flu in the United States each year.
But if you search a little harder, you can find the actual number of people who died from the flu in 2005 (this is the most recent data that’s available) was 1,806. The remainder was caused by pneumonia. In 2004, there were just 1,100 actual flu deaths.
The statistics the CDC gives are skewed partly because they classify those dying from pneumonia as dying from the flu, which is inaccurate.
Do Flu Shots Work? Ask A Vaccine Manufacturer
Very few people die from primary viral pneumonia, and those tend to be younger people with robust immune responses. Those deaths are categorized as deaths due to influenza.
The majority of influenza-related deaths are due to secondary bacterial pneumonia. Those deaths are not recorded as death due to influenza.
The CDC makes no secret of the method by which is estimates the number of influenza-related deaths. There are those in the medical community who accept those estimates, and those who question them.
Whether or not you chose to accept the CDC’s estimates of influenza deaths is not relevant to the fact that Mr. Adams misinformed his readers by stating that a) 80% of Americans refused the H1N1 vaccine, and b) thousands of people died of H1N1 after receiving the vaccine.
Do you work for the CDC or a vaccine manufacturer?
I’m a registered nurse with a master’s in public health and tropical medicine.
My career goal is to teach health workers in sub-Saharan Africa.
I had some time to conduct a proper literature search today on the medical library website to which I have access. I searched ‘influenza vaccine’ and limited my search to ‘randomized controlled trials’ in the last 20 years. There were 480 results. To be fair, many of them were phase I and phase II clinical trials (premarketing) of new vaccines and safety and efficacy trial in different populations.
I find it interesting that Mr. Adams claims there are ZERO randomized controlled trials on influenza vaccine safety and efficacy when in a matter of minutes I found no less than a dozen (see below) conducted in the last two year on influenza vaccines currently licensed in the U.S.
Perhaps Mr. Adams does not have access to a university medical library, as I do, but he can certainly search PubMed and read the abstracts of hundreds of RCTs on influenza and other vaccines.
Zhu FC., Wang H., Fang HH., Yang JG., Lin XJ., Liang XF., et al. (2009). A novel influenza A (H1N1) vaccine in various age groups. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(25):2414-2423.
Greenberg ME., Lai MH., Hartel GF., Wichems CH., Gittleson C., Bennet J., et al. (2009). Response to a monovalent 2009 influenza A (H1N1) vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(25):2405-2413.
Beran J., Vesikari T., Wertzova V., Karvonen A., Honegr K., Lindblad N., et al. (2009). Efficacy of inactivated split-virus influenza vaccine against culture-confirmed influenza in healthy adults: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 200(12):1861-1869.
Lemaitre M., Meret T., Rothan-Tondeur M., Belmin J., Lejonc JL., Luquel L., et al. (2009). Effect of influenza vaccination of nursing home staff on mortality of residents: a cluster-randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 57(9):1580-1586.
Monto AS., Ohmit SE., Petrie JG., Johnson E., Truscon R., Teich E., et al. (2009). Comparative efficacy of inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccines. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(13):1260-1267.
MacDonald NE., Riley LE., Steinhoff MC. (2009). Influenza immunization in pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 114(2 Pt 1):365-368.
Bracco Neto H., Farhat CK., Tregnaghi MW., Madhi SA., Razmpour A., Palladino et al. (2009). Efficacy and safety of 1 and 2 doses of live attenuated influenza vaccine in vaccine-naive children. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 28(5):365-371.
Ohmit SE., Gross J., Victor JC., Monto AS.(2009). Reduced reaction frequencies with repeated inactivated or live-attenuated influenza vaccination. Vaccine, 27(7):1050-1054.
Zaman K., Roy E., Arifeen SE., Rahman M., Raqib R., Wilson E., et al. (2008). Effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization in mothers and infants. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(15):1555-1564.
Levin MJ., Song LY., Fenton T., Nachman S., Patterson J., Walker R. et al. (2008). Shedding of live vaccine virus, comparative safety, and influenza-specific antibody responses after administration of live attenuated and inactivated trivalent influenza vaccines to HIV-infected children. Vaccine, 26(33):4210-4217.
Talbot HK., Keitel W., Cate TR., Treanor J., Campbell J., Brady RC., et al. (2008). Immunogenicity, safety and consistency of new trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Vaccine, 26(32):4057-4061.
Vesikari T., Karvonen A., Smith HM., Dunning A., Razmpour A., Saville MK., et al. (2008).
Safety and tolerability of cold-adapted influenza vaccine, trivalent, in infants younger than 6 months of age. Pediatrics, 121(3):e568-573.
Hibbert CL., Piedra PA., McLaurin KK., Vesikari T., Mauskopf J., Mahadevia PJ. (2007). Cost-effectiveness of live-attenuated influenza vaccine, trivalent in preventing influenza in young children attending day-care centres. Vaccine, 25(47):8010-8020.
Couch RB., Winokur P., Brady R., Belshe R., Chen WH., Cate TR., et al. (2007). Safety and immunogenicity of a high dosage trivalent influenza vaccine among elderly subjects. Vaccine. 25(44):7656-7663.
I’d be more than happy to query Mr. Adams about my concerns regarding the inaccuracies found in his article, but I didn’t find his Email address on the Natural News website.
Have you read Dr Len Horowitz’s latest article about the problems of relying on the ‘concentional’ medical literature?
Corrupt Census Company and UK Publisher Spins Science: Doctors Poisoned by Medical-Media Monopoly
Pingback: 26 Percent Of Americans Use The Web To Search P. Drugs | No health insurance