I had noticed that those taking the flu jab almost immediately had....flu. As you know, I spent my life as a Headteacher surrounded by hundreds of children. I never took the flu jab despite repeated invites and only once had flu. We have an immune system--fighting infection is what it has done for ever and is what it is for. I strongly object to babies being forced to have a flu jab and to young parents being coerced to have their child jabbed.
I never took one. In the Netherlands we get a flu jab invite from 60 years onward. I figured I should be able to survive a flu. If not, its apparently time to meet the grim reaper. Already realised that these viruses mutate rapidly, so its a Russian roulette anyway. Did do a bit of research, and apparently in the past it was possible (even in MSM) to express doubts about certain medical interventions. Found an article from 2014 that basically said no evidence of efficacy of flu jabs was ever found.
Which leaves the possible adverse effects, and makes the scale tip towards a no.
Yes. I'd love to see you plot last seasons flu jabs administered with excess deaths/respiratory for Scotland. A clear massive spike in hospitlisations/deaths etc 10 weeks post flu jab rollout which followed peak population uptake. But this just means it's working ? Another fact is the more jabs administered in Scotland the lower life expectancy became.
There is something called regression discontinuity design (RDD). These are where you look at people just before and just after a cutoff where an intervention is or is not applied. This seems timely as I just saw this study yesterday of people in the UK:
If flu vaccine is kicked up when people pass 65, then you can look just before and just after this age. This approach found no benefit. In fact, reading the paper and the replies to the paper actually suggest a signal of harm. Perhaps you could look at the death rates of just the 60 to 70 age group and see if there is a disconnect that happens at 65. BTW, sci-hub has full texts of like 90% of papers if you aren't yet using it:
In a co-authored article published in January this year, Anthony Fauci admits: "As of 2022, after more than 60 years of experience with influenza vaccines, very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection has been noted. As pointed out decades ago, and still true today, the rates of effectiveness of our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases." https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/pdf/S1931-3128(22)00572-8.pdf
So how are these flu vaccine products still being approved today?!?!
It's mind-boggling how people have been exploited for years with rubbish flu vaccine products - how much has this racket cost taxpayers I wonder? How much damage to health is being done with these repeated medical interventions that are of little or no benefit re flu?
It seems to me this is out and out fraud...
Consider for instance flu vaccination for children…a medical intervention which is administered to them to purportedly protect the elderly.
This was admitted during a Lords committee meeting in the UK in June 2020, by Peter Openshaw from Imperial College London (also home of the notorious 'modeller' Neil Ferguson).
Peter Openshaw was present at the meeting as one of the members of the UK's Sage scientific advisory group Nervtag, advising on the Covid-19 response. According to a report in the Guardian, Openshaw was advising the Lords committee that "A vaccine against Covid-19 may not work well in older people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill and dying from the disease...which may mean immunising others around them, such as children."
Openshaw said: "Sometimes it is possible to protect a vulnerable group by targeting another group and this, for example, is being done with influenza. In the past few years the UK has been at the forefront of rolling out the live attenuated vaccine for children."
According to the Guardian, Openshaw said "giving the nasal spray flu vaccine to children who do not often get severe flu protects their grandparents". Openshaw was using this example to justify giving Covid-19 vaccine products to children and health and care workers, to "also help protect older people who have the most contact with them".
What do people think about this? About children and others such as health and care workers being given flu and covid vaccines to protect the elderly? That is, adults and children who aren't at serious risk of either flu or 'Covid' being pressed to sacrifice their own naturally effective immune response, and being vaccinated, repeatedly, to purportedly protect elderly people - is this ethical?
I was so shocked after reading the article in the Guardian, I raised this matter in August 2020, in a BMJ (aka The British Medical Journal) rapid response, please see:
Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly?
In his rapid response, Dr Anand says "Are drugs, including vaccines and blood products, monitored conscientiously by the good doctors? I believe not."[1]
I also have my doubts in regards to doctors conscientiously monitoring the growing number of vaccine products being pressed upon the community.
There are many vaccine products on the burgeoning vaccination schedule for children, including annual flu vaccination, and now fast-tracked coronavirus vaccination is looming.
Do any doctors wonder about the extraordinary number of vaccinations and revaccinations given to children nowadays? We have no idea of the long-term cumulative effects of this ever-increasing vaccine load.
