by: Lance D Johnson
(Natural News) The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) claims that last year’s flu vaccine was a “grand success.” Newly appointed CDC director Robert R. Redfield claimed the influenza A and B vaccines were 36 percent effective over 2017-2018 flu season. He tweeted praise on the vaccinatedbecause they “reduced risk of getting sick with the flu and having to go to the doctor by about one-third.”
Even though 36 percent effectiveness is scant and meaningless for a product that promises protection against serious disease, this number is NOT based on absolute risk reduction (ARR). Instead, the CDC bases its vaccine effectiveness numbers on something called relative risk reduction (RRR), a vague and misleading postulation that exaggerates the vaccine’s effectiveness. Their numbers are then echoed by the mainstream media to hide the real failure of the flu vaccine.
A more accurate figure for vaccine efficacy can be calculated by configuring the absolute risk reduction. This figure, which we will calculate below, is only about one percent. On top of misrepresenting the data, the CDC omits five other important factors that should be considered in determining vaccine effectiveness, including genetic mutations of flu viruses in vaccines, the shedding of flu viruses from vaccines, weakened humoral immunity after vaccination, the importance of the individual’s terrain in determining outcomes, and vaccine side effects, which can cause flu like illnesses, secondary infections, and neurological events. As we will explore, there is no reliable evidence linking flu vaccination to a flu reduction in the population. The shot actually causes harm to the vaccine recipient and is prone to shedding, increasing the likelihood that more people will become infected with mutated live virus strains.
Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.
Calculating absolute risk reduction instead of relative risk reduction
Former CDC director Tom Friedman claimed the vaccine was 60 percent effective last year, but what statistical analysis are these health authorities deriving their conclusions from? Let’s take a closer look: On the surface it sounds like sixty out of one hundred people will benefit from the flu vaccine. According to the current CDC director, it sounds like one in three people will be protected if they just get their yearly flu shot. These numbers, sadly low, are made more preposterous because they are based on the RRR statistical lie.
Here’s how the CDC comes up with the 60 percent effectiveness RRR statistical lie: When 100 unvaccinated people are exposed to the influenza virus, they found that five become ill. Therefore, 95 percent of the people did not get the flu, resulting in 5 percent incidence. If another 100 people got the flu shot and three came down with the flu, then 97 percent of the vaccinated group are declared protected by the vaccines, with a three percent incidence. Under the CDC’s RRR statistical rules, they divide three percent incidence by five percent incidence to get a relative effective rate of 60 percent.
If the CDC followed the more truthful ARR statistical rules, they would divide 95 percent by 97 percent to obtain a more accurate figure of roughly one percent. This means that one hundred people will have to be vaccinated in order for one person to benefit. Even this meager benefit of one percent is ultimately negated due to the fact that 100 percent of all vaccine recipients burden their body with toxins and mutated virus strains that weaken their humoral immune system and cause flu-like symptoms.
Selecting the virus strains for the vaccines is guesswork from the start
It takes at least six months for vaccine manufacturers to bring flu vaccines to market, in anticipation for another flu season. The experts select three or four influenza viruses from the southern hemisphere out of hundreds of different types and mutated subtypes that could circulate the following year in the northern hemisphere. This guesswork makes flu vaccines ineffective from the start.
Researchers find out that flu virus strains quickly mutate in chicken eggs
In order to obtain enough pathological material for widespread vaccine manufacture, scientists must grow the viruses in a medium; however, the viruses adapt to that environment and mutate into new forms. The virus’s genetics change. The viruses that are grown for vaccines are not always the same viruses that are circulating in the wild. This is why the vaccinated are unable to adapt to the pathogens that circulate year to year. The immune systems of the vaccinated are being trained to recognize and respond to viruses that are much different, thereby burdening the vaccinated person’s immune system, distracting immune-responsive cells, and taking away their ability to recognize and face the pathogens that are circulating among them naturally in real time.
Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) found that the practice of growing influenza vaccine components in chicken eggs disrupts the major antibody target site on the virus surface, rendering the flu vaccine less effective in humans. The influenza subtype used in their study, H3N2, quickly mutated when grown in the chicken eggs. By the time the vaccine was put in the marketplace, the viruses people are inundated with do not resemble what they will have to face in real time. Flu vaccines are actually equipping flu viruses with new traits for survival, making flu viruses more diverse, with stronger mutations that can hinder the elderly, the young, and the immunocompromised. This is why many vaccinated individuals tend to get sick three or more times a year. First they may come down with symptoms from the mutated strains, and then they may become ill with the side effects of the vaccine toxins. As their bodies become immunocompromised, they are more susceptible to secondary respiratory infections such as bronchitis and harsh colds. By the time they have recovered, their bodies aren’t prepared to face the actual flu viruses that are circulating in the wild.
Vaccine effectiveness rate does not incorporate any measurement of an individual’s cellular terrain for its potential for harboring or detracting disease
The effectiveness rate of the vaccine is a lie from the start because it only focuses on infection of the germ and not on the status of an individual’s cellular terrain, which can either harbor disease or detract it. In their quests for survival and replication, viruses encounter different cellular and microbial terrains within people. These terrains are formed through dietary choices and are affected by environmental toxins. These terrains vary from person to person, depending on what nutrients they are absorbing and the abundance of healthy microbes that are present inside and outside their bodies.
Viruses encounter different terrains per individual. For example, a flu subtype may cross paths with someone who is chronically deficient in vitamin C, D, magnesium and zinc. The person’s cellular terrain may be functioning at a minimum, their microbiome not processing nutrients due to exposure to antibiotics and antacid drugs. Their weak internal terrain or damaged mucosal membranes may readily harbor disease; whereas, someone who is actively absorbing nutrients may easily repel the same virus material.
Individuals who want to have better outcomes in the face of germs should focus less on the anxiety and fear of infection, and be more focused on empowering the internal terrain of their microbiome and cellular energy production. This strengthening of the terrain is made possible through the absorption of nutritive compounds that benefit immune response, including the utilization of the sun’s energy for vitamin D production. This strengthening is made possible through absorption of the antioxidants and minerals found in plants, the utilization of healthy fats for creating strong cell membranes, and the strengthening and diversifying of healthy microbes in the gut for efficient use of nutrients, blood protection, and stress management. If the CDC wants to prevent flu in the population, they should interview the unvaccinated who rarely get sick and see what they are doing to establish a healthy terrain. (Related: Flu vaccine virtually worthless in people 65 and older: Here’s what you can do instead.)
The reality of virus shedding from attenuated live virus vaccines
If you are afraid of getting the flu and think a vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and those who are immunocompromised – think again. After you are injected with a live attenuated virus, you are 6.3 times more likely to spread the flu virus through the air than your unvaccinated counterparts. A groundbreaking study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) debunks herd immunity and actually shows that the vaccinated herd members are the ones perpetuating the disease they were vaccinated for. You may think the unvaccinated are putting the vulnerable at risk, but they aren’t infected by default. They aren’t the ones knowingly becoming 630 percent more likely to spread the flu to the immunocompromised. Live virus shedding after vaccination can occur for several weeks. Those who are vaccinated with live virus vaccines should be quarantined from the young and elderly because they are highly infectious when compared to the unvaccinated who are not carriers of disease by default.