New Guidance on Pregnancy Pain Relief

Appropriate management of pain during and after pregnancy is essential to minimise the risk of adverse outcomes to mother and baby, but the type and timing of pain relief is important, a new review said.

A team of leading doctors carried out the review for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) following concerns over the use of codeine during breastfeeding.

The scientific impact paper, Antenatal and Postnatal Analgesia , supported the use of appropriate pain relief options, as advised by NHS guidance.

Avoiding Foetal Harm

It recommended that, where possible, all drugs should be avoided during the first trimester because the embryo is most vulnerable to teratogenic effects between 4 to 10 weeks gestation. However, it acknowledged that some would need to be continued to prevent maternal harm.

It found that paracetamol “remains the analgesic of choice” in pregnant and breastfeeding women because of its excellent safety record, although it noted limited associations between the use of paracetamol and adverse outcomes including an increased incidence of childhood asthma, behavioural problems, and a delay in gross motor and communication development in children with long‐term antenatal exposure.


The review said that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) – such as ibuprofen – should be avoided unless clinically indicated, such as for a severe migraine, within the first trimester and should not be taken after 30 weeks of gestation due to increased risk to the baby.

The reviewing doctors recommended the lowest effective dose for the shortest time because of some evidence that the use of NSAIDS might increase the risk of first-trimester miscarriage.

However, NSAIDS were safe to use during breastfeeding, they said, as the quantity of drug that passed into milk was very small.


The guidelines said that opioid analgesics, such as codeine, tramadol, dihydrocodeine (DHC), and morphine should be avoided wherever possible and only administered by a health professional.

However, it highlighted the important difference between codeine and DHC during breastfeeding and emphasised that DHC was safer to take during breastfeeding, whereas codeine should be avoided, because of increased concerns regarding toxicity.

Dr Dina Bisson, a consultant obstetrician who led the review, said: “It is absolutely essential that pain is managed appropriately during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Many women may develop headaches, lower back pain and pelvic pain during pregnancy and breastfeeding, while others may have chronic conditions, where pain management is necessary.

“If pain is not adequately managed, this can have a negative impact on a woman’s physical and mental wellbeing.

“Women should be encouraged to try non-medical treatments, such as adequate rest, hot and cold compresses, massage, physiotherapy, and exercise. But if pain relief drugs are required, it is important that doctors and midwives are able to advise on appropriate medication and hopefully this review will be helpful.”

Influenza Concerns

The RCOG said it was concerned by reports that fewer pregnant women were having a flu vaccine this year. Public Health England said this week that only around 40% of pregnant women have had the vaccine so far this season.

Dr Pat O’Brien, a consultant obstetrician and spokesperson for the RCOG, said: “Flu can occasionally be serious for pregnant women as it increases risk of complications, such as bronchitis, a chest infection that can develop into pneumonia.

“The best way to avoid getting this is to have the flu vaccination. Women who are pregnant should be reassured that current evidence shows the flu vaccine is safe to use.”

2 Weeks Off Methotrexate OK for Flu Vaccine

Immunogenicity improved with no increase in RA disease activity

Stopping methotrexate for 2 weeks after the administration of flu vaccine led to improved immunogenicity without increasing disease activity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a prospective Korean study showed.

Among patients in whom methotrexate was withheld for 2 weeks, a satisfactory vaccine response was seen in 75.5% compared with 54.5% of those who continued on the drug, according to Eun Bong Lee, MD, of Seoul National University College of Medicine, and colleagues. A satisfactory response was an increase of at least four-fold in the hemagglutination inhibition antibody titer from baseline 4 weeks after the vaccination against two or more of four of the current vaccine strains.

The difference between the group with temporary methotrexate discontinuation and those who continued was 21% (95% CI 10.6%-31.7%, P<0.001), the researchers reported online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

RA patients are more susceptible to infections than the general population because of the underlying immune dysfunction and the immune suppression associated with treatments, so vaccines are strongly recommended for these patients by groups such as the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism.

Methotrexate remains the anchor drug for the treatment of RA, but it can interfere significantly with the response to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. The researchers previously conducted a pilot study of methotrexate discontinuation for 4 weeks after the seasonal flu vaccine, finding increased immunogenicity but also a 1.4-fold risk of disease flare.

They conducted a randomized, parallel-group study comparing a 2-week methotrexate discontinuation versus continuation in 316 patients with RA.

Participants were recruited from October 2016 to January 2017. That year’s seasonal quadrivalent vaccine included the H1N1, H3N2, B-Yamagata, and B-Victoria strains. Serum was collected before the vaccine was administered and again at week 4.

During the discontinuation period, patients who experienced flares could take acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and prednisone in dosages up to 10 mg/day.

More than 80% of patients were women, mean age was 53, and mean disease duration was 6.9 years. Baseline Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) was 2.3 in the discontinuation group and 2.2 in the continuation group. About half were taking glucocorticoids, with mean doses of 1.8 mg/day. Mean methotrexate dose was 13.2 mg/week.

The proportion of patients who achieved at least a four-fold increase in antibody titer in more than one of the four strains was 89.4% in the discontinuation group versus 75.6% in the continuation group, for a difference of 13.8% (95% CI 5.4-22.1, P=0.001). The proportions having a response to three of the four strains were 61.9% versus 36.5%, for a difference of 25.4% (95% CI 14.3-36.4, P<0.001), and for all four strains, the proportions were 45.6% versus 21.8%, for a difference of 23.8% (95% CI 13.4-34.3, P<0.001).

For the specific influenza antigens, the discontinuation group had a higher frequency of response, with differences of 11.9% (95% CI 0.9%-22.8%, P=0.033) for H1N1, 16.8% (95% CI 6.1%-27.4%, P=0.002) for H3N2, 22.7% (95% CI 11.7%-33.7%, P<0.001) for B-Yamagata, and 32.8% (95% CI 21.8%-43.6%, P<0.001) for B-Victoria.

Baseline seroprotection against the four antigens was similar between the discontinuation and continuation groups, but postvaccination seroprotection rates were higher in the discontinuation group, with differences of 10.7%, 15.9%, 13.7%, and 14.7%, respectively.

No differences in vaccine response was seen for patients whose methotrexate dosage was 7.5 mg/week or less, but significant differences were observed for those on 15 mg/week or more.

No serious adverse events were reported.

For disease activity, the change in DAS28 was only 0.1 point in both groups. Flares occurred in the 4 weeks after vaccination in 5.1% of the continuation group and in 10.6% of the discontinuation group, which was not a significant difference (P=0.07). Rescue medications for joint pain were used during that follow-up period by 4.5% of the continuation group and in 6.3% of the discontinuation group (P=0.487). For all patients who experienced a flare, disease activity declined to baseline when methotrexate was restarted.

The researchers noted that the vaccine response was more prominent for the type B strains of the virus, to which fewer individuals have had prior exposure. For the more common H1N1 and H3N2, response rates increased by 11.9% and 16.8%, respectively, whereas for the B-Yamagata and B-Victoria strains, the increases in response were 22.7% and 32.8%.

“These results suggest that this methotrexate discontinuation strategy might be more crucial for response to influenza viruses relatively new to humans,” they observed.

A study limitation was its inclusion of only Korean patients who had stable disease. “Further studies testing the generalizability of our results to patients with moderate to high disease activity or other ethnicities are warranted,” the authors concluded.

Flu Vaccine Increases Your Risk of Infecting Others by 6-Fold, Study Suggests

A provocative new study on flu virus transmission found that subjects had 6.3 times more aerosol shedding of flu virus particles if they received vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.

Vaccination is predicated on the rarely questioned belief that it confers bona fide immunity against targeted pathogens. This is why the terms vaccination and immunization are often used interchangeably, a disingenious semantic confusion that is rarely confronted or corrected. In the case of flu vaccine, certainty about this approximates religious faith, with the CDC taking on the role of the Church, conventional doctors the clergy, and the published literature Holy Scripture.

