Biostatisticians: The Biggest Shills
in the Promotion of Pandemics And Vaccinations
Behind the scenes, hiding under their credentials and publications,
biostatisticians have been a driving force behind the promotion
of pandemic speculation and mass vaccination campaigns. Most of
what they term "statistically significant studies" are
little more than a great imagination based on junk science.
The vaccine industry has always known that governments and public
health would never be convinced of the effectiveness of vaccinations
without some statistical evidence from academia. Without some
proof on how vaccines and antivirals could benefit a population,
how could they ever be marketed on a global scale? They couldn't!
That's where the biostatisticians come in. Under the guise of
disease prevention and pandemic preparedness, these so-called
"experts" have carefully concocted a wide range of simulated
statistical analyses in a systematic effort to promote global
pandemic models and their counter measure -- mass vaccination
and antiviral programs.
It's kind of like the old salted pretzel lure at your local bar.
The bar owner entices a hungry customer with free salted pretzels.
The customer eats the pretzels and becomes thirsty, which then
encourages the purchase of even more beverages. Create the problem,
which then causes a customer reaction and offer a solution (conveniently
catered by the creator of the problem). The technique is a well-known
method used to psychologically control populations.
The entire pandemic and mass vaccination campaigns are no different.
The creators of the problem are the vaccine industry and their
masters. They pay off biostatisticians to help promote and project
theoretical models of the problem. They then market the model
as substantiated to national health agencies and governments,
who of course are supposed to protect their populations. Once
the problem is repeated enough and lacks opposition, they conveniently
present the effectiveness of antiviral and mass vaccination simulations
which were co-created with the original pandemic models. All that
is left is to release an engineered virus to execute the final
phase of the operation -- the pandemic. Similar types of models
have been used throughout history to orchestrate
pandemic flu campaigns.
Two Biostatisticians: The Primary Movers
Two primary movers in the field of biostatistics are M. Elizabeth
Halloran and Ira Longini from the Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Together, the pair has
been collaborating for over a decade on a copious array of pandemic
and vaccination scenarios.
Both Longini's and Halloran's work have been featured in everything
from medical and epidemiological journals, university reports,
government grant studies, and plenty of mainstream publications.
All of the publications we've reviewed (we're talking 100%), are
based on theoretical models and speculative projections which
are so far beyond any type of reality, that they might as well
have been published by Stephen King.
They are all predictably templated with run-of-the-mill conclusions
promoting mass vaccinations, antivirals or quarantine of populations
under pandemic scenarios that they design.
Scientific modelling is the process of generating conceptual,
graphical and/or mathematical models. It is an essential and inseparable
part of all scientific activity, and many scientific disciplines
have their own ideas about specific types of modelling. However,
all types of scientific modelling attempt to incorporate some
measure of consistent objects or processes that are represented
in some type of logical format. The aim of these attempts is to
construct a formal system for which reality is the only interpretation.
The primary basis of the Longini-Halloran format defies any type
of logic. There are no typical consistency objects in their studies
at all. Everything is a wildcard variable that is randomly inputted
into each equation. Their methods not only defeat the purpose
of generating a scientific model, but also any logic in evaluating
Their studies are formed around expressing their opinions on models
which have never been practically applied to any infectious disease
or pandemic. They also consistently refer to other pseudoscientific
models which have no historical foundation, are extremely abstract
or very poorly studied with the lowest scientific rationale imaginable.
Call it conjecture, speculation, or the expression of opinions
without any supporting evidence -- that sums up the work of Longini
In 2004, the American Journal of Epidemiology published their
Pandemic Influenza with Antiviral Agents." You can
often measure the credibility of scientific study just by analyzing
its aim or purpose. If there are many inaccuracies in the abstract,
there are often questionable areas everywhere else.
The paper explores what they call "effective strategies"
for the use of influenza antiviral agents for a first wave of
pandemic influenza or for a bioterrorist attack of a novel strain
of influenza. The authors use stochastic epidemic simulations
to investigate the effectiveness of targeted antiviral prophylaxis
to contain influenza. They attempt to compare the effectiveness
of such a strategy with that of vaccination. To quantify these
effects, they follow previous work on vaccine efficacy and effectiveness.
They use the same format in other studies such as Containing
Pandemic Influenza at the Source published in Science July
2005 which parrots all the same false credentials as the 2004 study
Sure, their rhetoric sounds very academic and convincing, but
what are they really exploring? They're using random assumptions
on epidemics to investigate antiviral and vaccine effectiveness
based on previous studies (which are themselves unscientific).
