{"id":145966,"date":"2019-10-28T12:00:44","date_gmt":"2019-10-28T12:00:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=145966"},"modified":"2019-10-23T10:44:51","modified_gmt":"2019-10-23T09:44:51","slug":"what-logically-vaccine-hesitant-people-need-to-know-about-flu-shot-propaganda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2019\/10\/what-logically-vaccine-hesitant-people-need-to-know-about-flu-shot-propaganda\/","title":{"rendered":"What Logically Vaccine-hesitant People Need to Know about Flu Shot Propaganda"},"content":{"rendered":"

22 Oct 2019 – How Big Pharma, the CDC and Big Medicine Have Deceived Us by the Cunning Use of Statistics<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Definitions:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vaccine Efficacy\u00a0(VE)<\/strong> is the percentage reduction of disease outcomes in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group, using the most favorable conditions. It is best measured using\u00a0double-blind<\/a>, randomized, placebo controlled trials, which are rarely done. A VE of 60% means that a vaccinated group of people has a 60% Relative Risk Reduction (see definition immediately below) of a given outcome compared to an unvaccinated group.<\/p>\n

Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)<\/strong> is a deceptive statistic that is commonly-used by Big Pharma and the CDC to over-estimate the reduction in risk or outcome for a treatment group when compared to an untreated control group (ideally a placebo-controlled group). RRR is commonly a gross exaggeration of the actual effectiveness of a drug or vaccine and is therefore favored by entities that want to promote a drug or vaccine by exaggerating its efficacy. The more useful Absolute Risk Reduction <\/strong>statistic (see below) is essentially never used in medical journal reporting, perhaps because it more accurately describes the weaknesses, adverse effects, risks and failures of any treatment modality.<\/p>\n

Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)<\/strong> signifies the absolute or actual difference in the reduction in risk between an untreated group and a group of treated individuals. The importance in being able to understand the difference between RRR and ARR is well illustrated in the Merck Fosamax Fraud<\/strong> case described further below.<\/p>\n

The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV)<\/strong> is the number of individuals that must be vaccinated for an expected benefit to be attained in one individual.<\/p>\n

Some examples of NNV are listed below.<\/p>\n

The Number Needed to Treat (NNT)<\/strong> is the number of individuals that must be treated with a drug, vaccine or surgery that results in a measurable benefit to one individual. It is the inverse of ARR. The larger the NNV (or NNT) is, the more useless is the treatment.<\/p>\n

Examples of NNV and NNT Statostocs<\/strong><\/p>\n

A Cochrane Review publication from 2018, states: 71 healthy adults would have to be vaccinated with a flu shot to prevent one case of influenza. (NNV = 71)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Another example of NNV comes from a Pediatrics<\/em> journal article from 2007:<\/strong> \u201cBetween 4255 and 6897<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0children ages 24\u201359 months of age would have to be vaccinated for influenza to prevent one hospitalization.\u201d (NNV = A number between 4255 and 6807)<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201c6000 to 32,000 hospital workers would need to be vaccinated with the flu shot before a single patient death would be averted.\u201d<\/em> (NNV = A number between 6,000 and 32,000 for hospital healthcare workers to prevent one patient from dying because of influenza contagion from an un-vaccinated worker) – <\/em>https:\/\/journals.plos.org\/plosone\/article?id=10.1371\/journal.pone.0163586<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201c33,784 – 38,610<\/em>\u00a0infants would need to be vaccinated with the Group B meningococcal vaccine in order to prevent one case of invasive Group B meningococcal disease.\u201d<\/em> (NNV for Group B Meningococcal Vaccine = >33,000) \u2013 From BMC Infect Dis, 12 (1) (2012), p. 202<\/em><\/p>\n

And from a 2007 UCLA publication: 231 adults 70 years of age or older\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>would have to be vaccinated for shingles to prevent 1 case of Herpes Zoster.\u201d (NNV = 231)<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe NNV for Prevnar-13 to prevent one case of invasive pneumonia in low-risk asthmatic adults is estimated to be as high as 1059<\/em>.\u201d (NNV = 1059 for Prevnar-13 to prevent one case of invasive pneumonia) —<\/em>https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC4173976\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cAssuming that Gardasil procures lifelong protection and that its vaccine efficacy is 95% (both irrationally over-optimistic assumptions!), and if vaccine protection is assumed to wane at 3% per year (also an over-optimistic assumption), the predicted NNV would increase to 9,080. In other words, one would have to vaccinate and give booster Gardasil shots regularly to 9,080 girls to prevent one case of cervical cancer).\u201d<\/em> \u2013<\/em> One of the conclusions of a Canadian Medical Association Journal article (3 of the authors actually had financial conflicts of interest with Gardasil\u2019s maker, Merck & Co. From www.cmaj.ca\/cgi\/content\/full\/177\/5\/464\/DC1<\/a><\/p>\n

