by Mike Adams
the Health Ranger
October 27, 2011
A new scientific
study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines
only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are
injected with the flu vaccine.
Yet, predictably, this
report is being touted by the quack science community, the
vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as
proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"
This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the
past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn't even
bother to read the study itself (as usual).
We continue to earn a reputation for actually READING these
"scientific" studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not
what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say.
effectiveness" claim is a total lie - here's why
What we found is that the "60% effectiveness" claim is utterly
absurd and highly misleading.
For starters, most
people think that "60% effectiveness" means that for every 100
people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won't get the flu!
Thus, the "60% effectiveness" claim implies that getting a flu shot
has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.
This is utterly false.
In reality - and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study
itself, which is entitled, "Efficacy
and Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines - A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis" - only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu
in the first place!
Flu vaccine stops
influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots
Let's start with the actual numbers from the study.
The "control group" of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated
adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97%
of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only
2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.
The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a
trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group,
according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.
The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.
So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the
pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from
this is rather astonishing:
Flu vaccines only
prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults injected with the
Note that this is very,
very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I
wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled,
Evidence-Based Vaccinations - A Scientific Look at The Missing
Science Behind Flu Season Vaccines.
In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines "don't work on 99
out of 100 people." Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was
off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more
discussion of effectiveness on children).
So where does
the media get "60% effective?"
This is called "massaging the numbers," and it's an old statistical
trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry)
uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless
drugs actually work.
First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and
you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the
flu. This gives you 0.43.
You can then say that 0.43 is "43% of 2.73," and claim that the
vaccine therefore results in a "57% decrease" in influenza
infections. This then becomes a "57% effectiveness rate" claim.
The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes
from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children,
which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were
other problems with the data for children, however, including one
study that showed an increase in influenza rates in the second year
after the flu shot.
So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or
CDC official) says these vaccines
are "60% effective," what they really mean is that you would have to
inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.
Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.
But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't
dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather
mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that
flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.
How to lie
This little statistical lying technique is very popular in the
cancer industry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie
about all sorts of drugs.
You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50%
effective at preventing breast cancer!"
But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of
100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of
100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to
work on 1 out of 100 women.
But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50%
breast cancer prevention rate!" And most consumers will buy into
this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies
with these statistics.
So they will think to
"Wow, if I take this
medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast
cancer for me!"
And yet that's utterly
false. In fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast
cancer for you, according to the study.
side effects with yet more statistical lies
At the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with
relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even
when they don't), they will also use absolute statistics to try to
minimize any perception of side effects.
In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let's
suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but
while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who
The manufacturer of the
drug would spin all this and say something like the following:
"This amazing new
drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in
You see how this game is
So they make the
benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality -
scientifically speaking - you are 400% more likely to be injured by
the drug than helped by it! (Or 4 times more likely, which is the
same thing stated differently.)
people are harmed by influenza vaccines?
Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study
just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100
adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults.
But what they don't tell
you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!
It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines
chemical adjuvants (inflammatory
chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get
7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or
Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to
illustrate the statistics involved.
So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you
prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological
disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be
harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example
only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of
Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which
harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually
Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure,
chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but
shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality,
chemotherapy eventually kills most
of those who receive it.
Many of those people who
describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part,
actually "chemo survivors."
Good news for
If there's any "good news" in this study, it's that the data show
vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on
According to the actual
data (from below Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines
are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100
So the best result of
the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the
vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected.
But again, this data is
almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry,
as explained below.
It also completely
ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and
yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the
criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay
funded this study?
This study was funded by the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the
very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has
an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.
For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program
Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than
Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont
is second in the world in
GMO biotech activities, just behind
Monsanto) with special expertise in
pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics.
The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the
creation of a film called "Shots
in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine,"
which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front
group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than
the Rockefeller Foundation.
significant credibility problems with this Lancet study
Beyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers
from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist
should have pointed out:
Problem #1) The "control"
group was often given a vaccine, too
In many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the "control"
groups were given so-called "insert" vaccines which may have
contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not
Why does this
matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders,
thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza
infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The
"control" group, in other words, wasn't really a proper control
group in many studies.
Problem #2) Flu
vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy
It's the most horrifying thought of all for the vaccine
industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against
vaccinated children. It's no surprise, therefore, that flu shots
were simply not tested against "never vaccinated" children who
have avoided flu shots for their entire lives.
