Only a few weeks ago (Nov 22), NY Senator José Peralta died of a sepsis a few days after getting vaccinated against the flu (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/nyregion/jose-peralta-dominican-american-senator-dead.html). Though it is “not proven” that there is a connection with the flu shot – and the vaccine industry denies a connection –, the instance of a young and healthy man dying shortly after getting a flu shot is a strong indication of it (https://www.learntherisk.org/news/senator-dies-of-flu-shot/). Only days before getting his own flu shot and subsequently dying, the Senator sent a tweet promoting flu vaccines.
On numerous occasions have I taken a good look at the available science related to vaccines, and my stance based on that is a critical one but cautiously in favor of some vaccines, and vehemently against others. The important question regarding vaccines are those of safety and effectiveness. And they differ widely between the different vaccinations that are in use. Before I start to elaborate, I also want to remind that the pharmaceutical industry routinely understates the side effects (and actively rigs the statistics about them, by excluding every case they can, saying it is “not related”); and overstates the effectiveness (by also rigging clinical studies by means of excluding unsuccessful cases for “other reasons”; and because results in the field are always inferior to those in a controlled setting of a clinical study). So let’s keep that in mind when we consider the studies.
The effectiveness of different kinds of vaccines varies greatly. It is certainly much easier to be in favor of a polio vaccine that has >99% effectiveness (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html) than it is to be in favor of a tuberculosis vaccine that is 70% effective at best (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4950406/). The flu vaccine however is an example of a terribly ineffective vaccine. According to the CDC it prevents only 40% of all cases in an average year (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm) and in some years as little as 10%! For 2017, the German Robert Koch Institute has issued a statement that he flu vaccine in Germany was only 15% effective (https://www.konsumentenschutz.ch/themen/gesundheitsvorsorge/grippeimpfung-und-wieder-ruft-das-bag/).
The second question is whether the disease is dangerous. It obviously makes more sense to try and prevent a tuberculosis, which is a serious condition, than a flu, which is only serious in people whose health is already seriously compromised. So polio combines a high effectiveness with a very high degree of severity; Tb a decently effective vaccine with a high degree of severity; and flu a terrible effectiveness with a low level of severity. And when you look at that, you really have to wonder why anyone should get a flu shot.
Finally there is the very important question of the side effects of vaccines. The polio vaccine, although it was very effective, has introduced the SV40 virus to millions of humans. It has been pandemic since, and it is known to cause cancer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327).
It has been said by vaccination critics that the sheer mass of vaccines given to infants can overload their immune system and cause serious effects. I personally know two cases of severe reactions to infant vaccines; and I also know that none of those two were recorded as such in the statistics, even though they were obvious cases. For infants up to their second year, the CDC recommends about 20 vaccines (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/easy-to-read/child-easyread.html).
But for the flu shot, which is the focus of this article, that is usually not the question, as it is mostly administered to adults. The question there is one of contamination of the vaccine or the use of harmful adjuvants. While some countries such as Switzerland have completely outlawed the use of mercury in vaccines, incredibly in the US thiomersal, a mercury compound, is still in use in multi-dose vials. The question here becomes whether you really want to be exposed to mercury in order to get a shot that protects in a minority of cases, against a condition that is rarely severe. I dare say that if the effects and side effects of the flu shot were honestly measured and weighed against each other, it is very likely that it would be found to be completely useless.
The risk of the unknown should not be forgotten in all this. The SV40 situation is a good example of that. SV40 was introduced to millions of humans because it was unknown at the time. The disease that is vaccinated against and its effects are well known, but what humans introduce by means of vaccines – or its side effects – is not entirely known. Based on history, it is certainly justified to assume that 40 years down the road, many ingredients of vaccines administered today are found to be very harmful.
There is one more “side effect” that should also not be forgotten. The human body is a biological organism and as such works along the principles of hormesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis#/media/File:Hormesis_dose_response_graph.svg). Hormesis means that a small dose of a harmful factor acts as a stimulant that is beneficial. To give you an unrelated example: when you move your body, you cause some damage to your tissues with every step. With every mile that you run, you cause damage to your muscles, joints, tendons and ligaments. Yet you are aware that it is healthy to move about and that it is very unhealthy to sit on the sofa all day doing nothing. That is hormesis: a small amount of damage that you are doing to your tissues stimulates the body into regeneration processes that are vital. And so the vaccination critics argue that the human immune system also needs a degree of stimulation. If we are not ever allowed to get sick anymore, our immunity will atrophy, or take other routes, such as cause allergic overreactions to things that are not harmful.
Taken all together, my recommendation on vaccines is: look at the data; be aware that the industry overstates the effectiveness and understates the harmful effects; and opt for a vaccine only if based on its effectiveness and potential for harm, as well as the seriousness of the condition you are trying to prevent, its apparent benefits WAY outweigh its potential harm. Because if it doesn’t WAY outweigh the potential harm, you can bet money down that the concealed side effects and the lesser actual effectiveness will make sure you are not benefiting at all.
Last point in case: When you think of the measles vaccine, you are certainly aware that the industry tried to make it look like they eradicated measles thanks to the vaccine; and that if you do not get your children vaccinated, they are likely to die of measles. The statistics tell a completely different story: The deaths due to measles were already almost at zero at the time the vaccine was even introduced (http://vaxinfostarthere.com/did-vaccines-save-us/). I have double checked this statistic for other countries and from other sources, and it holds. Measles were rarely fatal long before the vaccine was introduced. And also, don’t fall into the trap of the tragic individual case. Every single case is tragic, but people die every day, of the most diverse causes. To draw conclusions one must look at the cold hard statistics, not at tragic individual cases. Of course the industry will present you with the narrative of “this mother did not get her baby vaccinated, now it is dead”. Of course that is tragic for whomever is affected. But unless it is weighed quantitatively against the effects of the vaccine, it is a manipulative statement.