But what if the literature fails to support the orthodoxy? There are in, in fact, hundreds of examples of this. We have gathered a modest 500 studies which show the untintended, adverse effects of many vaccines outweigh their purported benefits, all of which you can view on our open access database on the topic here:

The latest addition to this growing body of literature is found in a newly published article titled, “Infectious Virus Exhaled In Breath Of Symptomatic Seasonal Flu Cases,” published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science).

The study found that flu carriers exhale significant quantities of infectious influenza virus, and that counterintuitively, sneezing is rare and not important for influenza virus aerosolization; nor is coughing required to transmit these particles. Simply breathing will do. Additionally, the study found that males shed influenza viruses in greater quantity than females through fine aerosols, and women cough more frequently. But what is most salient about the study was the following finding:

“6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.”

For more details on the study design read the following:

“We screened 355 symptomatic volunteers with acute respiratory illness and report 142 cases with confirmed influenza infection who provided 218 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) and 30-minute breath samples (coarse >5-µm and fine ≤5-µm fractions) on days 1–3 after symptom onset. We assessed viral RNA copy number for all samples and cultured NP swabs and fine aerosols. 

We recovered infectious virus from 52 (39%) of the fine aerosols and 150 (89%) of the NP swabs with valid cultures. The geometric mean RNA copy numbers were 3.8 × 104/30-minutes fine-, 1.2 × 104/30-minutes coarse-aerosol sample, and 8.2 × 108 per NP swab. Fine- and coarse-aerosol viral RNA were positively associated with body mass index and number of coughs and negatively associated with increasing days since symptom onset in adjusted models.

Fine-aerosol viral RNA was also positively associated with having influenza vaccination for both the current and prior season. NP swab viral RNA was positively associated with upper respiratory symptoms and negatively associated with age but was not significantly associated with fine- or coarse-aerosol viral RNA or their predictors. Sneezing was rare, and sneezing and coughing were not necessary for infectious aerosol generation. Our observations suggest that influenza infection in the upper and lower airways are compartmentalized and independent.”

Clearly, if this finding is accurate and reproducible, flu vaccination may actually make you more likely to infect others. Or worse, it may also make you more likely to contract influenza in the first place. For instance, a 2010 Canadian study which looked at 4 observational studies found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a 1.4 to 2.5 fold increased risk of medically attended H1N1 illness during the spring-summer 2009.  

 And this is only the tip of the iceberg. We have been reporting on the conspicuous lack of evidence for flu vaccine effectiveness (and safety) for over a decade, based largely on the underreported failure of the Cochrane Database Review to show them effective (and safe), despite hundreds of industry-funded studies that have attempted to do so. Learn more:…

Also, there are well-documented iatrogenic effects of common vaccines like MMR and Rotavirus Vaccines, which include viral shedding and infection following vaccination. In other words, there is a significant body of evidence that the vaccinated actually infect the un- vaccinated.  Here are a few of our previous reports on this phenomena:


Clearly, this undermines the ongoing campaign to identify non-vaccinating or anti-vaccine individuals and groups as a threat, or danger to others.  Ironically, the very group being blamed for infecting others — including by Bill Gates who declared non-vaccinators ‘kill children‘ — may become victims of being infected by vaccine-specific strains of viruses which are far worse than the natural/wild-type versions our species’ immunity has evolved with over countless millenia.


What Is the ‘Aussie Flu,’ Exactly, and How Worried Should You Be About It?

Yet another reason to get your flu shot, like, yesterday.

It feels like pretty much every year medical experts say that it’s going to be an awful season for the flu. And this year is no exception. The dominant flu strain that’s circulating this year is something that’s been dubbed the “Aussie flu,” and it’s especially serious.

The Aussie flu (a.k.a. H3N2) got its name after causing several hospitalizations and deaths in Australia, which has its winter during our summer months. The country had more than 233,400 confirmed cases of the flu, which was more than double the number of cases it saw the year before, according to The Sydney Morning Herald. The paper also reports that 745 people with confirmed cases of the flu died in 2017, which is significantly higher than the five-year average of 176 flu deaths per year.

And, lucky us, the Aussie flu has made its way to America.

The ‘Aussie flu’ is just a fancy name for H3N2, a serious flu strain we’ve seen before.

This year, about 80 percent of confirmed flu cases so far are due to this strain of the flu, The New York Times reports. Last year, experts warned that H3N2 would cause a rough flu season, too. “H3N2 is a nastier virus than some of the other influenza viruses,” William Schaffner, M.D., an infectious disease specialist and professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, tells SELF. “We anticipate that there will be more healthy children and young adults who find themselves in the ER this year.”There isn’t really anything special about the symptoms of H3N2—they’re are the same as other strains of the flu. That means that if you’re infected, you might feel fever, chills, muscle aches, cough, congestion, a runny nose, headaches, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue, infectious disease expert Amesh A. Adalja, M.D., senior scholar at the John’s Hopkins Center for Health Security, tells SELF.

However, H3N2 cases tend to be more severe than other strains and people are more likely to develop serious complications, such as pneumonia and even death, he says. “This is a moderately severe flu strain,” Dr. Adalja says. “We’re seeing increasing cases in hospitals and increasing rates of death.”

The flu vaccine protects against several strains of the flu, but it’s not super effective against H3N2.

The flu vaccine changes from year to year to try to protect the general public against what doctors suspect will be the predominant flu strains of the season. This year’s vaccine targets an H1N1-like virus, a virus with a B/Victoria lineage, and an H3N2-like virus known as A/Hong Kong/4801/2014, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Given that H3N2 is on the list, it seems like you’d be good to go with this vaccine, but it’s not that simple. “Traditionally, vaccines don’t work quite as well against the H3N2 strain,” Dr. Schaffner says. When the H3N2 vaccine is made, the H3N2 part of the vaccine tends to mutate slightly, leaving people with some protection against the virus but not as much as you’d probably like, he explains. The flu vaccine was only 10 percent effective against H3N2 in Australia, but the CDC says that it will likely be 30 percent effective against the virus here.

You should definitely still get your flu shot.

No, getting the flu shot isn’t a guarantee that you won’t get the flu, and that kind of sucks. But experts still stress that you should get the vaccine. “The best prevention is still the influenza vaccine,” Dr. Adalja says. “Even though it’s not optimal, it’s still the best we’ve got.” The vaccine may even help reduce the severity of the Aussie flu, if you happen to catch it, Dr. Schaffner says. (By the way, if you haven’t gotten your flu vaccine yet, there’s still time given that season peaks in February, Dr. Adalja says.)

The flu isn’t easy to avoid, but you can do a lot by washing your hands carefully and often (especially after you visit high-traffic areas like malls and public transportation), using hand sanitizer, and trying to keep your distance from people who are coughing and sneezing, Dr. Schaffner says.

If you do get sick, it’s important to stay home for at least your first 24 hours after your fever wears off, the Mayo Clinic explains. “Don’t go to work or the gym—you’ll become a spreader,” Dr. Schaffner says. From there, most cases of the flu in healthy adults resolve on their own with adequate rest and liquids within a week or two.

But if your symptoms are particularly severe (e.g. you’re having difficulty breathing or persistent vomiting), or you’re at risk for complications due to your age or a chronic illness, call your doctor. You may be prescribed an antiviral drug like Tamiflu, which can make your infection less severe and shorter, Dr. Schaffner says. But those are at their most effective when taken in the first 48 hours of the infection, so don’t hesitate to get medical attention if you’re at risk.

Vitamin D Is More Effective Than Flu Vaccine, Study Says.

According to Dr Joseph Mercola and others, vitamin D deficiency may actually be behind your winter flu.

