It is the time of year when doctors will be pressing us, and our children, to have the annual flu vaccination. It is an offer everyone should refuse!
The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) have produced their free newsletter on the subject. It is worth reading and subscribing to. This year, apparently, our children are going to be offered not an injection but a nasal spray. Some people might believe a spray is progress, and preferable to an injection. But don't be fooled. Indeed, ANH asks the following, key question.
"We ask: why is it that British kids are being asked to line up for the nasal spray when the leading US health authority on vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has declared that “the nasal spray flu vaccine (live attenuated influenza vaccine or LAIV) should not be used during 2016-2017”.
And ANH gives us the following, succinct answer.
"The reason is simple: a study looking at the effectiveness of the nasal spray flu vaccine that was made available in May this year showed it did not confer any protection for those aged 2 to 17 who were studied."
And as ANH says, the mainstream media are acting as advertisers for the manufacturers of the vaccine. They mention that London’s 'Metro' newspaper is full of the benefits of the flu vaccine, and as usual they are encouraging parents to get their children vaccinated. Indeed, ANH says that the news reports "are carefully constructed to make parents feel duty-bound to vaccinate, so benefiting society and in particular those most vulnerable to infection".
So it's the usual propaganda. So should parents say 'Yes'? What is the experience of the flu vaccine? Is it worth the risk? Is it even worth the effort?
The nasal vaccine is a live, or attenuated vaccine based on a weakened version the flu virus. Yet it is well known that flu viruses changes, or mutates, every year. In order to get a vaccine that works the pharmaceutical industry has to guess which virus to use for the coming winter. Once they make the decision they cannot change their mind as there is no time to change which virus is used. And Big Pharma has not been very good at 'guessing' in recent years. ANH outlines the history.
"Earlier this year, the CDC published a report revealing the effectiveness of the annual flu vaccine for the flu seasons from 2005-2016; effectiveness varied from just 10% to 60%. A huge range by anyone’s count, but for 7 years of that period the reported effectiveness was below 50%. This aside from the CDC’s recent revelation that the nasal spray for the 2016-17 season would be just 3%. This means that kids who get the nasal spray will be unprotected and most people, even by CDC standards, will be more likely to be unprotected than protected by the vaccine."
Yet many people, who dislike injections, might be encouraged to take the spray vaccine, despite the advice from the USA. Indeed, the British campaign aims to encourage more than 500,000 children, aged between 2 to 7, to receive the vaccine! It is a big highly profitable business!
So what about the safety of this vaccine. I have written on many occasions about the dangers of the injected vaccine. Is the spray safer? The current media campaign, predictably, states that the vaccine is very safe. That is always what the conventional medical establishment wants us to believe. Yet the spray vaccine is a live version of the virus, and ANH asks correctly whether the use of live viruses will do more to spread the disease more than stopping it! It is, they say an unanswered question. Officially, of course, we are told that the risk of spreading the virus is low. However, as ANH says, spreading the virus by a process of 'shedding' is a very real problem.
What this means is that other people, who have sensibly have decided not to take the vaccine, can be at risk of infection because those who have been vaccinated carry the virus!
Anyone who is considering the flu vaccine, and any sort, should examine carefully the evidence that it causes serious harm. And that this harm is always underplayed by the conventional medical establishment. For instance, the reporting of adverse events is probably only about 10% of the total numbers harmed by the vaccine.
So it is important that we all look at the evidence harm, and compare this with the balm that the pharmaceutical and media advertising campaigns, and indeed your local doctor, will place on the evidence. The Child Health Safety website has collected together a large number of links to articles outlining the harm that has been caused by the flu vaccine, including several links that concerns the 'FluMist' vaccine, which is what we are being offered in Britain this year.
The ANH article states that in the CDC has only reported on the minor side effects of the spray vaccine. But even the CDC goes on to state that "on rare occasions" flu vaccination "can cause serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions". And the CDC goes on to recommend that people who think that they have been injured by the flu vaccine should seek compensation from a USA compensation programme. ANH report that 2,845 people have filed for injury, 109 claims of death, with 1,718 cases being compensated between 1988-2016. They comment:
"What is notable in this report is the growth in compensation claims for vaccine damage (in general) from 6 in 1989 up to 688 in 2016. This figure, sadly, is likely to continue to rise in the coming years".
So if reporting adverse reactions is only 10% of the total number, and that those claiming compensation will be very significantly lower than this, we are talking about large numbers of people, far larger than are being acknowledged.
Influenza is an unpleasant illness. But for proper protection people need something that is both safer, and more effective treatment than the vaccines being offered by the conventional medical establishment. I have written about alternatives to the flu vaccination on many occasions. Homeopathy, for example, is both safe and effective in both preventing and treating the illness. Read more about it here. As ANH says, taking or not taking vaccines should be matter of personal choice. But the most important element in patient choice is information, that people know that they have a choice, and what those choices are!
