October 25, 2012

Flu Vaccine - Shot or Not?

Articles by Dr. Erdman are for informational purposes, and are not to be taken as specific medical advice.

by Carissa Erdman

Every year at this time we are bombarded and badgered by mainstream medicine about flu shots.  I have written several articles on these topics, so I hesitate to bring you yet another series on the flu shot.  Since they don’t give up trying to shoot you up with this poison, I take it as my duty to continue to inform those who haven’t heard the alternatives available.  The next two articles were actually written by my oldest daughter as an English composition essay.  I couldn’t have written it any better, so I’m just going to present it in a two part series.  (Part 1 & 2 combined here)

A study of vaccinations in infants and of Infant Mortality Rates published in Human and Experimental Toxicology has shown that vaccines are linked to high infant mortality rates – the more vaccinations infants receive, the more infants will die (Miller). With this knowledge, what parents would willingly allow a child to receive unnecessary vaccinations that have the potential to harm the child? The answer, quite simply, is none. This is especially true if there is a natural preventative with nearly the same or a greater success rate as the artificially produced vaccine. Such is the case with the influenza vaccine. The influenza vaccine is unnecessary for people of any age because the industry falsely portrays information to the public about the vaccine’s creation, effectiveness, and necessity; the flu shot industry also attempts to conceal studies proving vitamin D a highly effective alternative to an influenza vaccine.

Every year, medical doctors and pharmacies urge people to receive flu vaccines. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The single best way to prevent the flu is to get a flu vaccine each season.” The theory behind this statement is that when a person receives a flu vaccine, the body becomes acquainted with that particular strain of the influenza virus. If the body would ever encounter that same virus again, it would be able to quickly respond and destroy the virus before it has a chance to cause sickness. This process is also supposed to greatly reduce the chances of the flu spreading from person to person. Therefore in theory, if everyone receives the vaccine, the virus has no chance of spreading, a concept known as herd immunity. However, this theory of immunization has a few major holes that not even the best of conjectures can fill in without solid proof, something that studies have not yet been able to provide.

The concept behind flu vaccines seems simple enough, but a deeper look at how the flu vaccine is created reveals a different story. In order to produce the flu vaccine, officials must first determine which strains of the flu virus to use in the vaccination. So in January or February, these officials will travel to Asia to test for influenza (“Flu Vaccine Exposed”). The strains that seem to be the most common are the ones that the officials record and bring back to the United States to include in the vaccinations. Because those certain strains of influenza were widespread in Asia, officials assume that the same strains of influenza will reach the United States later that year around October. However, they have no way of knowing for certain which strains will make it to the United States, or if the strains will mutate into something new before reaching the country. Essentially, the basis for producing influenza vaccinations is guesswork. And although scientists do guess correctly some years, the majority of years the strains of influenza virus in the vaccination do not match the strains circulating throughout the United States.

Because this process is not very accurate, the efficacy (effectiveness) of the vaccine is low. According to the CDC, “A randomized study looking at the 2007-2008 influenza season found … inactivated vaccine (flu shot) protected 7 out of 10 people from influenza illness.” However, in 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration, “a widely respected research-analysis team,” reviewed 50 previous studies conducted on the efficacy of influenza vaccines, some dating back to 1996 all the way up to 2010 (Rappoport). The findings were devastating to the flu vaccine industry, and therefore well-hidden from the public. Only recently, on October 5, 2012, were the study and findings published.

The major conclusion the Cochrane study cites is that “vaccines administered parenterally, that is, outside the digestive tract – which generally means by injection – reduced influenza-like symptoms by only 12%” (Stevenson). This statement alone negates the CDC’s single study that states a protection rate of 70%. The Cochrane study also found that “… industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies…” (Stevenson). The influenza vaccine industry conducts its own studies, but other public, unbiased sources conduct studies as well. When all these studies were juxtaposed and analyzed, it became apparent that the studies performed by the industry itself were the studies that received publication and recognition in prestigious journals. Studies funded and performed by independent sources were “significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines” and therefore were not published (Stevenson). In the words of the Cochrane study report authors, “… there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…” (Stevenson).

The conclusion of this essay will be printed in two weeks.  It will continue to prove that the flu shot has no redeeming value for your health.  Their research is manipulated and simply made up to fit the premise that shots keep the flu away.  It isn’t true, and never has been.  Don’t let them feed you that line of malarkey, and ruin your good health.