As a result, researchers have begun examining if increased vitamin D might make an effective flu vaccine, and, as it turns out, it does!
n fact, the research found several notable returns:
  • People with the lowest vitamin D levels show significantly more colds and/or cases of the flu.
  • For people with the lowest vitamin D levels, taking a vitamin D supplement cut the risk of respiratory infection by 50% – though researchers also noted that vitamin D was better absorbed through sunlight.
  • Vitamin D proved slightly more effective than the traditional flu vaccine (1 case prevented per 33 people vs 1 case prevented per 40 people), though this was more pronounced in trial participants with severe vitamin D deficiency.
  • Vitamin D is significantly better absorbed from sun exposure than from supplements.
  • Mounting research suggests vitamin D deficiency may actually be a major cause of influenza. People with the lowest vitamin D levels report having significantly more colds or cases of the flu
  • Scientific review confirms vitamin D optimization boosts immunity and cuts rates of cold and flu. Among people vitamin D blood levels below 10 ng/mL, taking a supplement cut risk of respiratory infection by 50 percent
  • To prevent influenza in one person, 40 people must receive the flu vaccine whereas one case of the flu can be prevented for every 33 people taking vitamin D. If you’re severely vitamin D deficient, vitamin D supplementation is 10 times more effective than the flu vaccine


Vitamin D Is More Effective Than Flu Vaccine

Conventional health authorities claim getting a flu shot each year is the best way to ward off influenza. But where’s the actual science backing up that claim?

Story at-a-glance

  • Mounting research suggests vitamin D deficiency may actually be a major cause of influenza. People with the lowest vitamin D levels report having significantly more colds or cases of the flu
  • Scientific review confirms vitamin D optimization boosts immunity and cuts rates of cold and flu. Among people vitamin D blood levels below 10 ng/mL, taking a supplement cut risk of respiratory infection by 50 percent
  • To prevent influenza in one person, 40 people must receive the flu vaccine whereas one case of the flu can be prevented for every 33 people taking vitamin D. If you’re severely vitamin D deficient, vitamin D supplementation is 10 times more effective than the flu vaccine

If you’ve repeatedly fallen for this annual propaganda campaign, you may be surprised to find the medical literature suggests vitamin D may actually be a FAR more effective strategy, and the evidence for this goes back at least a decade.

Dr. John Cannell, founder of the Vitamin D Council, was one of the first to introduce the idea that vitamin D deficiency may actually be an underlying CAUSE of influenza.

His hypothesis1 was initially published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection in 2006.2 It was subsequently followed up with another study published in the Virology Journal in 2008.3

The following year, the largest nationally representative study4 of its kind to date discovered that people with the lowest vitamin D levels indeed reported having significantly more colds or cases of the flu. In conclusion, lead author Dr. Adit Ginde stated:

“The findings of our study support an important role for vitamin D in prevention of common respiratory infections, such as colds and the flu. Individuals with common lung diseases, such as asthma or emphysema, may be particularly susceptible to respiratory infections from vitamin D deficiency.”

Vitamin D Works Better Than Flu Vaccine If Your Levels Are Low

Since then, a number of studies have come to similar conclusions. Most recently, a scientific review5,6 of 25 randomized controlled trials confirmed that vitamin D supplementation boosts immunity and cuts rates of cold and flu.

Overall, the studies included nearly 11,000 individuals from more than a dozen countries. As reported by Time Magazine:7

“… [P]eople who took daily or weekly vitamin D supplements were less likely to report acute respiratory infections, like influenza or the common cold, than those who did not …

For people with the most significant vitamin D deficiencies (blood levels below 10 [ng/mL]), taking a supplement cut their risk of respiratory infection in half.

People with higher vitamin D levels also saw a small reduction in risk: about 10 percent, which is about equal to the protective effect of the injectable flu vaccine, the researchers say.”

Like Cannell before them, the researchers believe vitamin D offers protection by increasing antimicrobial peptides in your lungs, and that “[t]his may be one reason why colds and flus are most common in the winter, when sunlight exposure (and therefore the body’s natural vitamin D production) is at its lowest …”8

According to this international research team, vitamin D supplementation could prevent more than 3.25 million cases of cold and flu each year in the U.K. alone.9Another statistic showing vitamin D is a more effective strategy than flu vaccine is the “number needed to treat” (NNT).

Overall, one person would be spared from influenza for every 33 people taking a vitamin D supplement (NNT = 33), whereas 40 people have to receive the flu vaccine in order to prevent one case of the flu (NNT = 40).

Among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, the NNT was 4. In other words, if you’re vitamin D deficient to begin with, vitamin D supplementation is 10 times more effective than the flu vaccine.

Optimizing Vitamin D May Be Your Best Defense Against Influenza

In my view, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best flu-prevention and optimal health strategies available. Your diet also plays a significant role of course, as it lays the foundation for good immune function.

A high-sugar diet is a sure-fire way to diminish your body’s innate ability to fight off infections of all kinds by radically impairing the functioning of your immune system.

However, I do not agree that fortifying more processed foods with vitamin D is the best solution, although I realize it could potentially have a more widespread impact among people who remain unaware of the beneficial health effects of sunlight in general.

I believe sensible sun exposure is the ideal way to optimize your vitamin D. Taking a vitamin D3 supplement is only recommended in cases when you simply cannot obtain sufficient amounts of sensible sun exposure.

It’s also important to point out that, contrary to what’s reported by most mainstream media, including NPR report above, most people cannot optimize their vitamin D levels by getting the recommended 600 IUs of vitamin D from fortified foods. The dose you need really depends on your current blood level of vitamin D.

If it’s very low, you may need 8,000 to 10,000 IUs of vitamin D3 per day in order to reach and maintain a clinically relevant level of 45 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). The only way to know how much you need is to get tested at least once or twice each year.

If you’ve been supplementing for some time and your levels are still below 45 ng/mL, you then know you have to increase your dose further. If using an oral supplement, also make sure to boost your vitamin K2 and magnesium intake, as these nutrients help optimize vitamin D levels.

Other Studies Supporting Link Between Vitamin D Deficiency and Influenza

In a study published in 2010,10 researchers investigated the effect of vitamin D on the incidence of seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren. The randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study included 430 children, half of which were given 1,200 IUs of vitamin D3 per day while the other half received a placebo.

Overall, children in the treatment group were 42 percent less likely to come down with the flu. According to the authors: “This study suggests that vitamin D3 supplementation during the winter may reduce the incidence of influenza A, especially in specific subgroups of schoolchildren.”

Another study11 published that same year concluded that infection-fighting T-cells need help from vitamin D in order to activate. This is yet another mechanism that helps explain why vitamin D is so effective against infections.

When a T cell recognizes foreign invaders like bacteria or viruses, it sends activating signals to the vitamin D receptor (VDR) gene.

The VDR gene then starts producing a protein that binds vitamin D in the T cell. A downstream effect of this is PLC-gamma1 protein production, which subsequently enables the T cell to fight the infection. At the time, lead researcher Carsten Geisler told Food Consumer:12

“When a T cell is exposed to a foreign pathogen, it extends a signaling device or “antenna” known as a vitamin D receptor, with which it searches for vitamin D. This means the T cell must have vitamin D or activation of the cell will cease. If the T cells cannot find enough vitamin D in the blood, they won’t even begin to mobilize.”

With that understanding, it’s no wonder flu shots don’t work. Flu vaccines do absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem of vitamin D deficiency, which is effectively hindering your immune system from working properly.

In fact, flu vaccines tend to deteriorate your immune function, and their side effects can be significant.

‘Gold Standard’ Studies Ignored by Mainstream Media

The gold standard of scientific analysis, the so-called Cochrane Database Review, has also issued several reports between 2006 and 2012, all of which decimate the claim that flu vaccinations are the most effective prevention method available. In 2010, Cochrane published the following bombshell conclusion, which was completely ignored by mainstream media:13

“Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration).

