Evidence to date suggests that the “H1N1 flu is not a major threat,” and there is little evidence that flu vaccines are effective in preventing the flu, so says Tom Jefferson, MD, arguably the world’s leading expert on influenza vaccines.
Dr. Jefferson has authored 10 reviews of research on the influenza vaccine for the Cochrane Collaboration, which is a widely recognized leading international science institution that evaluates clinical research.
Jefferson notes that Australia has just completed its wintertime, and only 131 deaths related to the flu occurred this year. Because Australia’s population is 22 million people, this death rate is not significant. One does not need to predict the future when the future has already happened somewhere else.
Jefferson’s previous detailed analyses of flu vaccines show very little efficacy in providing real health benefits. Jefferson’s team asserted strongly, “There is not enough evidence to decide whether routine vaccination to prevent influenza in healthy adults is effective.”[1] Jefferson’s research confirmed that flu vaccination did reduce slightly the number of adults experiencing confirmed influenza, but there were increased numbers of adults experiencing “influenza-like illness” (its symptoms are similar to the flu, though are presumably causes by other viruses, not the flu viruses). The bottom line is that the number of adults needing to go to the hospital or take time off work did not change between those adults giving the flu vaccine and those who did not.
Although the media commonly promotes the flu vaccine for children, Jefferson and his research group summarized their investigation on this subject by asserting, “National policies for the vaccination of healthy young children are based on very little evidence.”[2] They expressed strongest concern about the lack of efficacy and safety of flu vaccination of infants two years of age and under. They did note that the flu vaccine is effective in reducing the flu in children over two years of age, but they found little evidence that the flu vaccine was even effective in reducing school absences. Further, they found “no convincing evidence that vaccines can reduce mortality, hospital admissions, serious complications and community transmission of influenza.”
The strongest evidence of benefit to the flu vaccine is in the elderly.[3] However, the researchers found that the benefits to the elderly were “modest.” In fact, the number of flu-related deaths in elderly Americans has actually increased steadily during the past 33-year-period despite the fact that there has been a large increase in flu vaccinations for this population. Only 20% of all elderly Americans had a flu shot in 1980, compared with 65% in 2001.
Jefferson expresses some considerable surprise at how few studies have been conducted on the elderly, especially recently. He notes, “Only five randomly controlled trials have been carried out in elderly people, of which only one was carried out in the past 2 decades using vaccines available today.”[4]
Dr. Jefferson’s team noted that the benefits of the flu vaccine for the elderly are “consistently below those usually quoted for (national policy) decision or economic model making.”
What about the H1N1 Vaccination?
Jefferson had some particularly harsh words about the safety and efficacy of this vaccination. The FDA recently announced the approval of four (!) H1N1 vaccines. And Dr. Jefferson has expressed serious alarm about the “evidence” for the safety and efficacy of these vaccines:
1) The study was tiny, only 240 adults. The authors made reassuring statements about Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), which is ridiculous because GBS occurs in one out of 750,000 to 1 million vaccinations, and this study only had 240 participants;
2) One-third of these volunteers had side effects that resembled influenza-like illness (fevers, headaches, sore throats, etc.), so they were vaccinating to prevent symptoms that they were causing;
3) There was no placebo arm in the study, yet there’s no ethical excuse for not having a placebo arm because these are experimental vaccines; and
4) The description of what additive substances were in the vaccine was unclear. We know that there is thimerosal [mercury] in this H1N1 vaccine, but its manufacturer did not say whether there are additional substances like aluminum, which can be found in many other vaccines. We just don’t know. And they are advising this vaccine for pregnant women and children over six months of age!
Is There Really a Pandemic?
Something “fishy” seems to be going on at the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO has declared a “flu pandemic,” in part because they changed their definition of the word “pandemic” in May, 2009.
The earlier version defined pandemic as: “An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness [emphasis in the original document].” The NEW definition of pandemic was changed to: “A disease epidemic occurs when there are more cases of that disease than normal. A pandemic is a worldwide epidemic of a disease. An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.”
Because flu viruses change on a regular basis, the WHO will declare a new “pandemic” when simply one more death than the “normal” is observed. Big Pharma “warn” people about the yearly possible pandemic, pumping more fear into the hearts and minds of the susceptible and gullible public.
When Jefferson was asked about the “flu pandemic,” he responded directly: “this pandemic really is a commercial operation.”