Common experience will understand that \u201cThe NNT for treating penicillin-sensitive streptococcal pharyngitis with penicillin is 1, and the NNT for any treatment that only cures half of the patients is 2.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

A Cochrane Review from 2011 states: \u201c104 patients would have to take a statin drug for 5 years to prevent one heart attack.\u201d (NNT = 104)<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cTo spare one person a heart attack, 100 people had to take\u00a0Lipitor\u00a0for more than three years, and for every 10 patients taking a statin drug for 5 years, one of them will develop statin-induced myonecrosis.\u201d <\/em>(NNT = 100 for Lipitor to prevent one heart attack after taking the drug continuously for > 3 years. (Number Needed to Harm [NNH] = 10, for patients who take a statin for 5 years.) – <\/em>from: http:\/\/www.thennt.com\/nnt\/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are only 30 to 40 cervical cancer cases per year per one million women between the ages of 9 and 26. Therefore,<\/em> you would have to vaccinate (with Gardasil) one million girls to prevent cervical cancer in 4 to 5 girls; and since only 1\/3 of women who develop cervical cancer actually die from the disease, you would have to vaccinate one million girls to prevent 1 to 2 deaths per year – at the \u201cbargain-basement price\u201d of $360 million per year.\u201d<\/em> \u2013 Dr Joseph Mercola<\/p>\n

\u201cI predict that <\/em>Merck\u2019s Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profits for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and dangerous, and it costs a fortune!\u201d — <\/em>Dr Bernard Dalbergue<\/a> (former Merck employee)<\/p>\n

For more on understanding how Big Pharma and Big Medicine use deception in reporting statistics, go to: https:\/\/freepress.org\/article\/nnv-number-needed-vaccinate-and-nnt-number-needed-treat<\/a><\/p>\n

*************************<\/p>\n

Misuse of Medical Statistics by Researchers that also have Financial Conflicts of Interest <\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2009 GlaxoSmithKline\u2019s package insert for its influenza vaccine Flulaval read (in fine print): \u201cnot adequately demonstrated to decrease influenza\u201d. <\/em><\/p>\n

In more recent Flulaval package inserts, that sentence has been removed. The statement now reads: \u201cVaccination with FLULAVAL QUADRIVALENT may not protect all susceptible individuals.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

On June 22, 2017 a New England Journal of Medicine article was published. It can be accessed at https:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJMoa1608862#t=abstract<\/a>. The article was about a new influenza vaccine (Flublok) that was developed and manufactured by a privately-held vaccine corporation called Protein Sciences. The new vaccine was compared only with standard flu vaccines and not to an unvaccinated group.<\/p>\n

The article claimed that the new influenza vaccine had a 40% improvement in \u201cvaccine effectiveness\u201d compared to standard flu vaccines. However, hidden in the deceptive abstract – and deliberately NOT pointed out – were these figures:<\/p>\n

96 of the 4303 study participants (2.2 %) who received the new vaccine still got the flu while 138 of 4301 (3.2%) study participants who received the old vaccine still got the flu, <\/em>which revealed a miniscule Absolute Risk Reduction of 1% (3.2% – 2.2% = 1%).<\/p>\n

But what was reported in the article was a Relative Risk Reduction<\/strong> of 40%, which was calculated by dividing 2.2% by 3.2% (60%). According to the formula for calculating RRR, subtracting the 60% from 100% resulted in a RRR of 40%, which sounded much better for a vaccine whose ARR was 1%. This manipulation appeared to be an attempt to over-state the benefits of the new vaccine.<\/p>\n

Significantly, all the authors of the article \u2013 listed immediately below \u2013 also had serious financial conflicts of interest with the for-profit vaccine industry. Indeed, the three major authors were major shareholders and employees of Protein Sciences.<\/p>\n

Here are the financial conflicts of interest of the article\u2019s authors: \u201cDrs. Dunkle, Izikson, and Cox report being employed by and holding stock in Protein Sciences; Dr. Patriarca, receiving consulting fees from Altimmune, FluGen, Georgia Institute of Technology, Medicago, VaxInnate, Vaxart, Vivaldi Biosciences, Moderna Therapeutics, Novavax, Seqirus, and Visterra; and Dr. Goldenthal, receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.<\/em><\/p>\n

