Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

[Guest guest]

from a list member..........

I saw this study on our local news, and at the end, they said although it

was 59 % effective, that it was still effective and to still get your flu

shot. Doesn't make any sense!

On another note, here was the interpretation of the study from natural

news.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html

Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the

flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

by Mike , the Health Ranger

Editor of NaturalNews.com

(See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) 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

whyWhat 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 shotsLet'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 statisticsThis 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 liesAt

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

studyBeyond 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

What the public believesThanks 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 marketingGiven 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

knowWant 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.

Learn more:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html#ixzz1c27UR8Ch

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start November 4