In light of some recent efforts to make the H1N1 vaccination “mandatory,” it seems that Big Pharma’s commercial operations have become so successful that they have successfully lobbied politicians to require health and medical workers to get the H1N1 vaccine. Big Pharma’s efforts have been so successful that they have almost successfully fooled other scientists to think that it is “unethical” to conduct a placebo-controlled trial due to the (incorrect) assumption that flu vaccines are effective.
Even Big Media whose coffers are filled with Big Pharma’s advertising are not immune to this influence. Isn’t it a bit strange that the research of Tom Jefferson and his team have been virtually ignored by Big Media, despite the fact that their research has been published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal), the Lancet, the Cochrane Database, and other high-impact scientific journals. One would hope that the media and government would follow the research rather than the money.
NOTE OF DISCLOSURE: Although many colleagues in the field of homeopathic medicines are critical of vaccination, a greater number have a similar perspective that I do, that is, they (we) believe that each person and each vaccination has to be evaluated individually and in light of long-term community health. In this light, I should not be determined to be either pro-vaccination or anti-vaccination in over-simplistic terms. Further, because the very “father of immunology,” Emil Adolph von Behring, directly pointed to the origins of immunizations to homeopathy, we homeopaths do not have anything fundamentally against this utilization of the underlying principle of homeopathy, the use of small doses of whatever may cause illness in order to catalyze immune response. When von Behring was asked about the origins of immunology, he responded, "(B)y what technical term could we more appropriately speak of this influence than by Hahnemann's word "homeopathy" (Von Behring, 1906).
[1] Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Rivetti D. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD001269. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub3.
[2] Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Harnden A, Di Pietrantonj C, Demicheli V. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004879. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004879.pub3.
[3] Rivetti D, Jefferson T, Thomas RE, Rudin M, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C, Demicheli V. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD004876. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004876.pub2.
[4] Jefferson T. Mistaken identity: seasonal influenza versus influenza-like illness. Clinical Evidence. 2009. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/resources/editors-letter-full.jsp?src=editorsletter_intro#REF3
Other useful reference: Jefferson T. The prevention of seasonal influenza — policy versus evidence. BMJ 2006;333:912–915.
Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com. He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy. Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.
Follow Dana Ullman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HomeopathicDana
Dana Ullman: How Scientific Is Modern Medicine Really?
Some time in the future it will be probably revealed that the increase of vaccines is in direct proportion to the increase in chronic diseases like arthritis and MS.
I would rather have the flu than an injection full of who knows what and a sales job
Your society asks so little of you and yet you say no.
Flu Vaccination: It's the Ethical Thing to Do
www.vaccineswork.blogspot.com
You hit the nail on the head, sheldon, when you say "....those in whom the vaccine was NOT EFFECTIVE". The flu shot comes nowhere near guaranteeing that the people who take it will NOT get the flu. Those people who get the shot and get the flu will expose all those others who did or did not get the shot and are "not in solitary confinement". My opinion, your suggestion that it is morally wrong for anyone to protect themselves against being injected with mercury, aluminum and live viruses is that YOU are morally wrong in asserting that they SHOULD AND MUST expose themselves to these things. Your argument will no doubt be that those lives lost are not worth as much as those lives saved. That too, is wrong.
www.whale.to/vaccines.html
www.whale.to/B/hoax1.html
To see a discussion of the CBS report which shows how cases of swine flu in the US to date have been greatly over-reported see:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/24/CBS-Reveals-that-Swine-Flu-Cases-Seriously-Overestimated.aspx
Meanwhile, the health ministry in China (no relation to the CDC) expects "tens of millions" to contract the H1N1 virus with 4 out of every thousand cases being fatal. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-10/28/content_8858408.htm
The fact is, we Americans are in a state of emergency with the H1N1 and even CBS is urging pregnant women to get vaccinated. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/eveningnews/main5422642.shtml. Of the 100 pregnant women in the U.S. who have been hospitalized with H1N1, 28 have died. This is what CBS, who reported H1N1 is being overestimated, reported. So take all this in, do your own research, consult your physician and make your own informed decision.
www.abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/93778/
www.homeoint.org/site/deepak/prophylaxis.htm
www.hpathy.com/diseases/intermittant-fever-symptoms-treatment-cure.asp
www.similima.com/gen245.html
www.immunisesafely.com/index.htm
Many thanks to Dana Ullman for seeing past a confusing morass of studies, outraged assertions, blatant misrepresentations, easy acquiescences and generally accepted nostrums about flu vaccinations and about the "pandemic" and finally giving us some idea of the truth and reality based on research such as that by Dr. T. Jefferson.