I was astonished recently to read in The Guardian that children in the UK are given the nasal spray flu vaccine to protect their grandparents, even though children do not often get severe flu.[2]
This was acknowledged by Professor Peter Openshaw, from Imperial College London, one of the members of the UK's Sage scientific advisory sub-group Nervtag, during a House of Lords science and technology committee meeting in June to discuss COVID-19 vaccine development.
And now there are plans afoot to vaccinate children against SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 to protect the elderly.
According to The Guardian article "A vaccine against Covid-19 may not work well in older people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill and dying from the disease..." and this "may mean immunising others around them, such as children".
It's been reported that most paediatric cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection are mild and severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare. (See comment published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health[3])
How can it be ethical to vaccinate mass populations of children against SARS-CoV-2 to protect the elderly if most SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are mild, and severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare?
How can it be ethical to vaccinate mass populations of children against flu if children do not often get severe flu?
Vaccinations are medical interventions which have risks. It seems to me unethical to vaccinate someone against a disease which is not a significant threat to them to protect others, e.g. the elderly. This is a particularly serious matter to consider in countries which have coercive vaccination policies, e.g. Australia and the United States.
And now Reuters reports "AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine hopeful by most of the countries with which it has struck supply agreements..."
According to Reuters, Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra's senior executive team, said "This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in...four years the vaccine is showing side effects".[4]
So AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability, and children around the world will be left with the risk of side effects in order to supposedly protect the elderly.
In my opinion this is not ethical.
What do doctors think about this, about vaccinating children with flu vaccines and future coronavirus vaccines to supposedly protect the elderly?
This is not to negate the risks of flu and SARS-CoV-2 for the elderly, but efforts should be concentrated on finding medications to help them directly, children’s right to their own natural defences should not be sacrificed in this regard.
Can Fiona Godlee and Rapid Recommendations editors please urgently consider this matter?
References:
1. on Fiona Godlee. We can change practice - can we also change culture? BMJ 2019;364:l108
2. Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at risk older people, say scientists. The Guardian, 24 June 2020.
4. AstraZeneca to be exempted from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries. Reuters, 30 July 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
05 August 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Adelaide, Australia
Again, what do others think - is it ethical to vaccinate people who aren't at serious risk of disease to purportedly protect another group - e.g. vaccinating children to purportedly protect the elderly against flu or covid?
I often thought the 'flu' deaths during winter could be linked to the useless snakeoils.
I only ever took one , in the winter of 1999, and have never been so ill in my life. It went on for 3 weeks, yet when I'd previously had flu, I shook it off inside 3-4 days. I thought at the time what is the point?
Since then I have found NOT ONE study exist for ANY of the snakeoils involving a control group.
The greatest sin I committed against my 2 children , in the early 90s, was getting them jabbed through ignorance and following the mantra.
The pro vax lobby, and I include GPs, are the thickest people on planet earth on the subject of vaccination. They are utterly useless.
Virology is junk science with less credence than the tooth fairy , and the germ theory is total bullshit.
I am 80 and could go a few rounds with the average non-pro fighter, never get sick, and never get jabbed. Why?because my own research showed: unvaccinated kids are the healthiest, only jabbed kids develop autism, and I twice sat public health exams in the1960s that showed civil engineering in the form of sewerage schemes, drinking water resevoirs, slum removal, improved nutrition, refrigeration, public health education, hygiene, penicillin and antibiotics are what reduced disease, NOT VACCINES. In fact, historic data show no correlation with vaccines. Big pharma and the medical mafia simply lie to us.
Moreover, the flu jab is contaminmated and will set you up for dementia and vulnerability to new infections. I say all this as a health product consumer who researches what goes into my body. If I sound incompetent, by all means ignore me becasuse I have no medical qualifications. Nor would I waste my time studying drug pushing and treating cancers with slow death.
"The truth about “thoroughly tested” traditional vaccines, can be found in the Package Inserts on the FDA website."
The Depopulation Industrial Complex: FDA Licensed Vaccines Are Not Evaluated for Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility. The truth is hidden in plain sight on the FDA website
I have never had a flu jab and I’m 68. Because of the medical system where I live and my choice of doctor I have never been offered one here. Ironically the only time I was offered one was at a branch of Boots at St. Pancras Station which I thought odd! My sister once took one at work. She said she spent the whole winter feeling snuffly and on the brink of getting something. She’s not taken one since. Neither of us has had flu for donkeys years. In fact it’s been 38 years since I had any vaccine - a record I do not intend to break.
Purely anecdotal, but I have a funeral director friend who looks forward gleefully to the flu vaccine season. He is adamant that it's great for business!