Aside from the collective study done in 2010, The Cochrane Collaboration also recently conducted a study that was published online in August 2012. This study concentrated on how the flu vaccine protected and affected certain age groups. The study concluded that “in children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo” (Smith). Placebo is a substance given in place of an actual medicine; it is used in order to test the effectiveness of the actual medicine. By administering placebo, which has no effect, it is possible to narrow down what symptoms are caused by the actual medicine and what symptoms are simply mental side effects, since the person participating in the study does not know which they are consuming. Knowing how placebo works, the fact that influenza vaccine worked only as well as placebo is telling. The Cochrane Collaboration also discovered that there was “very little information … found on the safety of inactivated vaccines, the most commonly used vaccine in young children” (Smith). The vaccine industry pushes for young children to receive influenza vaccinations every year in order to protect them, but the efficacy and safety of these vaccines has little or no data to support their administration.

(PART 2)
One more area in which the flu shot industry distorts the facts in order to push the vaccine is in morbidity and mortality rates associated with influenza. “The CDC has been telling the public for nearly a decade that there are more than 200,000 estimated hospitalizations and 36,000 estimated deaths from influenza in the U.S. every year” (Fisher). However, the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality published a report stating that there were only 37,000 Americans hospitalized for influenza in 2004 (Fisher). Since the CDC has been using the figure of 200,000 on average for over 10 years, 2004 should have been no exception. But 37,000 is much less than 200,000. The reason for the difference in estimates lies behind what exactly was being counted. The CDC counts not only influenza-related hospitalizations, but also other situations such as respiratory, circulatory, cardiac, and pulmonary conditions “they thought might have been associated with influenza” (Fisher). The influenza vaccine industry is lying straight to the public’s face, pushing a vaccine that has not been proven to work, has not been proven safe, and has not been proven necessary.

But even though the flu vaccine is unnecessary and does not provide protection against influenza, a solution is available: vitamin D. A recent study lead by Dr. Adit Ginde discovered that vitamin D plays “an important role … in prevention of common respiratory infections, such as colds and the flu.” This prevention begins in the immune system, where vitamin D is actually the substance that initiates attacks on foreign pathogens. If certain cells in the immune system cannot find enough vitamin D in the blood, the attack on foreign pathogens will not even begin (Liu). Some scientists, such as Dr. John Cannell, theorize that vitamin D deficiency may actually be an underlying cause of influenza, which would help explain its apparent benefits as a flu-fighter.
Another study performed in 2010 and published on the website of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition also concluded that vitamin D is a highly effective way to avoid influenza. Two groups of 167 children, ages 6-15, were given either vitamin D or placebo for four months. In the group receiving placebo, 31 children contracted influenza. In contrast, only 18 children contracted influenza in the group that received vitamin D. Although the children were only given relatively small doses of vitamin D, influenza rates were reduced by 42 percent. Taking larger doses of the vitamin has the potential to offer even more protection against the flu.

In a video on YouTube, Dr. Mercola explains why flu season occurs during the fall and winter months:
One of the reasons why we have such an increase in these upper respiratory infections in the fall and winter is because the sun exposure really is minimized. For most of us the sun’s incidence of the rays coming through the atmosphere is such an angle that even if you were to go out without any clothes on for the entire day on a sunny day you wouldn’t get any significant ultraviolet radiation to increase your vitamin D levels. So essentially it’s physically impossible to get it from the sun during the winter for most of us. So that’s probably one of the major reasons why there’s this massive increase in these infections in the winter.
Dr. Mercola also offers advice on how to avoid influenza, especially during flu season. Because “vitamin D can help minimize risk of infection,” it is important to take vitamin D supplements to increase vitamin D levels in the blood. However, there is another way to increase these levels. “You can replicate the sun’s rays with a safe tanning bed. And by safe tanning bed I mean a tanning bed that doesn’t have a magnetic ballast which generates these dangerous EMFs.” Although “sun would clearly be better,” Dr. Mercola states that a safe tanning bed is an effective option for receiving vitamin D. Whichever way the vitamin D is introduced to the immune system, it will drastically reduce the chances of catching influenza.

In light of this information, it is safe to conclude that influenza vaccinations, while they may offer minimal protection certain years, are not nearly as effective or necessary as the flu shot industry wants the public to believe. Much safer and more effective approaches to influenza protection exist naturally, as with vitamin D. Before receiving a flu shot, or allowing a child to receive one, face the facts. Vitamin D is safer than influenza vaccines, more effective, and all-natural. The key to eliminate is not to vaccinate. The key is vitamin D.