It is interesting to note that Protein Sciences was in the process of being acquired by the multinational Big Vaccine giant Sanofi for $750 million as the NEJM article was being published.<\/p>\n

Merck\u2019s Fosamax Fraud: A Classic Example of Big Pharma\u2019s Deceptive Use of the Relative Risk Reduction statistic <\/strong><\/p>\n

Big Pharma and Big Vaccine corporations, sociopathic entities that they are, always use RRR figures when they want to make a new drug or vaccine sound far more effective than it actually is. One of the most blatant examples of this common subterfuge is Merck\u2019s Fosamax Fraud that I was alerted to many years ago and then finally got around to writing about years later. My latest version of the story is at: http:\/\/vaccineimpact.com\/2018\/mercks-fosamax-fraud-demonstrates-how-big-pharma-and-cdc-spin-statistics-to-sell-ineffective-vaccines-and-drugs\/<\/a><\/p>\n

In that article I revealed how the Relative Risk Reduction statistic allowed Merck to fool everybody \u2013 especially us physicians and our female patients – by falsely claiming that their block-buster \u201costeoporosis prevention\u201d drug Fosamax was \u201c50% effective\u201d in reducing bone fractures.<\/p>\n

That deceptive 50% figure led everybody to believe that half of female patients taking the drug for the rest of their lives would be somehow protected from experiencing bone fractures.<\/p>\n

However, for observant physicians who actually studied the raw data in the FDA applications for marketing approval or the medical journal articles about Fosamax, it was clear that patients who took the drug for at least 4 years could only achieve a miniscule 1-2% of Absolute Risk Reduction in fracture incidence.<\/p>\n

If the more accurate 1-2% AAR figure had been used in the marketing campaigns \u2013 rather than the 50% RRR figure \u2013 Fosamax would have failed as the useless \u2013 and dangerous – product that it was, right along with the closely related bone densitometry industry.<\/p>\n

In reality the 1-2% AAR is actually represents a negative number when the high costs of the drug and the drug\u2019s unadvertised and very serious risks are considered – such as the incurable, disastrous, iatrogenic, Fosamax-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw.<\/p>\n

Just another example of cunning propaganda from a corrupted pharmaceutical corporation.<\/p>\n

**********************************<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

More on the Deception of the Vaccine Efficacy Relative Risk Reduction Statistic<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2018, while the CDC was heavily promoting the mercury-containing flu vaccine for everybody (including pregnant women and babies!!), some flu vaccines were found to be ineffective for many of those patients that received them. This is shown in the Table below.<\/p>\n

Note that the table of Vaccine Efficacy numbers indicate that there was quite small relative risk benefit and minimal absolute risk benefit from flu vaccination programs in 2018. Indeed, some studied treatment groups came close to having negative benefits (meaning that some of the vaccinated groups were sicker than the unvaccinated were), especially when one considers the fact there are inevitable long-term and delayed adverse effects from any vaccine, especially vaccines that contain mercury or aluminum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CDC Vaccine Efficacy chart for Various Age Ranges (ranging from the relatively immuno-incompetence of most infants and the immuno-senescence of most elderly patients)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VE = 49% for 6 months \u2013 8 years of age <\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
VE = 6% for 9 – 17 years of age<\/em><\/p>\n

VE = 25% for 18 \u2013 49 years of age<\/em><\/p>\n

VE = 12% for 50 \u2013 64 years of age<\/em><\/p>\n

VE = 12% for >65 years of age<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Pertinent Quotes About Seasonal Flu Vaccines<\/strong><\/p>\n

(More quotes about \u201cvaccine efficacy\u201d are posted at: http:\/\/duluthreader.com\/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u201cThe CDC falsely claims that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US, but actually, it\u2019s closer to 20. However, we can\u2019t admit that, because if we did, we\u2019d be exposing the medical industry\u2019s<\/em> gigantic psy-op. The whole campaign to scare people into getting annual flu shots has about the same effect as advising people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows.\u201d — <\/em>Jon Rappaport, investigative journalist<\/p>\n

\u201c[According to CDC statistics], \u2018influenza and pneumonia\u2019 took 62,034 lives in 2001 – 61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.\u201d<\/em> \u2013 Dr Peter Doshi, from in his 2005 BMJ report, titled, \u201cAre US flu death figures more PR than science?\u201d<\/em> (BMJ 2005; 331:1412)<\/p>\n