James Pannozzi
2. If you've had GBS in the last 6 weeks, consider waiting.
That's the complete list of safety precautions required by the FDA for CSL, Novartis and Sanofi-Paster injected 2009 H1N1 vaccine. Wow, is that stuff dangerous.Don't believe me. Here they are in detail.
4 CONTRAINDICATIONS
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is contraindicated in individuals with known
hypersensitivity to eggs or chicken protein, neomycin, or polymyxin, or in anyone who has had
a life-threatening reaction to previous influenza vaccination.
5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
5.1 Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
If GBS has occurred within 6 weeks of previous influenza vaccination, the decision to give
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should be based on careful consideration of the
potential benefits and risks.
5.2 Altered Immunocompetence
If Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is administered to immunocompromised
persons, including those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, the immune response may be
diminished.
5.3 Preventing and Managing Allergic Reactions
Appropriate medical treatment and supervision must be available to manage possible
anaphylactic reactions following administration of the vaccine.
5.4 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness
Vaccination with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine may not protect all
individuals.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/swine-flu-h1n1-vaccine-ch_n_320516.html?show_comment_id=32830810#comment_32830810
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm181950.htm
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/26/Flu-Vaccine-Exposed.aspx
Same link as above.
http://www.medicine.emory.edu/id/ecirve/faculty_speaker_slides/Iskander_Influenzavaxsafe_EmoryOct05fin.ppt
If you don't have powerpoint, search for "powerpoint viewer" and install it.
You can scroll down or go directly to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/the-questionable-efficacy_b_311621.html?show_comment_id=32780849#comment_32780849
You also lay out blanket statements about medical journals showing the flu shot's ineffectiveness. Where are the citations?
When I looked, I found the New England Journal of Medicine found a 27% hospitalization decrease and 48% mortality decrease in elderly people receiving flu shots:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1373?linkType=FULL&journalCode=nejm&resid=357/14/1373
The Lancet published this article citing several studies demonstrating the flu shot's effectiveness and safety in pregnant women:
http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/H1N1-flu/vaccination/vaccination-42.pdf
They also published another study that showed that 59% of nurses in the 2005-2006 season received flu shots.
This was all found in ten minutes of internet searching. I did not come across any article in these journals that found the flu shot to be ineffective.
Your arguments lose impact in the absence of facts.
For someone who demands scientific proof from others, you're oddly casual about the fact that the drug company doesn't have studies to prove the efficacy and safety of this vaccine. Your opinion: oh, we just throw in a few new strains and call it quits!
GBS is the only serious side-effect that might be caused by flu vaccine. You have more chance of getting GBS from the flu itself. So get vaccinated. In 1976, there was a vaccine for swine flu but no swine flu. So no benefits, only costs. In 2009, the swine flu is here and there and everywhere.
Of 40 million vaccinated in 1976, there were 500 extra cases of GBS. Most recovered completely, a smaller number had permanent damage and there were an extra 25 (5%) deaths.
For flu vaccine after 1976, the worst case is 1 extra case of GBS per million vaccinated. A review of the best studies concludes there were no additional cases of GBS from flu vaccination. Get vaccinated and you reduce the chances of getting GBS.
And that's it. Great benefits, like not dying with no serious side effects.
Let's say you want to know how the CDC knows the flu vaccine is safe. And you want to see the numbers of adverse vaccine reports. Have I got a presentation for you. If you don't have powerpoint, search for "powerpoint viewer" and install it.
http://www.medicine.emory.edu/id/ecirve/faculty_speaker_slides/Iskander_Influenzavaxsafe_EmoryOct05fin.ppt
Question - if Fauci (just using a recognized authority here) is saying that the best immunity is acquired naturally - contracting the flu, making your own antibodies - why should the general public get the vaccination? I_might_be able to see an argument for at-risk populations, but if you're not at-risk, getting a flu shot doesn't make a lot of sense.
Bias statement - I use homeopathy and work in the field. The argument that double-blind studies = good science is questionable at best. I greatly prefer clinical evidence. It's waaay too easy to hide behind scientific studies. It's the real world that counts.