A vaccine is a vaccine when it prevents disease. No vaccine is 100% as it depends on the state of an individual’s immune system, but mostly we can say ones that work are 99% effective. So when we see CoV-2 still circulating extensively, and influenza circulating extensively (seasonal), despite in the former case 85% approx vaccination, with repeat dosing twice a year, and large numbers ‘flu jabbed every year going back decades, do we really need ‘studies’, ‘research’ or university degrees to conclude neither of these jabs are effective in preventing disease? The ‘got it less seriously’ cover story doesn’t wash either, but nice try.
It's always and forever about the money! The pharma companies invent new "medicines" to "cure" or "prevent" illnesses which are generally not particularly lethal. The medical authorities are clearly easy push-overs for the sales patter. The general public are taught to be terrified of getting ill. This starts young - parents are told they must innoculate their children and then must give them medications for every sniffle. Older people are terrified of getting ill and dying - everybody is terrified of dying! It has also become the fashion to think humans should be always happy, always healthy, always physically fit and the only way to achieve this utopian state is through medication. I reckon most people die not from their illness or from their age but at the hands of their "caring and compassionate" doctor. How many people are not on some sort of daily medication? Most people take blood pressure tablets or statins or anti depressants and will get hysterically self-righteous if questioned as to why. Even my elderly dog is on pills to stop her having strokes (pointlessly as she has had 2 minor ones anyway). It's all about the money!
I don't think the first interpretation of this finding should be to blame influenza vaccines.
In the first instance, the timing of the rise does coincide with a period of immigration and it was not just working aged people coming to this country. If you have a cohort of those born here and that gets added to then the model will stop working. It will stop working at the same time for all ages.
You really need death by place of birth data - which is recorded.
I am trying to convince my aunt who is super healthy and active, to not get the flu vaccine. She mentioned the covid too which surprised me. Ugh....so dangerous.
I had noticed that those taking the flu jab almost immediately had....flu. As you know, I spent my life as a Headteacher surrounded by hundreds of children. I never took the flu jab despite repeated invites and only once had flu. We have an immune system--fighting infection is what it has done for ever and is what it is for. I strongly object to babies being forced to have a flu jab and to young parents being coerced to have their child jabbed.
I never took one. In the Netherlands we get a flu jab invite from 60 years onward. I figured I should be able to survive a flu. If not, its apparently time to meet the grim reaper. Already realised that these viruses mutate rapidly, so its a Russian roulette anyway. Did do a bit of research, and apparently in the past it was possible (even in MSM) to express doubts about certain medical interventions. Found an article from 2014 that basically said no evidence of efficacy of flu jabs was ever found.
Which leaves the possible adverse effects, and makes the scale tip towards a no.
I am afraid its another money making scheme.
Yes. I'd love to see you plot last seasons flu jabs administered with excess deaths/respiratory for Scotland. A clear massive spike in hospitlisations/deaths etc 10 weeks post flu jab rollout which followed peak population uptake. But this just means it's working ? Another fact is the more jabs administered in Scotland the lower life expectancy became.
This is a good resource- https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/flu-vaccine/
''THERE IS A 65% INCREASED RISK OF NON-FLU RESPIRATORY ILLNESS IN POPULATIONS THAT GET THE FLU VACCINE.''
There is something called regression discontinuity design (RDD). These are where you look at people just before and just after a cutoff where an intervention is or is not applied. This seems timely as I just saw this study yesterday of people in the UK:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32120383/
If flu vaccine is kicked up when people pass 65, then you can look just before and just after this age. This approach found no benefit. In fact, reading the paper and the replies to the paper actually suggest a signal of harm. Perhaps you could look at the death rates of just the 60 to 70 age group and see if there is a disconnect that happens at 65. BTW, sci-hub has full texts of like 90% of papers if you aren't yet using it:
https://sci-hub.se/10.7326/M19-3075
Just append the DOI to the url
In a co-authored article published in January this year, Anthony Fauci admits: "As of 2022, after more than 60 years of experience with influenza vaccines, very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection has been noted. As pointed out decades ago, and still true today, the rates of effectiveness of our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases." https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/pdf/S1931-3128(22)00572-8.pdf
So how are these flu vaccine products still being approved today?!?!
It's mind-boggling how people have been exploited for years with rubbish flu vaccine products - how much has this racket cost taxpayers I wonder? How much damage to health is being done with these repeated medical interventions that are of little or no benefit re flu?
It seems to me this is out and out fraud...