In a nutshell, a theoretical approach which will either conclusively
or inconclusively determine more theory.
There are never any facts involved. Actually, any outcome and
determinations are completely based on underlying formats which
only appear and claim to be scientific, when they are precisely
On further examination of the previous studies they use to establish
antiviral and vaccine efficacy, they are all based on junk science.
Not one study is based on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
measures with even a hint of long-term conclusive evidence. In
other words, they have no scientifically derived or reliable data
to compare against or model this study (of which they are claiming
Moreover, a dozen of their cited references which they use to
justify this study are based on other publications from either
Longini, Halloran or both. Most of these references are also based
on the same type of shady scientific principles and unreliable
data. If an author pursues a grant-based study with just over
forty references, is it academically responsible to use a quarter
of the author's own publications to support the new study? Either
they've cornered the market, or the results will be inevitably
biased, or perhaps both.
The authors use fancy charts and bar graphs to graphically interpret
their meaningless data. They insert this data into statistical
equations which sum up to meaningless results. Then they conclude
the unsubstantiated data and announce that "antiviral agents
would be an important intervention tool for pandemic or bioterrorist
influenza" and "mass vaccination of 80 percent of the
children could be 93 percent effective in containing pandemic
influenza and 65 percent effective in preventing a pandemic."
Their methods are simply ludicrous and at the very least scientific
fraud. This study is the equivalent of exploring the distance
from our square-shaped, pea-sized moon to our triangular-shaped
helium-dense earth and then trying to statistically formulate
and determine the distance between them. Such a study would be
redundant because its foundation and purpose are already based
on flawed assumptions and data which should, by default make any
scientific results inconclusive. In this example, the variable
and topic of study becomes focused on the distance rather than
questioning other misrepresented variables being the size, shape
and composition of the earth and moon. Don't discuss the sweeping
assumptions, just focus on the purpose right? This is the Longini
and Halloran template and it is rampant throughout their work.
Another example is an article published in the Early Edition
of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United
States of America on Modeling
Flu Pandemics May Help Prevent Them which focused on using
antivirals and quarantine interventions in order to prevent an influenza
pandemic. Again, they rely on unproven pharmaceutical intervention
strategies such as antivirals to make their case.
The same repetitive and redundant conclusions are always observed,
consistently touting the effectiveness of antivirals and vaccines,
all based on the false premise that has justified the use of these
pharmaceutical applications for decades. They claim to use preventive
measures when all they ever address are symptoms of the disease
rather than applying fundamental preventive strategies such as fortifying
the immune system.
They maintain they use "sophisticated mathematical and statistical
models", but all they apply them to are these random assumptions
on epidemics which investigate nothing but non-preventive strategies.
What sense does that make?
In another hypothetical scenario in Science magazine in 2005, Preparing
for the worst-case scenario, Halloran and Longini consider
an outbreak in rural Southeast Asia. They again apply fictional
data, censuses and use other sources to estimate a variety of factors.
They use these factors to calculate different values for the outbreak
strain's ease of transmission, which they then plot across several
possible courses of the pandemic.
They also added flu-fighting countermeasures to the model, including
the distribution of antiviral drugs such as oseltamivir (Tamiflu)
and the use of a partially effective vaccine. They assumed that
it would take at least a week from onset of the first human illness
for health officials to recognize the outbreak and respond.
"A mobile stockpile of Tamiflu that could be moved anywhere
on the planet rapidly is the way to go," Longini said. On
the basis of their study's results, they concluded that "the
current WHO stockpile of 120,000 courses could possibly be sufficient
to contain a pandemic if the stockpile were deployed at the source
of the emerging strain within two to three weeks of detection."
Let's take a look a closer look at the wording. From this study,
Longini and Halloran based their conclusions on a hypothetical
scenario to plot possible pandemic courses, with assumptions
on the response time of officials to how countermeasure modelling
of Tamiflu (an unproven antiviral in pandemics) and partially
effective vaccines (a misnomer) could possibly be sufficient
to contain the illness.
Is it clear yet how the conclusions of these studies are being
fictitiously manufactured? Science like this could also prove
our oceans don't contain fish and our skies are filled with them.
They defy any sense of logic by using an endless order of irrational
and erroneous assumptions. It is junk science or quackery in its
most definitive form. A question can never be answered correctly
if the question itself contains errors.