My name is my name.
antibodies from getting the flu > antibodies from vaccination > no vaccination at all
But getting the flu is painful and potentially fatal. Vaccinations provide a low-risk mechanism to get virus protection that is much greater than not getting vaccinated. I suppose if you're not at risk and don't mind getting laid up with the flu for several days you can survive without a vaccination. But herd immunity is important. If the healthy population is vaccinated against that season's influenza viruses, it lessens the chance of those who are immunocompromised from getting it.
As for clinical evidence, it's often hard to isolate variables. For instance, someone on this thread posted an article that claimed that leptospirosis infections were reduced in Cuba thanks to homeopathic preventative measures. What the article omitted was that there were multiple measures taken to control the infection including conventional vaccination and rat control. The data will be difficult to cull through with so many contributing factors. Double-blind studies are a good way of examining the effect of a single variable. Maybe not perfect for all cases, but still a valuable tool.
If that ain't enough, consider this. The prevalent viruses could mutate and become much more dangerous. But the current vaccine should still be very effective. At which point there' s a huge increase in vaccine demand. Those newly vaccinated will keep staring at the calendar as it takes weeks to build up effective immunity.
"The part of the virus that determines whether or not it's very deadly is a different part of the virus that determines whether or not you're going to be protected by the vaccine. That's good news. Because, it means that the vaccine that we have now, which is very effective, very highly, tightly matched with the virus that's spreading is likely to protect you even if this virus were to become more deadly."
http://www.cdc.gov/media/transcripts/2009/t091006.htm (October 6)
Medicine became useful when it stopped treating people medically as individuals and started treating them statistically. It works.
A full blown multi-center double-blind placebo based random controlled trial of a drug is the gold standard. I took part in one. It never went to market even though it had fewer side effects than another drug for the same condition. Because the other drug was better. Without this drug trial, how would you which to use.
But to argue that therefore it is sensible to demonize pharmaceutics and the pharmaceutical industry in general is, to put it mildly, ill-advised.
I'm not familiar with the empirical evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy and I don't bother to look it up, because of this observation: Homeopathy is around for roughly 150 years longer than, say, antibiotics or other modern medicines. And it failed to deliver in almost all the areas in which it claims to work. It was modern medicine that successfully allowed to cure a broad range of diseases which claimed hundred of millions of souls throughout written history and not homeopathy.
To actually try to convince the public that the classic western medicine is not only useless but unhealthy on a net-basis seems downright evil to me. People die because of this, They buy into the sales pitch and die of ridiculous stuff like sepsis or pneumonia, which usually can be healed easily with antibiotics.
"It seemed that everybody had TB in those days [late 1930s]...[The nursing] students who came from rural areas always tested negative for TB when they started their studies. With equal certainty, they all tested TB-positive after a year on the urban health wards."
"In 1939 Uncle Bernard started a two year residency in medicine...where he met my Aunt Bernice...Bernice limped and was deaf in one ear, the results of a childhood bacterial infection. When she was nine, the bacteria grew in her ear eventually infecting the mastoid bone.... Shortly after they met, Bernard got a nasty pneumococcal infection and, because he was a physician, received state-of-the-art treatment: tender loving care and oxygen.
From the introduction to "The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance"
by Laurie Garrett (1994) ISBN 0-14-025091-3
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
Because so many of the people who are commenting below are the "regulars" who post here on the Huffingtonpost, I hope that readers will become extremely skeptical of these "skeptics" and will learn not to believe or trust their assertions, theories, defenses of "modern" medicine, and attacks on natural medicines.
Finally, I personally urge that people come out of the closet and avoid fake names. Be real. Say who you really are, and don't trust those who don't.
A recipe: Take article. Add new knowledge that 2009 H1N1 is less dangerous to the elderly than seasonal flu and much more deadly to healthy adults and children. Mix and publish. The result: An article that supports public health recommendations as applied to children and healthy adults.
If 2009 H1N1 targeted the same groups as the seasonal flu, the very much minority view of Tom Jefferson and others questioning the value of immunizing the elderly is relevant now. It doesn't. The elderly have some natural immunity to this flu.
2009 H1N1 is much more dangerous to healthy adults and children. Apply that knowledge to these money quotes:
"Unfortunately, the very people who most need protection from the flu also have immune systems that are least likely to respond to vaccine. Studies show that young, healthy people mount a glorious immune response to seasonal flu vaccine, and their response reduces their chances of getting the flu and may lessen the severity of symptoms if they do get it."