The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) have produced their free newsletter on the subject. It is worth reading and subscribing to. This year, apparently, our children are going to be offered not an injection but a nasal spray. Some people might believe a spray is progress, and preferable to an injection. But don't be fooled. Indeed, ANH asks the following, key question.
"We ask: why is it that British kids are being asked to line up for the nasal spray when the leading US health authority on vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has declared that “the nasal spray flu vaccine (live attenuated influenza vaccine or LAIV) should not be used during 2016-2017”.
And ANH gives us the following, succinct answer.
"The reason is simple: a study looking at the effectiveness of the nasal spray flu vaccine that was made available in May this year showed it did not confer any protection for those aged 2 to 17 who were studied."
And as ANH says, the mainstream media are acting as advertisers for the manufacturers of the vaccine. They mention that London’s 'Metro' newspaper is full of the benefits of the flu vaccine, and as usual they are encouraging parents to get their children vaccinated. Indeed, ANH says that the news reports "are carefully constructed to make parents feel duty-bound to vaccinate, so benefiting society and in particular those most vulnerable to infection".
So it's the usual propaganda. So should parents say 'Yes'? What is the experience of the flu vaccine? Is it worth the risk? Is it even worth the effort?
The nasal vaccine is a live, or attenuated vaccine based on a weakened version the flu virus. Yet it is well known that flu viruses changes, or mutates, every year. In order to get a vaccine that works the pharmaceutical industry has to guess which virus to use for the coming winter. Once they make the decision they cannot change their mind as there is no time to change which virus is used. And Big Pharma has not been very good at 'guessing' in recent years. ANH outlines the history.
"Earlier this year, the CDC published a report revealing the effectiveness of the annual flu vaccine for the flu seasons from 2005-2016; effectiveness varied from just 10% to 60%. A huge range by anyone’s count, but for 7 years of that period the reported effectiveness was below 50%. This aside from the CDC’s recent revelation that the nasal spray for the 2016-17 season would be just 3%. This means that kids who get the nasal spray will be unprotected and most people, even by CDC standards, will be more likely to be unprotected than protected by the vaccine."
Yet many people, who dislike injections, might be encouraged to take the spray vaccine, despite the advice from the USA. Indeed, the British campaign aims to encourage more than 500,000 children, aged between 2 to 7, to receive the vaccine! It is a big highly profitable business!
So what about the safety of this vaccine. I have written on many occasions about the dangers of the injected vaccine. Is the spray safer? The current media campaign, predictably, states that the vaccine is very safe. That is always what the conventional medical establishment wants us to believe. Yet the spray vaccine is a live version of the virus, and ANH asks correctly whether the use of live viruses will do more to spread the disease more than stopping it! It is, they say an unanswered question. Officially, of course, we are told that the risk of spreading the virus is low. However, as ANH says, spreading the virus by a process of 'shedding' is a very real problem.
What this means is that other people, who have sensibly have decided not to take the vaccine, can be at risk of infection because those who have been vaccinated carry the virus!
Anyone who is considering the flu vaccine, and any sort, should examine carefully the evidence that it causes serious harm. And that this harm is always underplayed by the conventional medical establishment. For instance, the reporting of adverse events is probably only about 10% of the total numbers harmed by the vaccine.
So it is important that we all look at the evidence harm, and compare this with the balm that the pharmaceutical and media advertising campaigns, and indeed your local doctor, will place on the evidence. The Child Health Safety website has collected together a large number of links to articles outlining the harm that has been caused by the flu vaccine, including several links that concerns the 'FluMist' vaccine, which is what we are being offered in Britain this year.
The ANH article states that in the CDC has only reported on the minor side effects of the spray vaccine. But even the CDC goes on to state that "on rare occasions" flu vaccination "can cause serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions". And the CDC goes on to recommend that people who think that they have been injured by the flu vaccine should seek compensation from a USA compensation programme. ANH report that 2,845 people have filed for injury, 109 claims of death, with 1,718 cases being compensated between 1988-2016. They comment:
"What is notable in this report is the growth in compensation claims for vaccine damage (in general) from 6 in 1989 up to 688 in 2016. This figure, sadly, is likely to continue to rise in the coming years".
So if reporting adverse reactions is only 10% of the total number, and that those claiming compensation will be very significantly lower than this, we are talking about large numbers of people, far larger than are being acknowledged.
Influenza is an unpleasant illness. But for proper protection people need something that is both safer, and more effective treatment than the vaccines being offered by the conventional medical establishment. I have written about alternatives to the flu vaccination on many occasions. Homeopathy, for example, is both safe and effective in both preventing and treating the illness. Read more about it here. As ANH says, taking or not taking vaccines should be matter of personal choice. But the most important element in patient choice is information, that people know that they have a choice, and what those choices are!
