The Effect of Vaccines —Oops!

Research: Flu Vaccine Increases Your Risk of Infecting Others by 6X

GMI Reporter, Green Med Info

Waking Times 

A provocative new study on flu virus transmission found that subjects had 6.3 times more aerosol shedding of flu virus particles if they received vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.

Vaccination is predicated on the rarely questioned belief that it confers bona fide immunity against targeted pathogens. This is why the terms vaccination and immunization are often used interchangeably, a disingenious semantic confusion that is rarely confronted or corrected. In the case of flu vaccine, certainty about this approximates religious faith, with the CDC taking on the role of the Church, conventional doctors the clergy, and the published literature Holy Scripture.

 

 

But what if the literature fails to support the orthodoxy? There are in, in fact, hundreds of examples of this. We have gathered a modest 500 studies which show the untintended, adverse effects of many vaccines outweigh their purported benefits, all of which you can view on our open access database on the topic here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/anti-therapeutic-action/vaccination-all

The latest addition to this growing body of literature is found in a newly published article titled, “Infectious Virus Exhaled In Breath Of Symptomatic Seasonal Flu Cases,” published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science).

The study found that flu carriers exhale significant quantities of infectious influenza virus, and that counterintuitively, sneezing is rare and not important for influenza virus aerosolization; nor is coughing required to transmit these particles. Simply breathing will do. Additionally, the study found that males shed influenza viruses in greater quantity than females through fine aerosols, and women cough more frequently. But what is most salient about the study was the following finding:

“6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.”

For more details on the study design read the following:

“We screened 355 symptomatic volunteers with acute respiratory illness and report 142 cases with confirmed influenza infection who provided 218 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) and 30-minute breath samples (coarse >5-µm and fine ≤5-µm fractions) on days 1–3 after symptom onset. We assessed viral RNA copy number for all samples and cultured NP swabs and fine aerosols. 

We recovered infectious virus from 52 (39%) of the fine aerosols and 150 (89%) of the NP swabs with valid cultures. The geometric mean RNA copy numbers were 3.8 × 104/30-minutes fine-, 1.2 × 104/30-minutes coarse-aerosol sample, and 8.2 × 108 per NP swab. Fine- and coarse-aerosol viral RNA were positively associated with body mass index and number of coughs and negatively associated with increasing days since symptom onset in adjusted models.

Fine-aerosol viral RNA was also positively associated with having influenza vaccination for both the current and prior season. NP swab viral RNA was positively associated with upper respiratory symptoms and negatively associated with age but was not significantly associated with fine- or coarse-aerosol viral RNA or their predictors. Sneezing was rare, and sneezing and coughing were not necessary for infectious aerosol generation. Our observations suggest that influenza infection in the upper and lower airways are compartmentalized and independent.”

Clearly, if this finding is accurate and reproducible, flu vaccination may actually make you more likely to infect others. Or worse, it may also make you more likely to contract influenza in the first place. For instance, a 2010 Canadian study which looked at 4 observational studies found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a 1.4 to 2.5 fold increased risk of medically attended H1N1 illness during the spring-summer 2009.  

And this is only the tip of the iceberg. We have been reporting on the conspicuous lack of evidence for flu vaccine effectiveness (and safety) for over a decade, based largely on the underreported failure of the Cochrane Database Review to show them effective (and safe), despite hundreds of industry-funded studies that have attempted to do so. Learn more: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/shocking-lack-evidence-supporting-flu-vacc…

Also, there are well-documented iatrogenic effects of common vaccines like MMR and Rotavirus Vaccines, which include viral shedding and infection following vaccination. In other words, there is a significant body of evidence that the vaccinated actually infect the un- vaccinated.  Here are a few of our previous reports on this phenomena:

Clearly, this undermines the ongoing campaign to identify non-vaccinating or anti-vaccine individuals and groups as a threat, or danger to others.  Ironically, the very group being blamed for infecting others — including by Bill Gates who declared non-vaccinators ‘kill children‘ — may become victims of being infected by vaccine-specific strains of viruses which are far worse than the natural/wild-type versions our species’ immunity has evolved with over countless millenia.

