Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools

Top Reports
Top Reports
Top Articles
Top Articles

Top Reviews
Top Reviews
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.

The Game

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 dialectic 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

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 that model.

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 and Halloran.


In 2004, the American Journal of Epidemiology published their paper "Containing 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.

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 the opposite.

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 they do).

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.

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 quoted above.

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

In Community 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, A Case For Giving Children Flu Shots. Appearing in the journal Vaccine, 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 conglomerates themselves.

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 to vaccinations.

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 people."

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.

The Associated 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 financial gains.

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 transmission."
- Longini and Halloran

"We have no real capacity to make [a pandemic] vaccine right now."
- Longini

"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 of product."
- Longini

"...when an outbreak occurs in humans, there is a chance of containing it and preventing a pandemic with antiviral drugs"
- Halloran

"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"
- Longini

"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."
- Longini

"Vaccination of school children will be a massive effort if introduced nationwide. Why not plan for its proper evaluation now,"
- 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,"

- Longini

"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.,"

- Longini

"...child-first, phased vaccination would need to start as soon as possible, and no later than mid September to be effective for mitigation,"
- Longini

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 it.

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 immunotoxicity, 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 Counseling.

* A full list of h1n1 vaccine ingredients, alerts and warnings.

Reference Sources
December 2, 2009


This site is owned and operated by 1999-2014. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details.
volunteerDonateWrite For Us
Stay Connected With Our Newsletter