\u201cA study by the world-renowned clinical immunologist Dr H. Hugh Fudenberg found that adults vaccinated yearly for five years in a row with the flu vaccine had a 10-fold increased risk of developing Alzheimer\u2019s disease. He attributed this to the mercury in the vaccine. Interestingly, both mercury and aluminum have been shown to activate microglia and increase excitotoxicity in the brain.\u201d — <\/em>Russell Blaylock, MD<\/p>\n

\u201cWe already know that the aluminum content of brain tissue in late-onset or sporadic Alzheimer\u2019s disease is significantly higher than what is found in age-matched controls. So, individuals who develop Alzheimer\u2019s disease in their late sixties and older also accumulate more aluminum in their brain tissue than individuals of the same age without the disease.<\/em><\/p>\n

Even higher levels of aluminum have been found in the brains of individuals, diagnosed with an early-onset form of sporadic Alzheimer\u2019s disease, who have experienced an unusually high exposure to aluminum through the environment (e.g. Camelford) or through their workplace. This means that Alzheimer\u2019s disease has a much earlier age of onset, for example, fifties or early sixties, in individuals who have been exposed to unusually high levels of aluminum in their everyday lives.\u201d<\/em> \u2013 Christopher Exley, PhD<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cIn the field of chemical toxicology it is universally recognized that combinations of toxins may bring exponential increases of toxicity; ie, a combination of two chemicals may bring a 10-fold increase in toxicity, three chemicals 100-fold increases. This same principle almost certainly applies to the immunosuppressive effects of viral vaccines when administered in combination, as with the MMR vaccine, among which the measles vaccine is <\/em>(known to be) exceptionally immunosuppressive.\u201d \u2013 <\/em>Harold Buttram, MD<\/p>\n

\u201cThe most lucrative areas of medicine are the most corrupted by financial (and academic) conflicts of interest. So-called \u2018authoritative\u2019 sources of medical information are thoroughly corrupted not only by pharmaceutical industry manipulation but also by government officials and financially conflicted academic gatekeepers of medical science, \u2019expert\u2019 panels, medical journal editors and the largely corrupted vaccine information base.\u201d<\/em> \u2013 Vera Sharav, MD<\/p>\n

\u201cFor a long time no one considered the effect of repeated vaccinations on the brain. This was based on a mistaken conclusion that the brain was protected from immune activation by its special protective gateway called the blood-brain barrier. More recent studies have shown that immune cells can enter the brain directly, and more importantly, the brain\u2019s own special immune system can be activated by vaccination.\u201d<\/em> \u2013 Russell Blaylock, MD<\/p>\n

Here are more important quotes that might help people to understand the propaganda power that is regularly exercised by Big Pharma and Big Medicine:<\/p>\n

The Semmelweis Reflex: \u201cThe reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.\u201d<\/em> — https:\/\/www.revolvy.com\/topic\/Semmelweis%20reflex&item_type=topic<\/a><\/p>\n

“It is difficult to get a man to understand<\/em> something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” — <\/em>Upton Sinclair<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we\u2019ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We\u2019re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It\u2019s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we\u2019ve been \u201ctaken\u201d. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.\u201d<\/em> — Carl Sagan<\/a><\/p>\n

__________________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Dr Gary Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA and <\/em>a member of the TRANSCEND Network<\/a><\/em>. In the decade prior to his retirement,\u00a0he practiced what\u00a0could best be described as \u201cholistic (non-drug) and preventive mental health care\u201d. Since his retirement, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American imperialism, friendly fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, and the dangers of Big Pharma, psychiatric drugging, the over-vaccinating of children and other movements that threaten American democracy, civility, health and longevity and the future of the planet. Many of his columns are archived at <\/em>http:\/\/duluthreader.com\/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2<\/a>; http:\/\/www.globalresearch.ca\/author\/gary-g-kohls<\/a>; or at https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/search\/?q=gary+kohls+articles<\/a>; ggkohls@gmail.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

22 Oct 2019 – How Big Pharma, the CDC and Big Medicine Have Deceived Us by the Cunning Use of Statistics<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":88722,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[887,710,734,1102,1447,888],"class_list":["post-145966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members","tag-big-pharma","tag-health","tag-mental-health","tag-public-health","tag-science-and-medicine","tag-vaccines"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145966\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/88722"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}