Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools

Top Reports
Top Reports
Top Articles
Top Articles

Top Reviews
Top Reviews
Scientists Purport Myths of Predicting Effective Flu Vaccination Campaigns

The latest brainwashing swill out of academia is a study published in Vaccine which makes claims of a new method that assesses the impact and cost-effectiveness of a range of vaccination options. The study is an excellent reminder of the biased intentions of the vaccine industrial complex to justify its malicious objectives in poisoning the population.

Even more contemptible are the outright shameless statements made by the modelers who claim that they accurately predicted in real-time, when the 2009 H1N1 outbreak would peak and how vaccine prioritization was essential. Neither prediction was achieved or accurate by any scientific standard.

Depite not one documented case of any vaccine successfully preventing H1N1 infection or transmission in high-risk (or any other) populations, the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization boasted about their recommendations regarding high-risk individuals and why their prioritized vaccination campaign was so important. Of course, all recommendations were based on the same talking points and junk science parroted by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Marc Baguelin, Albert Jan Van Hoek and colleagues from the Health Protection Agency and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the UK describe how they fit a mathematical model to the estimated number of cases in real-time to predict the effectiveness of alternative influenza vaccination strategies. Specifically, they stated that vaccination of high risk groups was probably very cost effective.

That's another way of saying "we have no clue if it is cost effective or not." A mathematical model predicts accuracy or inaccuracy, not "probably." The fact is, Baguelin and colleagues cannot give the slightest bit of scientific data to prove ANY cost effectiveness because there is none.

There has never been a vaccine, in the history of vaccine manufacturing, which has ever proven to be effective whether it be from the perspective of health or economics. The mere suggestion that they predicted the real-time H1N1 peak and any cost preventive strategies are delusions based on their pharmaceutical masters who funded the study. No science, just biased statements made with absolutely no credibility, facts or truth.

Actually, most mathematical models involving pandemic simulations are complete fabrications. Biostatisticians have been the biggest shills 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 UK Health Protection Agency is notorious for accepting funding from Big Pharma and are specifically on record for receiving funds from Novartis, one of the biggest manufacturers of flu vaccines.

Baguelin said the study reinforces another study out of The Lancet (doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)62126-7), which claimed that one child in every three was infected with H1N1 in 2009 in regions with a high incidence. That study also claimed that children are a key target group for vaccination both for their protection and for the protection of others through herd immunity. All claims in this study are also untrue. The H1N1 flu had the same symptoms as seasonal influenza and consequently the widespread incidence of the common flu was used to generate the confirmed cases of H1N1 flu reports delivered to the WHO. These actions generated 95% of all statistics on H1N1 worldwide. The WHO later admitted that they routinely re-categorized a large number of cases of common influenza as H1N1 swine flu.

Therefore, without laboratory evidence, it was impossible (scientifically or otherwise) for the WHO or any other health agency to ascertain any reliable evidence that H1N1 was the dominant virus strain in any child populations and therefore impossible to assess rate or frequency of infection compared to other flu viruses. In addition, since no H1N1 pandemic vaccine testing took place on any humans before they were released, they are a far more significant threat to human health than the virus itself. To suggest that pandemic vaccines are for health protection is analogous to suggesting that dangerous criminals in the police force could protect the public.

It's safe to say that academia and the mainstream media machines have no interest in the truth. We must continue to filter through what is now a vast body of H1N1 myths and falsities and the reversal of reality so that the truth about pandemics and vaccinations prevails.

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.

February 23, 2010

STAY CONNECTEDNewsletter | RSS | Twitter | YouTube |
This site is owned and operated by 1999-2018. 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