An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines …”

So, despite the fact that 15 of the 36 studies included were biased by industry interests, they still couldn’t come up with evidence supporting the conventional claim that flu vaccines are the best and most effective prevention available against influenza!

Scientific Reviews Show Vaccinating Children and Elderly Is Ineffective

Cochrane has issued several reports addressing the effectiveness of flu vaccines on infants and the elderly — two groups that tend to be the most targeted by flu vaccine advertising — and all have had negative findings. For children:

1.A large-scale, systematic review14 of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2006, found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in children under two. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.

2.In 2008, another Cochrane review15 again concluded that “little evidence is available” that the flu vaccine is effective for children under the age of two. Even more disturbingly, the authors stated that:

“It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada. If immunization in children is to be recommended as a public health policy, large-scale studies assessing important outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently required.”

3.In a 2012 review,16 Cochrane concluded that “in children aged from two years, nasal spray vaccines made from weakened influenza viruses were better at preventing illness caused by the influenza virus than injected vaccines made from the killed virus. Neither type was particularly good at preventing “flu-like illness” caused by other types of viruses. In children under the age of two, the efficacy of inactivated vaccine was similar to placebo.”

The available evidence with regards to protecting the elderly is equally abysmal.

4.In 2010, Cochrane concluded that:17 “The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older.”

5.Cochrane also reviewed whether or not vaccinating health care workers can help protect the elderly patients with whom they work. In conclusion, the authors stated that:18 “[T]here is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers prevents influenza in elderly residents in long-term care facilities.”

Annual Flu Vaccinations May Raise Risk of More Serious Infections

Other recent studies have shown that with each successive annual flu vaccination, the protection afforded by the vaccine appears to diminish.19, 20 Research published in 2014 concluded that vaccine-induced protection against influenza was greatest among those who had NOT received a flu shot in the previous five years.21 The flu vaccine may also increase your risk of contracting other, more serious influenza infections.

  • Data shows people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 had twice the risk of getting the H1N1 “swine flu” compared to those who didn’t receive a flu shot.22
  • Compared to children who do not get an annual flu vaccine, those who receive influenza vaccinations have a three times higher risk of hospitalization due to influenza.23

Research also shows that statin drugs — taken by 1 in 4 Americans over the age of 45 — may undermine your immune system’s ability to respond to the flu vaccine.24,25,26 When you consider the low efficacy rate of the flu vaccine in any given year, getting vaccinated if you’re on a statin may well be a moot point.

Independent science reviews have also concluded that influenza vaccine does not appear to prevent influenza-like illness associated with other types of viruses responsible for about 80 percent of all respiratory or gastrointestinal infections during any given flu season.27,28,29,30

Other Foods and Supplements That Send Pathogens Packin’

Besides vitamin D, there are a number of other foods and supplements that can be beneficial for colds and influenza, including the following:

Garlic:31 Garlic has natural antiviral, antibiotic and antifungal activity and has long been hailed for its immune boosting effects.

The Cochrane Database, which has repeatedly demonstrated that the science in support of the flu vaccine is flimsy at best, has also reviewed studies on alternatives, including garlic.32

Unfortunately, such research is harder to come by, as there’s no financial incentive driving it.

Still, in the singular study identified by the Cochrane group, those who took garlic daily for three months had fewer colds than those who took a placebo, and, when they did come down with a cold, the duration of illness was shorter — an average of 4.5 days compared to 5.5 days for the placebo group.

While this may not seem overly impressive, it’s still better than the results achieved by the flu drug Tamiflu!

Zinc: A Cochrane Database Review of the medical research on zinc found that when taken within one day of the first symptoms, zinc can cut down the time you have a cold by about 24 hours.

Zinc was also found to greatly reduce the severity of symptoms. Zinc was not recommended for anyone with an underlying health condition, like lowered immune function, asthma or chronic illness.

I do not recommend taking more than 50 mg a day, and I do not recommend taking zinc on a daily basis for preventive purposes as you could easily develop a copper imbalance that way.

Vitamin C: A very potent antioxidant; use a natural form such as acerola, which contains associated micronutrients.

You can take several grams every hour (use the liposomal form so you don’t get loose stools), till you are better. I never travel without a bottle of our liposomal C.

A tea made from a combination of elderflower, yarrow, boneset, linden, peppermint and ginger; drink it hot and often for combating a cold or flu. It causes you to sweat, which is helpful for eradicating a virus from your system.
Oregano Oil: The higher the carvacrol concentration, the more effective it is. Carvacrol is the most active antimicrobial agent in oregano oil. Medicinal mushrooms, such as shiitake, reishi and turkey tail.
Propolis: A bee resin and one of the most broad-spectrum antimicrobial compounds in the world; propolis is also the richest source of caffeic acid and apigenin, two very important compounds that aid in immune response. Olive leaf extract is widely known as a natural, non-toxic immune system builder.

Vitamin D Is Important for Optimal Health and Disease Prevention Year-Round

In related news, researchers are also homing in on how vitamin D may help protect against age-related diseases such as Alzheimer’s. The video above discusses research33 showing vitamin D extends lifespan in nematode worms by 30 percent and helps slow or even reverse accumulation of beta amyloid protein, which is a hallmark of Alzheimer’s.

Vitamin D deficiency has also been linked to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, depression, autoimmune disease and many other chronic diseases. As noted in a recent issue of Orthomolecular Medicine News:34 “Research on the health benefits of vitamin D continues at a rapid pace. There were 4,356 papers published in 2015 with vitamin D in the title or abstract and 4,388 in 2016 …” Among some of the most impactful studies are ones demonstrating:

Health benefits from sun exposure unrelated to vitamin D production. One recent review concluded benefits of sun exposure includes lower rates of cancer, heart disease, dementia, myopia, macular degeneration, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. My belief is that the majority of these benefits are due to the near-, mid- and far-infrared wavelengths.

According to the author: “The message of sun avoidance must be changed to acceptance of non-burning sun exposure sufficient to achieve [vitamin D] concentrations of 30 ng/mL or higher … and the general benefits of UV exposure beyond those of vitamin D.” Also, while intermittent sun exposure is associated with higher rates of skin cancer, “the risks of these cancers is dwarfed by the reduced risk of internal cancers from sun exposure,” William Grant, Ph.D. writes.

Benefits of higher vitamin D levels during pregnancy. Research demonstrates preterm births steadily decrease as vitamin D levels increase among pregnant women. In one study, raising vitamin D blood concentrations from 20 to 40 ng/mL decreased preterm births by 59 percent.

Reduction in cancer risk from vitamin D supplementation. One pooled analysis showed that women with higher levels of vitamin D had much lower incidence rates of cancer — from a 2 percent per year cancer incidence rate at 18 ng/mL to 0.4 percent at 63 ng/mL.

Overall, maintaining a vitamin D serum level of 45 to 60 ng/mL year-round may be one of the simplest and most efficient ways to safeguard yourself against chronic disease and acute infections. When it comes to seasonal colds and influenza, the rate of protection you get from vitamin D is actually greater than what you’d get from a flu vaccination, and you don’t have to worry about potential side effects either — which in the case of the flu vaccine can be far worse than the original complaint.

While death and complete disability from a flu vaccine may be rare, so is dying from the flu itself. I strongly recommend weighing the risk of suffering a debilitating side effect of the flu vaccine relative to the more likely potential of spending a week in bed with the flu. Remember, most deaths attributed to influenza are actually due to bacterial pneumonia, and these days, bacterial pneumonia can be effectively treated with advanced medical care and therapies like respirators and parenteral antibiotics.

9-year-old Texas girl paralyzed and blinded two days after receiving flu shot

A nine-year-old girl from the Texas coast is bedridden at the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston afterbeing injured by a flu shot, according to a recent report by KRTK-TV.