Logini-Halloran Pseudoscience: Real-Life Applications
Studies for Vaccinating Schoolchildren Against Influenza, Science
3 Feb. 2006, Halloran and Longini laid out the design for
a nationwide study in which government, industry, and academia
would work together. "Academia," which doubtless translates
to Halloran, Longini and colleagues, would "provide expertise
in innovative design and central coordination of the study."
It would be controlled and single blind. Census data would be
used to select community units for vaccination, and to match those
units with other units which would act as controls.
Their design required that the study be continued for two more
years if the season proved to be mild. This current swine flu
season has certainly proven to be mild. Halloran and Longini will
now be looking for more effective modelling measurements to ensure
that everyone they want vaccinated will be vaccinated.
Recent deployment of H1N1 vaccine distribution to delivery sites
has appeared to the public, medical personnel, and state officials
to be "haphazard" since the first deliveries in October.
The Halloran-Longini study was designed to withhold vaccines from
adults and children in the control units. Delivering vaccines
only to community units where people would be vaccinated and not
to community units being used as controls would look haphazard
to anyone who was not aware of the plan. State officials recently
have been attempting to gain more even distribution.
Earlier this year, U.S. government officials may have actually
played out "a real life" Halloran and Longini simulation,
Case For Giving Children Flu Shots. Appearing in the journal
the study describes a different mathematical model for analyzing
disease dynamics and costs. Longini had stated on their model:
"We insert infected people into the subpopulation, and we
let it run its course."
In February, a four-year-old boy in La Gloria Mexico suffered
the initial case of swine flu. Neighbors of his family immediately
began to fall ill. U.S. government officials finally announced
in March that several people had died in Mexico from swine flu.
The Mexico-US border was still kept open, but they had border
guards turn back people coming across the border who appeared
to be ill from influenza. Persons infected with swine flu can
remain contagious after their visible symptoms end. Infected people
who did not look ill would enter the United States from Mexico
on foot, by air, by auto, and probably by ship. To protect their
own citizens against swine flu infections from the United States,
Mexico closed the border when the United States would not.
Who's Really Behind The Pseudoscience?
What if we excuse all of the gross inaccuracies and miscalculations
littered in Longini's and Halloran's work and focus on the crux
of the matter? What is really behind all of their scientific misinterpretations?
Suspiciously, Longini and Halloran do not provide disclosures
of any financial relationships in their publications or presentations
with big pharma or any of their subsidiaries. We have not found
them listed in any disclosure indexes.
On further investigation, we realized that the majority of their
funding sources come from the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (NIAID) who have notorious ties to pharmaceutical
Actually, the leading promoter of getting vaccinated for the pandemic
H1N1 flu is Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute
for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who himself
has admitted knowing nothing about how human immunity responds
Dr. Leonard Horowitz, a Harvard-trained emerging diseases expert
said "Dr. Fauci's statement evidences the fraud and ignorance
underlying vaccination programs in general." He stated "Fauci
admits being clueless about the fundamentals of immunity operating
bioenergetically or electro-genetically, not chemically, that
vaccine proponents criminally neglect to prosper by poisoning
Dr. Fauci is no stranger to withholding his own financial ties
to big pharma. He is a co-patent holder, and royalty earner for
IL-2, a vaccine adjuvant, which he does not disclose in any publication.
Press reported that Fauci received at least $45,072.82 in
royalties when the government licensed IL-2 to CHIRON, the drug
industry's major supplier of chemicals.
Fauci, allegedly, donated his IL-2 royalties to charity to avoid
conflict-of-interest charges. But he admitted it was his decision
to withhold disclosures to patients and reporters researching
IL-2 in the trials that he supervised.
If you really want to know who's behind the pseudoscientific garbage
that Longini and Halloran publish, look no further than those
who supply their funding, the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases - an organization littered with corrupt medical
officials like Fauci who supply and accept grants for their own
Their Intentions Are Undeniable
It is almost impossible to find any quotes from either Longini
or Halloran without seeing some type of promotion of vaccines,
antivirals or quarantine:
"This offers an opportunity that should not be missed:
to conduct a nationwide study of the effectiveness of vaccinating
school children against influenza as a means of reducing community
- Longini and Halloran
"We have no real capacity to make [a pandemic] vaccine
"It's technically possible and it is being done in labs,
... The next step would be for drug manufacturers to make that
technology workable on a mass level and guarantee the quality
"...when an outbreak occurs in humans, there is a chance
of containing it and preventing a pandemic with antiviral drugs"
"Children between the ages of 5 and 18 are considered
to be the most important source of community-wide transmission
of the influenza virus, and so vaccinating them would be the most
efficient approach to reduce overall influenza cases."
