by Dr. Tim O'Shea DC
September 25, 2009
With the money machine
in full swing to get the untested unlicensed swine flu vaccine out
to the public ASAP, it's hard to keep up with the level of deception
in mainstream media. But let's give it a try.
On 22 September 2009,
Associated Press ran the story:
"Govt: 1 swine flu
shot enough for older kids" wherein they buried the lead:
NIH wants to
give four separate flu shots to kids younger than 9 years
old. Two of the shots will be the brand new untested swine
flu vaccines, and the other two will be the 'regular' flu
Before we look at the
direct misstatements of fact in that AP article, let's read it at
face value. Here is some of the new 'information':
From National Institutes of Health director
and CDC's Dr
children 9 and
younger will need 2 flu shots and 2 swine flu shots
will need 1 of each
vaccine will be ready in October
we'll have 251
targets young children, which is why they need 2 shots
they can get
both shots the same day, one in each arm
NIH has studies
involving 600 children
children 10 and
older showed protection from the new vaccine
didn't show protection, since they don't have a mature
a second dose is
necessary to 'rev up' the immune system
For a study in modern
propaganda techniques, the reader is directed to
the entire AP article.
This article epitomizes a modern fact of media: the days of
investigative reporting are long gone. The article is nothing more
but a dressed up, watered down version of the NIH's article which
came out the same day "Early Results: In Children, 2009 H1N1
Associated Press offers not one bit
of "independent" research, commentary, criticism, or analysis.
Except for deliberately omitting some of the glaring lack of
science in the NIH article, all that AP does is to try and give a
junior-high parroting of the high points.
The AP article obediently adopts the NIH's new pet word
"protection" across the board:
"Protection kicks in
for older children within eight to 10 days of the shot..."
Only a tested and proven
vaccine could hope to provide protection. These studies are less
than a month old, and won't be completed until April 2010. The only
thing these shots are protecting now is an experiment on the live
Trying to feign that giving a 6 month old infant 4 flu shots would
be 'normal' Fauci:
..."the very young
often need 2 doses of vaccine against regular winter flu."
Really? Why has he never
shared that secret with anyone before now? Flu shots were added to
the vaccine Schedule in 2006, beginning at 6 months of age, and
yearly thereafter. One shot. What is Fauci trying to pretend?
He then bumbles on...
"this is very good
news for the vaccination program."
Why would we care what
is or isn't good news for the vaccination program? At $1 billion per
shot approved, I guess it would be good news for the vaccination
program. What does that have to do with the health of our kids?
Another graduate of the Josef Goebbels school of social
graces: always be upbeat...
CDC's Schuchat, another towering medical genius, obviously off her
meds, then pipes in,
"it will be OK for
kids to get one shot in each arm on the same visit."
Excuse me, Dr Mengele?
Did you remember in first quarter med school when you learned that
both arms were part of the same body, sharing the same systemic
circulation? This is the representative of our CDC? Exactly what
clinical trials confirm this personal hallucination of yours?
The AP article plods bravely on:
...The new swine flu
seems no more deadly than regular winter flu, which every year
kills 36,000 Americans and hospitalizes 200,000. But there's an
important difference: This H1N1 strain sickens younger people
There are no quotes in
the AP article - it is attempting to be summarizing NIH's article
that came out the same day. What new swine flu are they talking
about? What disease?
original Swine Flu chapter for that
Secondly, the figure of 36,000 deaths from flu is an old CDC
sales technique that has been employed unchanged for the past 20
years. Actual figures, according to CDC's own documents put the true
figure at closer to 500 per year:
As we thoroughly explore in the full day vaccine seminar, there is
no way that 36,000 people die from flu every year in this country,
not by any stretch, although this figure is rampantly misquoted in
every media. The sales job here is that the new chimera we call
swine flu will be no greater threat than regular flu has been all
these years, so it will be easy for the vaccine to control it, the
same way as flu is controlled by flu shots.
That's the perception
they're going for here.
But even if their own figures were accurate, there has been no
change in annual flu deaths in the past 20 years, yet we only
started mandating flu shots in 2005. So what good have they done?
And this is supposed to be an endorsement for the new swine flu
Sorry, but let's continue with the AP article:
To determine the
right child dose, the NIH set up studies involving 600 children,
from babies to teenagers.
That is actually true.
At present there are 5 separate trials being done on samples sizes
of about 600 children. But AP's next statement is a total and
deliberate misrepresentation: About 76 percent of 10- to
17-year-olds showed strong protection after one H1N1 shot.
Looking at the actual studies themselves we learn that they won't be
finished until Apr 2010!
So what is Fauci talking
about here? Answer: preliminary findings based on a select group of
25 children !! But you can't find that fact out in the irresponsible
AP whitewash promo.
No, for that fact you
have to go to the NIH site, and actually read the article that AP is
supposed to be reporting on:
Early Results: In
Children, 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Works Like Seasonal Flu
Vaccine - 21 September 2009.
Actually in the group of
kids under 10 the sample size was only 20!
The point here is that
these high numbers of "protection" are preliminary findings only.
The formal studies, which are the only ones being done in the whole
world to test the safety and efficacy of the new swine flu vaccines,
these studies have just begun last month. Preliminary findings are
meaningless in formal science.. That's why they design the entire
study, and await the final outcome before making conclusions.
Here we see one of the most disconcerting and insidious
characteristics of the new swine flu sales program: enlisting
mainstream media to deliberately disguise preliminary findings as
definitive, conclusive scientific results.
This only happens in the
world of marketing. Real scientists are embarrassed by it.