Brianna Browning, a fourth-grader from Crystal Beach, Texas, was “perfectly healthy” before being injected with a flu vaccine at Bolivar Peninsula School.

Now, she is paralyzed from the waist down and completely blind. Her symptoms started about eight hours after receiving a flu shot when her mother said she began “profusely vomiting,” which continued into the next day.

Browning received the shot on Thursday, and by Saturday she was paralyzed from the waist down, said her parents, adding that it appeared as if she had had a seizure.

Doctors have diagnosed Browning with Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), which is known to be triggered by vaccines.

It’s unclear what type of flu shot the young girl received.

TRK reports:

A Galveston County family is convinced their daughter has suffered a rare reaction to the flu shot and now they are searching for answers.

Brianna Browning, 9, has been in the hospital since October 17th. Her parents say one day she was healthy and the next, she was paralyzed and losing her vision.

“It’s horrible. It kills us,” said Johnny Alexander, the girl’s stepfather.

The 4th grader who loves to run, jump and play in the sand got a flu shot at her school on Bolivar Peninsula October 15th. Then her health went downhill.


“Eight hours later she was profusely vomiting and again Friday morning. Saturday, she was paralyzed from the waist down, blind and seemed like she had a seizure,” Brenda Faulk, Brianna’s mother told Eyewitness News.

Brianna is currently at Texas Children’s Hospital in the Medical Center. Her parents say doctors don’t yet know what happened or why but the parents are convinced it has something to do with the flu shot.

“We know in our hearts this was the flu vaccine that made her ill,” Alexander said.

“She was perfectly healthy. No symptoms, no sickness,” added Faulk.

To donate to Brianna Brown’s GoFundMe page, click here. Her family will use the money to pay for a wheelchair and lift, medication and in-home healthcare.


Since the majority of mainstream media receives huge amounts of advertising dollars from vaccine makers, it’s no surprise that KTRK-TV added somewhat of a disclaimer to their report when they cited a public health director who insisted that “flu shots are extremely safe.”

If they’re “extremely safe,” then why is a once healthy young girl paralyzed from the waist down immediately after getting a flu shot?

Dr. Umair Shah, the Executive Director of Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services is quoted in the report as saying that reactions to flu shots are “mostly mild”; however, nothing could be further from the truth.

Adults and children are injured by vaccines far too often.


So often that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which protects vaccine makers from being liable for the harm caused by their products, has paid $3 billion in compensation since 1989 to victims or the families of victims injured by vaccines.

That’s over $115 million each year paid to those injured by vaccines.

While Dr. Shah was referring to flu shots when he said the reactions are “mostly mild,” this is the same rhetoric used by vaccine pushers to describe the risk of vaccines in general.

However, to illustrate the dangers of flu shots specifically, think about this: In 2014, the NVICP recognized 180 cases of vaccine injuries, and of those, 134 cases received compensation. Out of the 134 cases that received compensation, 79 of the settlements were for the flu shot, which included three deaths.

So there you have it, not only are reactions to flu shots not uncommon, but flu shots may possibly be one of the most dangerous vaccines out there.

Flu Vaccine Effective Until It’s Not

Many Americans rely on information provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — which is supposed to be the nation’s leading health protection agency — to make important health decisions.

Taking Flu Vaccine

Story at-a-glance

  • A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee recommended against the use of FluMist live attenuated nasal spray vaccine
  • Data showed the nasal spray vaccine to be less effective than the inactivated vaccine, and in some cases showed it had zero effectiveness against certain flu virus strains
  • The CDC has claimed the nasal spray vaccine to be safe and effective for years and has heavily promoted its use to children and adults

So when the agency suddenly flip-flops on a key health message, it’s not only disconcerting but also dangerous.

For years the CDC has been making general and often misleading categorical statements that in order to stay healthy during the flu season, “the most important thing is for all people 6 months and older to get a flu vaccine every year.”1

Although this is stated as fact, it’s easily debatable, as a strong immune system — the result of leading a healthy lifestyle — is actually among your best defenses against getting sick or experiencing complications from viral infections like influenza.

Taking a closer look at the CDC’s authoritative message to Americans, public health officials have also stated, as recently as the 2015 to 2016 flu season, that “both the nasal spray vaccine and the flu shot have been shown to be effective in children and adults.2

You’d be wise to take such statements with a grain of salt, as now a CDC advisory committee has recommended the widely used nasal spray influenza vaccine not be used during the upcoming flu season.3

CDC Reverses Their Advice, Says No to Nasal Flu Vaccine for 2016 to 2017 Flu Season

About one-third of flu vaccinations given to children in the U.S. are the nasal spray, which is often preferred by pediatricians because it’s needle-free.

In recent years, both the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) went so far as to say the live virus nasal spray version was the preferred vaccine for healthy children ages 2 to 8 because research showed it worked a little better for them than the inactivated injected vaccine.

Children were given two doses to inhale initially, so theoretically, they could quickly build immunity.4 But it turned out the nasal spray flu vaccine was a bigger failure than injectable flu shots. During the 2014 to 2015 flu season, for instance, the nasal spray flu vaccine showed potentially no benefit for young children.5

Despite the failure, during the 2015 to 2016 flu season the CDC again stated that the nasal spray vaccine was effective in children and adults, and that “either vaccine is appropriate” (referring to either the nasal spray or inactivated flu shot) for people aged 2 through 49 years.6

This is in direct contrast to this year’s advice, with the CDC panel now recommending against the nasal spray vaccine (brand name FluMist). The decision, which still has to be approved by CDC Director Tom Frieden, was based on recent data showing continued poor performance. As CNN reported:7

“During the [CDC advisory committee] hearing, Dr. Chris Ambrose of MedImmune [FluMist’s maker] shared results from the company’s 2015 to 2016 influenza vaccine effectiveness study, which found the FluMist quadrivalent vaccine to be 46 percent effective, compared with the flu shot’s 65 percent effectiveness.

However, Dr. Brendan Flannery of the CDC presented data indicating that FluMist had zero effectiveness against one strain of flu.”

Can Live Virus Vaccines Transmit Disease?

While the CDC’s decision against FluMist was based on lack of effectiveness, there are other important considerations when considering use of a live-virus vaccine.

The flu shot is an inactivated vaccine while the nasal spray contains live, albeit weakened (or attenuated), virus that is intended to stimulate the immune system to fight disease without causing clinical symptoms of illness.

However, when you get a live attenuated viral vaccine, you shed live vaccine-strain virus in your body fluids — just like when you get a viral infection and shed virus in your body fluids.

After getting a live-virus vaccine, you can shed and transmit vaccine-strain virus to other people, in whom it might cause serious complications.

Live attenuated viral vaccines also have the potential to affect the evolution of viruses, which are constantly recombining with each other, because vaccine-strain live viruses are released into the environment where further mutations can occur.8

How Accurate Are Vaccine Effectiveness Studies?

When health agencies state a vaccine’s effectiveness rate, it’s important to be aware that this may be incredibly difficult to gauge in the real world. Some researchers may rely on data from population-based electronic immunization registries to conduct vaccine effectiveness studies, for instance.

Yet, researchers found that what was stated in the registry often did not match up with records at doctors’ offices, even when data was electronically transferred. There were discrepancies in the number of vaccinations received, the formulations given, the manufacturer and lot number of the vaccines and more.9

Challenges have also been identified when evaluating vaccine effectiveness using large cohort studies, which rely on data from a large group of people with a defining characteristic, such as being within a certain age range.

“No single set of definitions or analytical approach can address all possible biases,” researchers explained.10

Studies on vaccine reactions may be equally flawed or at least misleading. In one CDC study, for instance, it was claimed that life-threatening anaphylaxis occurred in 33 confirmed cases out of more than 25 million vaccine doses.11

While the media touted the results as proof vaccines rarely cause serious reactions, this study only looked into one serious reaction. Rates of other serious side effects, such as encephalitis, meningitis, febrile seizures, brain damage, coma and death, for instance, were not discussed.