- Longini and Halloran
"Without a vaccine, there is nothing to do except react"
"Other examples are to isolate severe cases of influenza-like
illness and to do a partial voluntary household quarantine of
exposed people. Or simply asking people to not congregate in large
groups, cancel large events which would bring people together
so, essentially trying to limit the contact people have."
"Vaccination of school children will be a massive effort
if introduced nationwide. Why not plan for its proper evaluation
- Longini and Halloran
"Before a school closure there should be an iron-clad policy
that children who are sick are basically household quarantined
for up to a week,"
"Based on our results, combinations of mitigation strategies
such as stockpiling vaccines or antiviral agents, along with social
distancing measures could be particularly effective in slowing
pandemic flu spread in the U.S.,"
"...child-first, phased vaccination would need to start
as soon as possible, and no later than mid September to be effective
The Collapse of Logic and Scientific Reason
What is most surprising about national governments is their acceptance
of the Longini-Halloran's theories as substantiated fact. That
alone clearly demonstrates how broken the entire system of public
health really is. If public health officials are incapable of
accurately analyzing and assessing the most basic scientific principles,
how can they protect the public?
There is no vaccine and antiviral efficacy and there never has
been. Antivirals consistently cause
pneumonia and respiratory failure.
The WHO reports that populations are
increasingly becoming resistant to antivirals such as Tamiflu
for the current H1N1 pandemic virus.
Numerous reports and studies have already linked Tamiflu to dozens
of deaths worldwide in apparently very health children. The British
Medical Journal reported that children
with seasonal flu should not be given Tamiflu because harmful
side effects may outweigh relatively meager benefits. Yet antivirals
are one of the primary tools used by Longini and Halloran to prevent
a pandemic. On the contrary, antivirals would only accelerate
Tamiflu and other antivirals lower body temperatures. They make
people (who can still transmit the virus) asymptomatic for longer
periods and can therefore be expected to facilitate and contribute
to the spread of a pandemic. If populations begin taking Tamiflu
as a preventive measure, it could potentially cause the reverse
of the intended effect, causing an explosion of viral transmission.
Regarding vaccines, as mentioned there has never been one study
based on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled measures
that could ever validate vaccinations scientifically. They have
zero immunization potential with a cocktail of toxins that cause
neurotoxicity and sterility and cancer.
Since the pharmacokinetic properties of vaccines are not studied,
vaccine manufacturers cannot deny any of these toxic effects.
The reason they never analyze the absorption, distribution, metabolism
or excretion of toxic vaccine ingredients is because it would
eradicate the entire industry. However the individual effects
of each vaccine ingredient and their toxic effects on cells are
well documented. But you're unlikely to see these variables inputted
into a Longini or Halloran simulation anytime soon.
The effectiveness of immunizations throughout history is nil.
Immunization and vaccination are actually antonyms. In North America,
Europe, and the South Pacific, major declines in life-threatening
infectious diseases occurred historically either without, or far
in advance of public vaccinations for specific diseases. This
document provides irrefutable evidence that vaccines are not
immunizing or necessary for the effective elimination of a wide
range of infectious diseases and epidemics.
Longini and Halloran are not interested in serving the public
and providing effective scientific models to help us understand
the nature of epidemics or pandemics. They simply exist to academically
serve the corrupt and biased organizations, such as NIAID who
fund their pathetic studies.
What is most concerning is Longini's and Halloran's involvement
in several vaccine research committees within the World Health
Organization (WHO) who have defined
the current pandemic with questionable policies.
Perhaps Longini and Halloran do not understand that the outcome
of their work only further enslaves humanity into the false paradigm
of conventional medicine. If they could use their academic talents
to truly assist human health, rather than modelling how to destroy
it, this would serve as the best simulation of all.
Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer
advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health
and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics
such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.
Cherie S. Mills is an activist writer with 23 years of experience
analyzing and communicating the needs of the people to leaders
in government and in the media, as well as to several medical
professionals. She has a Master of Arts degree in Mental Health
A full list of h1n1 vaccine ingredients, alerts and warnings.
December 2, 2009