Consider for instance flu vaccination for children…a medical intervention which is administered to them to purportedly protect the elderly.
This was admitted during a Lords committee meeting in the UK in June 2020, by Peter Openshaw from Imperial College London (also home of the notorious 'modeller' Neil Ferguson).
Peter Openshaw was present at the meeting as one of the members of the UK's Sage scientific advisory group Nervtag, advising on the Covid-19 response. According to a report in the Guardian, Openshaw was advising the Lords committee that "A vaccine against Covid-19 may not work well in older people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill and dying from the disease...which may mean immunising others around them, such as children."
Openshaw said: "Sometimes it is possible to protect a vulnerable group by targeting another group and this, for example, is being done with influenza. In the past few years the UK has been at the forefront of rolling out the live attenuated vaccine for children."
According to the Guardian, Openshaw said "giving the nasal spray flu vaccine to children who do not often get severe flu protects their grandparents". Openshaw was using this example to justify giving Covid-19 vaccine products to children and health and care workers, to "also help protect older people who have the most contact with them".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/23/covid-19-vaccine-may-not-work-for-at-risk-older-people-say-scientists
What do people think about this? About children and others such as health and care workers being given flu and covid vaccines to protect the elderly? That is, adults and children who aren't at serious risk of either flu or 'Covid' being pressed to sacrifice their own naturally effective immune response, and being vaccinated, repeatedly, to purportedly protect elderly people - is this ethical?
I was so shocked after reading the article in the Guardian, I raised this matter in August 2020, in a BMJ (aka The British Medical Journal) rapid response, please see:
Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly?
https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l108/rr-4
Dear Editor
In his rapid response, Dr Anand says "Are drugs, including vaccines and blood products, monitored conscientiously by the good doctors? I believe not."[1]
I also have my doubts in regards to doctors conscientiously monitoring the growing number of vaccine products being pressed upon the community.
There are many vaccine products on the burgeoning vaccination schedule for children, including annual flu vaccination, and now fast-tracked coronavirus vaccination is looming.
Do any doctors wonder about the extraordinary number of vaccinations and revaccinations given to children nowadays? We have no idea of the long-term cumulative effects of this ever-increasing vaccine load.
I was astonished recently to read in The Guardian that children in the UK are given the nasal spray flu vaccine to protect their grandparents, even though children do not often get severe flu.[2]
This was acknowledged by Professor Peter Openshaw, from Imperial College London, one of the members of the UK's Sage scientific advisory sub-group Nervtag, during a House of Lords science and technology committee meeting in June to discuss COVID-19 vaccine development.
And now there are plans afoot to vaccinate children against SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 to protect the elderly.
According to The Guardian article "A vaccine against Covid-19 may not work well in older people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill and dying from the disease..." and this "may mean immunising others around them, such as children".
It's been reported that most paediatric cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection are mild and severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare. (See comment published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health[3])
How can it be ethical to vaccinate mass populations of children against SARS-CoV-2 to protect the elderly if most SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are mild, and severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare?
How can it be ethical to vaccinate mass populations of children against flu if children do not often get severe flu?
Vaccinations are medical interventions which have risks. It seems to me unethical to vaccinate someone against a disease which is not a significant threat to them to protect others, e.g. the elderly. This is a particularly serious matter to consider in countries which have coercive vaccination policies, e.g. Australia and the United States.
And now Reuters reports "AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine hopeful by most of the countries with which it has struck supply agreements..."
According to Reuters, Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra's senior executive team, said "This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in...four years the vaccine is showing side effects".[4]
So AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability, and children around the world will be left with the risk of side effects in order to supposedly protect the elderly.
In my opinion this is not ethical.
What do doctors think about this, about vaccinating children with flu vaccines and future coronavirus vaccines to supposedly protect the elderly?
This is not to negate the risks of flu and SARS-CoV-2 for the elderly, but efforts should be concentrated on finding medications to help them directly, children’s right to their own natural defences should not be sacrificed in this regard.
Can Fiona Godlee and Rapid Recommendations editors please urgently consider this matter?
References:
1. on Fiona Godlee. We can change practice - can we also change culture? BMJ 2019;364:l108
2. Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at risk older people, say scientists. The Guardian, 24 June 2020.
3. The immune system of children: the key to understanding SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30135-8/fulltext )
4. AstraZeneca to be exempted from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries. Reuters, 30 July 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
05 August 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Adelaide, Australia
Again, what do others think - is it ethical to vaccinate people who aren't at serious risk of disease to purportedly protect another group - e.g. vaccinating children to purportedly protect the elderly against flu or covid?