Apologies, but one final
important revelation about the AP article, and the character of
Herr Direktor of the NIH: Younger children simply,
"don't have as
mature an immune system," Fauci explained.
So a first dose of
vaccine against a flu strain they've never experienced acts as an
introduction for their immune system, and a booster shortly
thereafter revs up that immune response
Wow. Let's take a breath here, or maybe a cocktail.
For the first time in
history we have the director of the
National Institutes of Health
enunciating in a public worldwide forum one of the principal reasons
why young children should not be vaccinated at all: they don't have
a mature immune system.
Absolutely true. No
child is born with an intact immune system.
That very complex
biological symphony of interrelated allergic responses, antibodies,
antigens, self-recognition, cell response, etc - about which we
still have only the most fragmented and vaguest knowledge -
struggles its way into existence during the early years of the
child's life. It needs no help, no interference, no enormous
experimental toxic load, especially one that is politically
contrived, in its fight to survive.
But reacting to his training, Fauci expertly sidetracks us from that
fact of nature to a landmark illusion of American pseudo-science:
pretending that a flu shot in a 6 month old is a gentle natural
gradual normal immune-building stimulus that will coax the infant
immune system into being.
Fauci then absurdly
follows that falsehood with a sublimely idiotic non-sequitur: the
subsequent booster shot 'revs up the immune system'. Revs up the
immune system. Jesus wept.
This is not the president of Harley Davidson talking here, my
friends. This is the director of the Institute that is in charge of
providing funding for all the medical research done in this country,
an industry that is in excess of
$1.2 trillion annually. And this is his perception of the normal
development of an infant's immune system: an engine that needs to
be 'revved up'.
This is the individual
who controls policies and input and decisions on what substances
will be mandated into your child's bloodstream. Revs up the
Now let's take a look at the actual NIH document of 21 September
2009 that the Associated Press 'reporter' was supposed to be
Early Results: In Children, 2009 H1N1
Influenza Vaccine Works Like Seasonal Flu Vaccine.
The very first sentence
tells us that we're talking about preliminary analysis of a very
small group within the study, showing these promising 76% findings.
Easy to see
misrepresentation right here - the AP article led us to believe
these high numbers were conclusive final evidence from complete
studies. 76% favorable response would be a gratifying long term
result in any major study, but we find out that is only after 10
days, looking at only 25 children within the entire sample of 600
The NIH report is further compromised in its own second paragraph
when it quotes Fauci prematurely ejaculating these minor preliminary
findings into an overblown sales pitch for a completely untested
experimental vaccine, immediately making policy statements based on
this tiny amount of skewed information:
It seems likely that
the H1N1 flu vaccine will require just one 15-microgram dose for
children 10 to 17 years of age.
Oh, does it really seem
likely, Tony? Does it indeed?
Well we're certainly
grateful to have someone like you at the helm, someone whose
instincts and feelings we can trust without actually carrying out
the complete scientific experiments.
We then learn that there are actually five similar clinical trials
on the new swine flu vaccine being carried out in various locations,
all having just begun, all scheduled to be complete in about 6
months: spring of 2010.
And yet the AP article
has just informed us that the swine flu vaccine will be available in
less than one month! Untested and unlicensed.
Going now to the recent published report (17 September 2009) of one
of the five swine flu vaccine clinical trials, the one by Sanofi
Pasteur we learn
the trial began in July 2009 and will go until
The sample size is 650 children. These children are all receiving
doses of an H1N1 vaccine, although whether it's all the same strain
is never addressed. They just refer to is as the 2009 H1N1 virus,
whatever that may be.
As we learned in the
swine flu chapter at
www thedoctorwithin.com there are
dozens of strains of H1N1 virus, none of which has ever been
proven to be the cause of any disease in humans. Including swine
flu. So even though this fact is uncontested, what is certain is
that the swine flu vaccines will all contain derivatives of the H1N1
And that's what all of
America will be getting.
Now let's ruminate on that fact for one second here and not gloss
over it. Swine flu as a disease has never been proven to exist.
Caught up in the media-driven hysteria of global pandemic, thousands
of cases of something in several countries have been counted
asswine flu for the past 5 months without any testing
Three months ago the
specter of H1N1 was raised, with no conclusive proof of being
anything all the cases had in common. But if we have to make a
vaccine, we need pathogen, and this was the best theory they had:
After a month, with no conclusive testing of the dozens of strains
of H1N1 that exist, the claim was suddenly made by CDC that swine
flu was being caused by a "novel" H1N1 virus, now called the 2009
H1N1 virus. No proof of testing on how they supposedly discovered
that one novel strain was ever offered or brought forth, or even
asked for, from any scientific quarter.
At the same time the CDC continued to maintain on their website that
a positive test for swine flu was merely the presence of any
Influenza A virus, of which there are hundreds of strains.
It was almost as though we were watching the birth of a religion
here - unsubstantiated claims, vacillating science, relentless hype
from irresponsible media trying to stay ahead of the curve,
government bureaucrat officials falling all over themselves to
magnify the potential of the global threat, lest anyone accuse them
of playing it down, followed by hundreds of millions in contracts
being awarded to several vaccine manufacturers to create 250 million
All this internet noise about mandatory swine flu vaccination
evoking Third Reich policies of quarantining the objectors in
stadiums or mass detention centers (which actually is law in this
country at present, part of the Homeland Security Act) all this will
be completely unnecessary.
There's no need to make
swine flu vaccine mandatory.
Most people can't
wait to get it.
In the midst of everything we do not know, one fact is certain:
without hyperbole or
sensationalism, the new swine flu vaccine coming next month,
untested and unlicensed, will be the most dangerous
immunological experiment on this country's children in the past