That would be a real
test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted
because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by
Problem #3) Influenza
vaccines were not tested against vitamin D
Vitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more
effective than flu shots.
Read the article to see the
actual "absolute" numbers in this study.
Problem #4) There is
no observation of long-term health effects of vaccines
Vaccines are considered "effective" if they merely prevent the
flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer's
two decades later? Is that still a "success?" If you're a drug
manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine
and then later on the Alzheimer's pills, too.
That's probably why
neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of
influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever
to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.
Problem #5) 99.5% of
eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysis
There were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for
this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were
excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that
were "selected" for inclusion.
Give that this study
was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by
researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine
industry, it is very difficult to imagine that this selection of
28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine
Remember: Scientific fraud isn't the exception in modern
medicine; it is the rule. Most of the "science" you read
in today's medical journals is really just corporate-funded
quackery dressed up in the language of science.
Problem #6) Authors of
the studies included in this meta-analysis almost certainly have
financial ties to vaccine manufacturers
I haven't had time to follow the money ties for each individual
study and author included in this meta analysis, but I'm willing
to publicly and openly bet you large sums of money that at least
some of these study authors have financial ties to the vaccine
industry (drug makers).
financial influence and outright bribery is so pervasive in
"scientific" circles today that you can hardly find a published
author writing about vaccines who hasn't been in some way
financially influenced (or outright bought out) by the vaccine
industry itself. It would be a fascinating follow-up study to
explore and reveal all these financial ties.
But don't expect the
medical journals to print that article, of course. They'd rather
not reveal what happens when you follow the money.
Problem #7) The Lancet
is, itself, a pro-vaccine propaganda mouthpiece funded by the
Need we point out the obvious? Trusting The Lancet to report on
the effectiveness of vaccines is sort of like asking the
Pentagon to report on the effectiveness of cruise missiles.
Does anyone really
think we're going to get a truthful report from a medical
journal that depends on vaccine company revenues for its very
That's a lot like
listening to big government tell you how great government is for
protecting your rights.
Or listening to
the Federal Reserve tell you why
the Fed is so good for the U.S. economy. You might as well just ask
the Devil whether you should be good or evil, eh?
Just for fun, let's conduct a thought experiment and suppose that
The Lancet actually reported the truth, and that this study was
conducted with total honesty and perfect scientific integrity.
Do you realize that even
if you believe all this, the study concludes that flu vaccines only
prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults? Or to put it another way,
even when pro-vaccine medical journals publish pro-vaccine studies
paid for by pro-vaccine non-profit groups, the very best data they
can manage to contort into existence only shows flu vaccines
preventing influenza in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Gee, imagine the results if all these studies were independent
reviews with no financial ties to
Do you think the results
would be even worse? You bet they would. They would probably show a
negative efficacy rate, meaning that flu shots actually cause more
cases of influenza to appear. That's the far more likely reality of
Flu shots, you see, actually cause the flu in some people.
That's why the people
who get sick with the flu every winter are largely the very same
people who got flu shots! (Just ask them yourself this coming
winter, and you'll see.)
Thanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of
retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional
medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots
are "70 to 90 percent effective."
This is the official
propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.
It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting
vaccines to be "only" 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets
actually published articles with headlines like, "Vaccines don't
work as well as you might have thought." These headlines were
followed up with explanations like "Even though we all thought
vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60%
I hate to break it to them all, but the truth is that flu shots,
even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only
prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.
Or, put another way, when you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy
waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those
100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be
subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result
of being injected with
flu shot chemical adjuvants.
Given their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu
shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing
ever witnessed in modern society.
Can you imagine a car
company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a
computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the
time? They would be indicted for fraud by
So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu
shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical
analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?
It's truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same
efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit's foot or wishing really hard.
That this is what passes as "science" today is so snortingly
laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.
That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a
powerful commentary on the gullibility of the population and the
power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting
people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm
them (or kill them) isn't difficult these days.
Just shroud it all under
"science" jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who
strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!
The real story
on flu shots that you probably don't want to know
Want to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren't
for halting the flu. We've already established that. They hardly
work at all, even if you believe the "science" on that.
So what are flu shots really for?
You won't like this answer, but I'll tell you what I now believe to
be true: The purpose of flu shots is to "soft kill" the global
population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as
openly admitted by Bill Gates
and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated "public
health" message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea
they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population
through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic mutations.
Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose:
To permanently alter
the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid
enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.
And for that nefarious
purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.