No Value in Any Influenza Vaccine: Cochrane Collaboration Study ... This study is damning of the entire pharmaceutical industry and its minions, the drug testing industry and the medical system that relies on and promotes them. Influenza vaccines produce no benefit and cause serious harm. – Gaia Health
Dominant Social Theme: Big Pharma looks out for us.
Free-Market Analysis: Gaia Health is reporting on a 2010 study published in the Cochrane Collaboration Library that concluded the so-called influenza vaccine is ineffective and that studies regarding flu vaccines generally are flawed.
The study cited harm from such vaccines that went unreported and found that studies showing benefits received more coverage in prestigious journals if they came from mainstream facilities. Further, "the only ones showing benefit were industry-funded."
While the study is from 2010 and seems to have received extensive coverage when it was released, we note that certain reports of the time seem to downplay ramifications or seem to ignore obvious conclusions.
Gaia Health's re-reporting sparked an additional 150-plus cites on Google, including one from Planet.Infowars.com (beta) initially posted at nomorefakenews.com. In "The Vaccine Empire Collapsed," Jon Rappoport writes:
You may not have heard the explosion, but it happened.
A review from The Cochrane Collaboration, a widely respected research-analysis team, went over all the evidence, and entered its conclusion:
In healthy adults, no flu vaccine delivers protection from the flu.
It doesn't protect against transmission of flu viruses from person to person, either.
So all the promotion and all the pandering and all the scare tactics and all the "expert medical opinion" and all the media coverage...useless, worthless, and irrelevant.
Billions of dollars of financed lies about flu vaccines were just that: lies.
It gets worse, because the entire theory about how and why vaccines work is sitting on a razor's edge, ready to fall into the abyss of discarded fairy tales.
In this Internet era, the debunkery of elite dominant themes proceeds apace. Older reports add their weight to new ones and patterns emerge about elite manipulation. What seemed possible once becomes an increasing probability. There is no off switch for what we call the Internet Reformation.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield, about whom we have written many times over several years, was vilified for suggesting that autism might be linked to diseases of the gut that were in turn caused by various kinds of vaccines.
Wakefield lost his medical license and was pilloried in thousands of mainstream articles and videos posted on the 'Net. But when we check the Internet for cites regarding Wakefield, we find over 5,000 of them, including a press conference held by Wakefield on October 4, 2012 La Crosse, WI.
Wakefield had arrived in La Crosse to confront one of his chief accusers, British journalist Brian Deer who, according to the Examiner, had arrived at the University of Wisconsin La Crosse to speak as part of a lecture series in Life Sciences.
We believe Deer has over the years distorted certain facts to put Dr. Wakefield in a bad light. He was confronted about some of his reporting according to the Examiner article as follows:
A statement that was read aloud to Deer asked, "Dr. Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientific Officer in the UK, supports the position of Dr. Wakefield. What is your opinion on this?" Deer responded that Dr. Fletcher was never Chief Scientific Officer in the UK. Dr. Fletcher, however, is in fact the former Chief Scientific Officer for the Department of Health in the UK.
In other words, once again, Deer made a statement that fact-checking didn't bear out. The Examiner article also reported that Dr. Wakefield had wanted to speak formally at La Crosse but that the University hadn't allowed it. Here's an additional excerpt:
Dr. Andrew Wakefield also came to La Crosse on October 4, but was not allowed to speak at the University. Before Deer's talk, Wakefield held an outdoor press conference at Myrick Park, near the campus where he talked about the autism epidemic and how the medical community has failed to recognize or treat the overwhelming health problems that affect increasing numbers of children ...
When a local doctor brought up studies that show no link and claimed that Wakefield's work had never been duplicated, Wakefield disagreed and offered to debate him about it. Wakefield said that if you talk with doctors privately, they will admit that something is wrong and that they are concerned but, publicly, they know that talking about autism as an epidemic invites speculation on the cause and that leads to the controversial link to vaccines, something most doctors are not willing to do.
Dr. Wakefield would have presented his side but La Crosse would not allow him on campus to talk. Instead the students were given only Deer's controversial claims. In her opening remarks and before an audience of hundreds of UWL students, Professor of Immunology Bernadette Taylor said, "There is no debate... This University did not invite a debate on that issue." The University of WI-La Crosse's stance was clear.
Conclusion: In another era, the debate over the harmful effects of vaccines would have been squelched. But the Internet is like a large echo chamber. Even the littlest report may reverberate if it is credible and sensible. And unfortunately, the reports regarding vaccines' damages seem credible indeed.