Meanwhile, the CDC study used electronic health data to determine rates of anaphylaxis following vaccination — data that, as mentioned, is often wrong.

Getting a Flu Shot Every Year May Increase Children’s Likelihood of Getting the Flu

There are more questions than answers when it comes to manipulating the human immune system and attempting to stimulate artificial immunity using highly variable, rapidly mutating viruses like influenza.

While health officials continue to promote annual flu vaccination for virtually every man, woman and child, researchers have quietly released results showing that children who received an annual flu shot for a number of years were more likely to get the flu than children who had received a flu shot during the present season only.12

Previous research has also shown annual vaccination against influenza hampers the development of certain types of immunity in children.13 In other words, the seasonal flu vaccine may weaken children’s immune systems and increase their chances of getting sick from influenza viruses not included in the vaccine.

If the flu shot being so highly promoted by the CDC might inadvertently be increasing children’s risk of illness, you might think it would be a top area of research, but not in the U.S.

Since flu shots are already being recommended annually, health officials maintain that it would be “unethical” for researchers to conduct a study in the U.S. and not offer the shots to all (whether or not they may be having serious unknown adverse health consequences).14

CDC’s Plan: If the Flu Shot Doesn’t Work, Take Antiviral Flu Drugs

During flu seasons when the influenza vaccine turns out to be a poor match because it doesn’t contain the type A or B influenza strains that are circulating and causing most cases of influenza, which happens quite often, the CDC has another trick up its sleeve: anti-viral flu drugs.

It sounds good in theory to take a medication that might stop influenza in its tracks, but the reality is much less convincing — the drugs are ineffective and potentially dangerous. The Cochrane Collaboration conducted a review of Tamiflu (oseltamivir) and another anti-viral drug Relenza (zanamivir) that revealed:15

  • Both drugs shorten the duration of flu symptoms by less than a day (specifically, by just 16.8 hours)
  • Tamiflu did not affect the number of hospitalizations; Relenza trials did not record this data
  • The effects of the drugs on pneumonia and other flu complications were unreliably reported and included limitations in diagnostic criteria and problems with missing follow-ups on participants
  • Tamiflu was associated with nausea, vomiting, headaches, kidney problems and psychiatric events and may induce serious heart rhythm problems

Tamiflu and Relenza are part of a group of anti-influenza drugs called neuraminidase inhibitors, which work by blocking a viral enzyme that helps the influenza virus to invade cells in your respiratory tract.

The problem is that your nervous system also contains neuraminidase enzymes essential for proper brain functioning, and when blocked with these dangerous drugs, severe neurotoxicity may ensue (especially in the infants and children whose blood-brain barrier has not yet developed sufficiently).

Again, despite their questionable effectiveness and risks, the CDC heavily promotes their use, and even released a health alert in 2014 warning that drifted influenza viruses may result in diminished vaccine effectiveness.

So, in addition to still recommending the likely ineffective influenza vaccine, public health officials have also recommended starting anti-viral medication as soon as possible after illness onset — which would likely be before you’ve even received laboratory confirmation that you have an influenza infection!16

How to Stay Well During Flu Season

If you live in the U.S., flu season may be the last thing on your mind, but it’s not too early to start making healthy changes to resist influenza and other viral or bacterial infections.. A healthy immune system is the key to avoiding complications from infections like influenza. If you have a healthy immune system and take commonsense approaches to healing if you do get sick, you should feel better again quickly and, in some cases, may not even know you were “sick.”

Toward that end, if your diet contains a lot of refined sugars, grains and processed foods, you’re not doing your body any favors. Instead of giving your body the fuel it needs to function optimally, which means being healthy enough to fight off infectious viruses, you’re giving it more toxic elements that it must overcome.

For instance, too many carbohydrates in the form of sugar and grains are damaging to your gut flora. Sugar is “fertilizer” for pathogenic bacteria, yeast and fungi that can set your immune system up for an easy assault by a respiratory virus. Most people don’t realize that 80 percent of your immune system actually lies in your gastrointestinal tract. That’s why controlling your sugar intake is crucial for optimizing your immune system.

Additionally, making sure you’re ingesting plenty of beneficial bacteria in the foods you eat (specifically fermented foods) is also crucial, as is optimizing and having your vitamin D level monitored to confirm your levels are at a therapeutic 50 to 70 nanograms per milliliter year-round.

I believe optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the most potent preventive strategies available, followed by diet (including fermented foods to optimize your gut flora), stress relief, exercise and sleep. There are other factors that can come into play too, of course. The following guidelines will also act in concert to support your immune system and help you avoid getting sick and heal more quickly if you do get sick. You can also read my complete guide to fight the flu naturally here.

Take a High-Quality Source of Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats: increase your intake of essential fats omega-3s which are crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils (think vegetable oils), as seriously damage your immune response.

Wash Your Hands: washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don’t use antibacterial soap using synthetic chemicals for this — conventional antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good.

Instead, identify a simple mild soap that you can switch your family to. Avoid overwashing your hands, however, as this can lead to tiny cuts that allow an entryway for pathogens.

Tried-and-True Hygiene Measures: in addition to washing your hands regularly, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, ideally with the crook of your elbow (to avoid contaminating your hands). If possible, avoid close contact with those who are sick and, if you are sick, avoid close contact with those who are well.

Use Natural Immune Boosters: examples include oil of oregano and garlic, both of which offer effective protection against a broad spectrum of bacteria, viruses and protozoa in your body. And unlike pharmaceutical antibiotics, they do not appear to lead to resistance and the development of super germs.

Avoid Hospitals: I’d recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you’re having an emergency and need immediate medical care, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds. The best place to recover from illness that is not life-threatening is usually in the comfort of your own home.

Flu Vaccine Causes 5.5 Times More Respiratory Infections – A True Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study .

While the government in the U.S. continues to resist doing a true study on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children or adults, stating that such a study would be “unethical”, researchers in Hong Kong have conducted a true vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study on the influenza vaccine. This is probably one of the few, if not only, true study conducted in recent times where a real placebo was actually used and compared to the vaccine. The results are quite remarkable, suggesting that it is unethical NOT to pursue more studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. People receiving the flu vaccine suffered from other respiratory infections at a rate 5.5 times more than the placebo group!

Thanks to Heidi Stevenson at Gaia Health for providing her excellent analysis of this study .

The utter absurdity of vaccination ‘science’ is revealed in this study. It claims a flu vaccine results in less disease risk because it causes antibodies to develop, in spite of not reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease and also resulting in 5.5 times more incidents of similar diseases!

by Heidi Stevenson
Gaia Health

Would you be interested in a vaccination that results in more than 5 times as much illness? If you take the seasonal influenza vaccination, that’s what you’re doing. The seasonal trivalent flu vaccine results in 5.5 times more incidents of respiratory illness, according to a study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

The study is particularly noteworthy because it was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial—and the researchers used saline solution, a genuinely inactive placebo, as a standin for the trivalent flu vaccine. Most vaccine trials utilize active placebos, which are substances that include ingredients used in the vaccines, making the studies meaningless—though this fact is almost never revealed in the writeups.

Subjects were followed for an average of 272 days. The active influenza vaccine adminstered was Sanofi Pasteur’s Vaxigrip. The trial included children aged 6-15 years. 69 were given Vaxgrip and 46 received the saline placebo.

With regard to effectiveness against influenza, the authors wrote:

There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of confirmed seasonal influenza infection between recipients of TIV [trivalent influenza inactivated vaccine] or placebo.

The flu vaccine provided no benefit!

The authors tried to cover that by adding:

TIV recipients had significantly lower risk of seasonal influenza infection based on serologic evidence.