"Majumdar, the Ottawa researcher, says he believes that evidence of a benefit among children is established.."
"In Jefferson’s view, this raises a troubling conundrum: Is vaccine necessary for those in whom it is effective, namely the young and healthy? Conversely, is it effective in those for whom it seems to be necessary, namely the old, the very young, and the infirm?"
Assume which you like.
1. Those supporting vaccination here do so as part of their job at Big Pharma, the illuminati, or because they made a pact with the devil.
2. They have no connection with Big Pharma, the Illuminati and haven't yet made a pact with the devil.
It makes no difference to the accuracy and fairness of what we write, so my real name makes no difference.
My style and the most common style of vaccine supporters is to make statements that accurately and pretty fairly report information from supplied links or can otherwise be confirmed. Our reputation isn't based on claimed expertise but on the fairness and accuracy of what we write.
Do we get it wrong sometimes? Yes. But that's not the point. The point is that overall, we're pretty fair and pretty accurate in what we report.
Want to compare fairness and accuracy ? Look at what I've written about Tom Jefferson. I don't dismiss him even though I'd like to. On the other hand, unless I've missed it, this very blog entry leaves out a very, very crucial point that's made clear in The Atlantic:Jefferson's views are very much in the minority. If this isn't an accurate analysis of Mr. Ullman's blog entry, I'll admit my error in this very comment stream.
Who you are doesn't matter. How fair and accurate you are matters.
I do find it interesting that the HuffPo publishes article after article critical of evidence-based medicine yet does not ever post anything about the risks of homeopathy, a "science" that has been overwhelmingly debunked by the scientific community. http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
I'm also tired of the Big Pharma conspiracy argument frequently made against evidence-based medicine. Americans spend over $30 billion per year on alternative medicine. http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nhsr/nhsr018.pdf Homeopaths have everything to gain when evidence-based medicine is criticized.
Anyone wanting to verify these costs can easily check with their local pharmacy or health food store carrying h. remedies.
Yes, there are abuses by the pharmaceutical industry, but at least there is some protective mechanism before putting drugs on the market. The homeopathic industry is not subject to the same scrutiny. While homeopathic treatments are bound by the FDA's safety standards, they are not subject to any efficacy standards. I could dilute salt per the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia and label it safe for cancer sufferers but I don't need to prove its effectiveness in fighting cancer.
Meanwhile, every drug I get is accompanied by a wad of thin paper that lists the ways the drugs are tested, the statistics on its effectiveness plus a list of side effects, etc. Maybe there are cases where data has been manipulated, but at least there is a paper trail where consumers can point and say, "You lied."
All medical therapies, "modern," "alternative," or otherwise, should be screened through double-blind studies to test their statistical effectiveness. We can all name the high-profile cases where drugs have been unethically pushed through the system but hundreds more have been proven safe and effective. So let's reform the system and put all treatments through the same scientific gauntlet and let the data speak for itself.
Take vaccination as an example. If the people involved in the vaccination process are reasonably honest and reasonably ethical, then there's precious other rational grounds for rejecting vaccination.
Because they've produced overwhelming evidence that vaccines in use (with some caveats for flu vaccine in the elderly) are effective and extremely safe.
THE CALVARY HAS ARRIVED.
NVIC Launches Research Fund To Study Health & Vaccination
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/October-2009-(1)/NVIC-Launches-Research-Fund-To-Study-Health-Vacc.aspx
Help the chidren by passing this good news on to everywhere you can.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/08/mass_lawmakers_debate_bill_allowing_quarantines/?comments=all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kka3K4RqcjU
The guy at the end of this video asks a most important question.
((((WHERE IS IT?)))
I did a search & could not find one word about it.
Here's information on the International Swine Flu Conference he's talking about that took place on August 19, 20 & 21st but where is the follow up?
Not one word!
http://www.new-fields.com/ISFC/brochure.pdf
Hating to use Fox news as reference but as they say "even a
broken clock's right twice a day so here's Judge Napolitano on Forced Vaccinations in Massachusetts;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSB2oca7f8
Last but certainly not least, here's a most revealing & eye opening video on this most urgent matter, ever made.
This must see video says it all & should be used often to help educate as many as possible to help save our children & future generations from injury, disease & sometimes, even death:
"Vaccination Nation"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6531447125053615129& hl=en#