I often thought the 'flu' deaths during winter could be linked to the useless snakeoils.
I only ever took one , in the winter of 1999, and have never been so ill in my life. It went on for 3 weeks, yet when I'd previously had flu, I shook it off inside 3-4 days. I thought at the time what is the point?
Since then I have found NOT ONE study exist for ANY of the snakeoils involving a control group.
The greatest sin I committed against my 2 children , in the early 90s, was getting them jabbed through ignorance and following the mantra.
The pro vax lobby, and I include GPs, are the thickest people on planet earth on the subject of vaccination. They are utterly useless.
Virology is junk science with less credence than the tooth fairy , and the germ theory is total bullshit.
I am 80 and could go a few rounds with the average non-pro fighter, never get sick, and never get jabbed. Why?because my own research showed: unvaccinated kids are the healthiest, only jabbed kids develop autism, and I twice sat public health exams in the1960s that showed civil engineering in the form of sewerage schemes, drinking water resevoirs, slum removal, improved nutrition, refrigeration, public health education, hygiene, penicillin and antibiotics are what reduced disease, NOT VACCINES. In fact, historic data show no correlation with vaccines. Big pharma and the medical mafia simply lie to us.
Moreover, the flu jab is contaminmated and will set you up for dementia and vulnerability to new infections. I say all this as a health product consumer who researches what goes into my body. If I sound incompetent, by all means ignore me becasuse I have no medical qualifications. Nor would I waste my time studying drug pushing and treating cancers with slow death.
My Dad died of a heart attack shortly after his flu jab which he was given despite having a cold. I've always thought it was responsible.
"The truth about “thoroughly tested” traditional vaccines, can be found in the Package Inserts on the FDA website."
The Depopulation Industrial Complex: FDA Licensed Vaccines Are Not Evaluated for Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility. The truth is hidden in plain sight on the FDA website
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/the-depopulation-industrial-complex
If I'd read this 4 years ago I would have been outraged, now I'm like "oh".
I have never had a flu jab and I’m 68. Because of the medical system where I live and my choice of doctor I have never been offered one here. Ironically the only time I was offered one was at a branch of Boots at St. Pancras Station which I thought odd! My sister once took one at work. She said she spent the whole winter feeling snuffly and on the brink of getting something. She’s not taken one since. Neither of us has had flu for donkeys years. In fact it’s been 38 years since I had any vaccine - a record I do not intend to break.
Purely anecdotal, but I have a funeral director friend who looks forward gleefully to the flu vaccine season. He is adamant that it's great for business!
A vaccine is a vaccine when it prevents disease. No vaccine is 100% as it depends on the state of an individual’s immune system, but mostly we can say ones that work are 99% effective. So when we see CoV-2 still circulating extensively, and influenza circulating extensively (seasonal), despite in the former case 85% approx vaccination, with repeat dosing twice a year, and large numbers ‘flu jabbed every year going back decades, do we really need ‘studies’, ‘research’ or university degrees to conclude neither of these jabs are effective in preventing disease? The ‘got it less seriously’ cover story doesn’t wash either, but nice try.
It's always and forever about the money! The pharma companies invent new "medicines" to "cure" or "prevent" illnesses which are generally not particularly lethal. The medical authorities are clearly easy push-overs for the sales patter. The general public are taught to be terrified of getting ill. This starts young - parents are told they must innoculate their children and then must give them medications for every sniffle. Older people are terrified of getting ill and dying - everybody is terrified of dying! It has also become the fashion to think humans should be always happy, always healthy, always physically fit and the only way to achieve this utopian state is through medication. I reckon most people die not from their illness or from their age but at the hands of their "caring and compassionate" doctor. How many people are not on some sort of daily medication? Most people take blood pressure tablets or statins or anti depressants and will get hysterically self-righteous if questioned as to why. Even my elderly dog is on pills to stop her having strokes (pointlessly as she has had 2 minor ones anyway). It's all about the money!
I don't think the first interpretation of this finding should be to blame influenza vaccines.
In the first instance, the timing of the rise does coincide with a period of immigration and it was not just working aged people coming to this country. If you have a cohort of those born here and that gets added to then the model will stop working. It will stop working at the same time for all ages.
You really need death by place of birth data - which is recorded.
I am trying to convince my aunt who is super healthy and active, to not get the flu vaccine. She mentioned the covid too which surprised me. Ugh....so dangerous.