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
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
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
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