In other words, the authors are trying to suggest that, in spite of the fact that vaccine recipients suffered as much genuine influenza as those who’d received a placebo, they still benefited because of “serologic evidence”. This “serologic evidence” consists of antibodies produced as a result of the vaccine, which is the standard method of determining a vaccine’s effectiveness.

In other words, a vaccine’s effectiveness is not determined by whether it prevents disease, but rather by whether it causes antibodies to be produced!

But the story is even worse than this. The study also demonstrated that the vaccine resulted in recipients having 5.5 times more respiratory illness. Here’s a partial breakdown of their results:

Vaccinated  Placebo(saline)
Any Seasonal Influenza 58 88
H1N1 (Swine Flu ‘Pandemic’) 58 0
   Total Influenza Cases 116 88
Noninfluenza Viruses
   Rhinovirus (common cold) 230 59
   Coxsackie/Echovirus 160 0
   Other Respiratory Viruses 97 29
      Total Other Viruses 487 88


As you can see, even though the authors claim that there was no distinction in cases of influenza between the subjects who received a vaccine and those who received the placebo, the reality seems to be quite different: There were a total of 116 influenza cases in the vaccinated group and 88 in the placebo group.

The authors play with statistics in this study by using assumptions about whether people actually had diseases, because there were many reported instances that couldn’t be verified. They came up with a relative risk of 4.4. In any case, relative risk is actually a meaningless statistic here, because it requires that exposure to the causative agent be known, which it clearly wasn’t in this study.

I prefer a simpler, more straightforward—and, I believe, more honest—approach of simply comparing the numbers of cases of disease. Doing that, we get 487 ÷ 88, which tells us that those who were vaccinated were 5.5 times more likely to contract a confirmed respiratory illness!

Now, let’s take a look at the other respiratory illnesses that people were more likely to contract as a result of being vaccinated for influenza. The rhinovirus is the common cold, so it isn’t a big deal. However, coxsackievirus and echovirus are quite different. Both of them are known to cause meningitis, paralysis, hepatitis, and heart disorders. This is not common, but the same thing is true of poliovirus. It also causes a usually minor respiratory illness, but in rare cases can result in much the same harm that coxsackievirus and echovirus can.

It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that the rate of severe crippling diseases may also be increased by the influenza vaccine, and potentially by any vaccine against a respiratory illness.


This study’s implications are quite serious. The authors suggest:

Receipt of TIV could increase influenza immunity at the expense of reduced immunity to
noninfluenza respiratory viruses, by some unknown biological mechanism. Alternatively, our results could be explained by temporary nonspecific immunity after influenza virus infection, through the cell-mediated response or, more likely, the innate immune response to infection.

In other words, the act of injecting antigens probably damages the innate cell-mediated immune response, the part of the immune system that protects without the need of resorting to development of antibodies. They go on to state:

The phenomenon of virus interference has been well known in virology for >60 years.

The interference of vaccinations with the innate cell-mediated immune response is well known! The authors go on to cite several sources supporting this fact.

In summary, this study demonstrates:

  • Influenza vaccines provide no benefit.
  • Influenza vaccines cause a hugely increased number of respiratory illnesses.
  • Influenza vaccines—and very likely other vaccines—harm the innate cell-mediated immune response, which results in a significant increase in infectious disease incidents.

Nonetheless, our agencies of health destruction, such as the US’s alphabet soup of FDA, CDC, and NIH, the UK’s NHS, MHRA, and DOH, Australia’s ANPHA, and Canada’s Health Canada, plus the international WHO and massive foundations such as the Gates Foundation and GAVI—these and so many more routinely lie about the reality of vaccinations. They use fear tactics and lies to promote the profiteering of Big Pharma and Big Medicine at the expense of the populace, and worse, of our children.

The reality of all these agencies is that, though they may have been created for the purpose of benefiting our health, they’ve been co-opted by Big Pharma and Big Medicine, who have managed to buy their way into them. The result is that these agencies now actively promote, and even enforce, the use of products and methods whose first purpose is to make profits. If that means the public’s health must suffer … apparently, it’s a small price to pay when it doesn’t affect the bottom line.


– See more at:

Feds Vow to Publicize Vaccine Injuries Claim Program

Brain Health

Story at-a-glance

  • In 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and that the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) should be the sole remedy for all vaccine injury claims
  • Most claims are now filed by adults suffering vaccine injury after receiving a flu vaccine
  • Changes to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) are also being proposed to improve reporting efficiency and data quality

If you or your child were to be seriously injured after receiving a routine US government-recommended vaccination, your only recourse would be to apply to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

Suing the vaccine manufacturer (or the doctor when the vaccine was given negligently) to obtain financial compensation for medical care, pain, and suffering is out of the question, as Congress and the Supreme Court have banned vaccine product liability and vaccine injury malpractice lawsuits in the US.

Instead, vaccine injury claims are awarded or denied by US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) officials using US Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys or adjudicated by “special masters” in the US Court of Federal Claims.

Why Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Was Created

The VICP was created by Congress in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act because vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing vaccines if they weren’t protected from vaccine injury lawsuits.

It was created as an alternative to a civil court lawsuit, giving partial liability protection to vaccine manufacturers, pediatricians, and other vaccine providers from civil liability for injuries and deaths caused by federally recommended childhood vaccines.1

If the injured party was denied compensation or dissatisfied with the amount of the award, they could then proceed with a civil lawsuit with certain restrictions, depending upon the case.

Unhappy with this partial liability protection, drug companies kept pushing for complete liability protection and, in 2011, convinced the US Supreme Court majority to rule that federally licensed and recommended vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and that the VICP should be the “sole remedy” for all vaccine injury claims.2

I think it’s worth repeating, in case you just glossed over it: The reason you cannot sue a vaccine manufacturer for injury or death is because vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”

This also means that even if it can be proven that a government recommended vaccine that injured or killed someone in America was defectively designed and could have been made less reactive, no one can sue the drug company in question.3

Funds for the VICP come from a 75 cent fee added to the cost of every dose of vaccine (so the combination MMR vaccine has a $1.50 fee tacked on to it because that shot contains three vaccines).

In effect, Congress gave the pharmaceutical industry a free ride when it comes to drug companies having any financial accountability for the safety of vaccines they sell, and vaccine users and US taxpayers are the ones paying for this program.

This is because the federal government is the biggest purchaser of vaccines provided in public health clinics. When everything is said and done, vaccine manufacturers have virtually no incentive whatsoever to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that are recommended by federal health officials and mandated by state health officials.

Feds Vow to Publicize Vaccine Injuries Claim Program

Unfortunately, while the VICP was originally set up to give vaccine-injured Americans an expedited, non-adversarial, less expensive administrativealternative to a civil court lawsuit, the process usually only adds more suffering.

Many vaccine victims are left waiting without support and financial assistance for years on end, while their case snakes its way through the red tape. Some VICP claimants even say they felt “attacked” by the government that was supposed to help them.

Another problem has been a lack of public awareness that this program even exists. Reportedly, federal officials operating the VICP have now vowed to publicize the program better,4 promising improvements in its literature to make it easier to understand, and improvements to its website.

They’ve also stated they will seek to increase awareness among health care providers, parents and expectant parents, older adults, Spanish speaking adults, as well as civil litigation and plaintiff’s attorneys.

What actually happens remains to be seen. Several years ago, a comprehensive consultant report about publicizing the VICP was created at a cost of $300,000.5 Few recommendations were ever implemented however. At present, less than $20,000 of the VICP’s $6.5 million annual budget is spent on public outreach.

Moreover, VICP directors didn’t begin taking action on publicity until after a congressionally requested Government Accountability Office (GAO) inquiry began earlier this year. Public outreach has also been largely ignored since the program’s inception. A direct quote from the book, The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program reads:

“One of the most OVERLOOKED provisions of the act was the requirement that the HHS Secretary conduct public awareness and outreach programs to inform the general public about the program and the eligibility to file a claim for either a vaccine-related injury or death. …This provision has been greatly ignored by the HHS Secretary.”