Merck & MMR Vaccine

Merck Accused of Lying about Vaccine Effectiveness

July 10 2012

Story at-a-glance

  • Two virologists have filed a federal lawsuit against Merck, their former employer, alleging the vaccine maker overstated the effectiveness of their mumps vaccine, which may have cost the US government hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decade. They claim they “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings”
  • Chatom Primary Care has also filed a federal antitrust class action lawsuit against Merck, alleging Merck went to great lengths to manipulate test procedures and falsifying results to prop up fraudulent efficacy claims, thereby maintaining its monopoly on the MMR vaccine
  • These two lawsuits couldn’t come at a more precarious time for Merck, as the Italian Health Ministry recently conceded the MMR vaccine caused autism in a now nine-year old boy—albeit this news has been effectively censored in the US
  • A recent review of the varicella (chickenpox) vaccination program in the U.S. concluded that the vaccine has not proven to be cost-effective; increased the incidence of shingles; failed to provide long-term protection from the disease it targets―chicken pox―and; is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in the general population before the vaccine. Vaccine efficacy was found to have declined well below 80 percent by of 2002

By Dr. Mercola

Things aren’t going so well lately in the litigation department for Merck, which stands accused of lying according to not just one, but two class-action lawsuits.

In the first case, two former Merck virologists accuse their former employer of overstating the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in Merck’s combination MMR shot, which may have cost the US government hundreds of millions of dollars over the past decadei.

Merck’s mumps vaccine was originally licensed 45 years ago. Since the 1970s, it’s been part of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which is part of the recommended childhood vaccination schedule. The case, which was initially filed in 2010, was unsealed late last month. As reported by the Courthouse News Serviceii:

“… Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski were Merck virologists who claim in their unsealed complaint that they “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings.”

… As the largest single purchaser of childhood vaccines (accounting for more than 50 percent of all vaccine purchases), the United States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck’s fraud,” according to the 2010 False Claims Act complaint.”

According to Nasdaq.comiii:

“Merck–which stressed that none of these allegations relate to the safety of its product–said the lawsuit is “completely without merit”, and that it plans to “vigorously defend itself.”

It’s quite interesting to note the chosen language in Merck’s rebuttal. It in no way addresses the issue of the vaccine’s effectiveness, which is the core issue of the lawsuit and the allegation by the two former Merck employees that the drug company purposefully used improper testing methods and falsified data to make the mumps vaccine appear highly effective when the opposite was true. Instead, Merck responds by saying that none of the lawsuit’s allegations relate to the safety of its products. Such evasive maneuvering certainly gives the appearance of an admission of guilt.

Second Lawsuit Filed

A mere week after the first case was unsealed, a federal antitrust class action lawsuit was filed by Chatom Primary Care. According to Courthouse News Serviceiv:

“Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is “far less effective” than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of “questionable efficacy,” flooding and monopolizing the market, a primary caregiver claims in a federal antitrust class action.

… Chatom says in its antitrust complaint that Merck falsely claims its mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective. That claim “deterred and excluded competing manufacturers,” who would enter the risky and expensive vaccine market only if they believed they could craft a better product…

Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the FDA to sell the mumps vaccine in United States, and if it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it risked losing its lucrative monopoly… That’s why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming such a high efficacy rate, the complaint states. And, Chatom claims, that’s why Merck went to great lengths, including “manipulating its test procedures and falsifying the test results,” to prop up the bogus figure, though it knew that the attenuated virus from which it created the vaccine had been altered over the years during the manufacturing process, and that the quality of the vaccine had degraded as a result.”

According to these two lawsuits, Merck began a sham testing program in the late 1990’s to hide the declining efficacy of the vaccine. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to “report efficacy of 95 percent or higher regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy.” This program was initially referred to as “Protocol 007,” the Chatom claim states, and instead of testing the vaccine’s efficacy against a wild mumps virus, as is the norm, Merck used its own attenuated strain of the virus—the identical strain with which the children were being vaccinated!

That’s as brilliant as it is devious, and a perfect example of how medical research can be manipulated to achieve desired results. Suzanne Humphries recently wrote an excellent summary for GreenMedInfo.com, explaining in layman’s terms how the tests were manipulated (see Sources). The two virologists bringing the lawsuit against Merck claim they witnessed firsthand this deception and were asked to directly participate in it.

As reported by the Courthouse News Servicev:

“That “subverted” the purpose of the testing regime, “which was to measure the vaccine’s ability to provide protection against a disease-causing mumps virus that a child would actually face in real life. The end result of this deviation … was that Merck’s test overstated the vaccine’s effectiveness,” Chatom claims.

Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that “did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life … virus neutralization in vaccinated people,” according to the complaint.

Chatom claims that the falsification of test results occurred “with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck’s senior management.”

Health versus Profits

Considering the extent of the allegations here, it is really shocking that the conventional media has not picked up on this story. About the only major media source reporting on it was Forbes Magazinevi

to read more and see the video, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/10/merck-lying-about-vaccine-effectiveness.aspx?e_cid=20120710_DNL_artNew_1