The Associated Press6 also claims it found evidence suggesting that “the government seems intent on keeping the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program’s public profile low.”

Judge Warns Publicity May Further Exacerbate Process Delays

The judge who oversees the special vaccine court in the US Court of Federal Claims warns that greater publicity may result in a greater number of filings, which means the process may take even longer than it already does.

As noted in a recent article by Insurance Journal,7 compensation through the VICP can be painfully slow—at times stretching out over a decade—and that’s if your case is even approved for compensation. Most aren’t. According to the Associated Press:8

“Overall, the government says it distributed $2.8 billion [from 1988] through March 2014. In recent years, the program has received more than 400 claims annually.

Claims are supposed to be resolved within 240 days, with options for another 150 days of extensions. But between the court’s opening in 1988 and the end of 2012, less than 7 percent of 7,876 cases not including those claiming a vaccine caused the developmental disability autism met the 240-day target…

Hundreds have surpassed the decade mark. Several people died before getting any money.”

Vaccine Injury Denialists Object to Publicizing Reality of Vaccine Injuries

Another concern among vaccine proponents is that increased publicity around the compensation program may be “misinterpreted” as a public message that vaccines can cause harm, which might dissuade people from vaccinating.

Well, the truth is vaccines can cause harm. The fact that the VICP has kept such a low profile for this long means that most people have no idea that billions of dollars have in fact been paid out to vaccine injured individuals. This is the truth, and however people want to interpret that, it deserves to be widely known that vaccine injuries can and do occur.

Unfortunately, some legal experts still vehemently deny the reality of vaccine injuries and are working overtime to remove the ability for parents to make informed vaccine decisions for their children. For example, UC Hastings law professor Dorit Reiss has been quite vocal in her opposition to changes in the VICP that would allow more vaccine injured children to be compensated.9

She’s also advocating for the elimination of vaccine exemptions and has, in fact, been using her position to claim that there is no evidence vaccines cause harm, and that parents refusing to give their children all government recommended vaccines should be held criminally liable for deaths causes by infectious diseases.10 Journalists are also being manipulated into only reporting information about vaccines that the CDC, FDA, and other government agencies give them, which clearly adds to the lack of transparency on questions about vaccine safety.

According to a July 16 issue of the Nieman Reports,11 “Public health reporters say federal agencies are restricting access and information, limiting their ability to cover crucial health issues.” Fed up with the perceived censorship, a group of journalists have formed a new organization called Stop the New American Censorship12 to raise awareness about this problem. Even students are being blackmailed into not reporting the truth about vaccine injuries. If they write about it, they can get charged with academic misconduct, as evidenced by this recent report13 about a Master of Science student in Australia who wrote a thesis giving evidence for the fact that the whooping cough vaccine isn’t working.

Adult Flu Vaccine Injuries Dominate VICP Claims

According to the GAO’s report, while the VICP was established to assist children injured by government-recommended childhood vaccines, most claims are now filed by adults suffering vaccine injury after receiving influenza vaccine. The flu vaccine was added to the VICP in 2005.14 Most cases involve adults developing Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)—a crippling condition in which your immune system attacks your nerves. GBS has been a known side effect of influenza  vaccines for nearly 40 years.

According to the book, The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the swine flu vaccine program was cut short in 1976 when it became clear that the swine flu vaccine was associated with serious neurological side effects such as GBS and transverse myelitis. Congress also passed the “Swine Flu Act” that same year, which transferred liability for vaccine injuries associated with the swine flu vaccine from the vaccine manufacturers to the federal government. Some influenza vaccines, including the adult high-dose flu vaccine for seniors sold under the name Fluzone, also list GBS as a potential side effect in its package insert.15

All Vaccines Carry Risks

It’s important to understand that ALL vaccines carry a risk for provoking an immediate acute adverse reaction, such as anaphylactic shock, fainting, or having a seizure, which could be truly life threatening if you’re driving a car or crossing a street after you have left the store where you got vaccinated, for example. Further, vaccines can impair and alter immune system responses and can also cause brain inflammation (encephalitis or encephalopathy) that may lead to permanent brain damage.

In addition, as Institute of Medicine Committees have pointed out in published reports, some individuals are more susceptible to suffering harm from vaccines because of biological, genetic, and environmental risk factors but, most of the time, doctors cannot predict who will be harmed because there are few scientific studies that have evaluated vaccine risks for individuals.16Here are just some of the ways vaccines can impair or alter immune responses and brain function:

  • Some components in vaccines are neurotoxic, including heavy metals such as mercury preservatives and aluminum adjuvants; residual toxins like endotoxin and bioactive pertussis toxin; and chemicals like formaldehyde and phenooxyethanol.
  • The lab-altered and genetically engineered viruses and bacteria in vaccines may impair immune responses and do not stimulate the same kind of immunity that occurs when the body responds to an infectious disease
  • Foreign DNA/RNA from human, animal and insect cell substrates used to produce vaccines may trigger serious health problems for some people
  • Vaccines may alter your T-cell function and lead to chronic illness
  • Vaccines can trigger allergies by introducing large foreign protein molecules into your body that have not been properly broken down by your digestive tract (since they are injected). Your body can have an allergic reaction to these foreign particles

In the video below, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), interviews a Connecticut artist and her mother, a former professor of nursing, who developed GBS after getting a seasonal flu shot in 2008. She became permanently disabled with total body paralysis.

It’s really important to understand what influenza and flu shot risks are, so that you can ask yourself, “Does my (or my child’s) risk of getting influenza and developing complications outweigh the risks of getting a flu shot and developing complications?” In the end, it is up to you to become fully informed about all risks and make informed vaccine and other health care decisions for yourself or your child if you are a parent.

New Changes to VAERS

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are also proposing changes to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Public comments are accepted until January 23, 2015.17In recent years VAERS has received about 30,000 vaccine-injury reports annually. The suggested changes to the VAERS reporting form are intended to “improve reporting efficiency and data quality.”  Significant changes include:

  • A special box for military-related vaccine injuries
  • The addition of check-boxes to indicate more specifically the location where the person was vaccinated (e.g., nursing home, pharmacy, school health clinic, etc.)
  • Boxes to report pre-existing conditions the person may have had prior to vaccination, such as allergies, other illnesses, and long-standing chronic health conditions
  • A box to list any over-the-counter and prescription drugs the person was on, as well as a list of dietary supplements or herbal remedies they may have been taking

VAERS is another critical resource that has not been given due publicity or attention. In 1999, FDA Commissioner David Kessler, MD wrote in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that physicians failed to report up to 99 percent of all serious adverse reactions to vaccines and medications,18 and it still remains that way today. At best, a maximum of 10 percent of adverse reactions are ever reported. At present, the VAERS database19 lists 8,000 different adverse vaccine reactions, from localized swelling and anaphylactic shock to autism, coma, and death.20

According to Dr. Kessler, physicians should report when there is a suspicion that the drug may be related to a serious event; they do NOT have to establish the connection or wait for more compelling evidence. Unfortunately, most doctors today are pressured by public health officials and medical trade organizations to push vaccines and consider preventing disease through vaccines to be a primary goal of their profession.21 Some doctors go so far as to “fire” patients who refuse to get every government recommended vaccine even when patients report they have suffered reactions after previous vaccinations! If doctors would instead actively look for and report serious adverse health outcomes following vaccination, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, instead of dismissing them as a “coincidence,” it could go a long way toward building a clinical evidence base that will reveal the whole truth about vaccine risks.

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.


National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact. It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your Smart Phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury, or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC),

  • NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
  • If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
  • Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

%d bloggers like this: