CDC Vaccine Whistleblower & The Silence That Kills

TruthLies
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
October 21, 2016

My previous article, “CDC commits new vaccine-autism crime,” details the CDC’s refusal to allow its own researcher and chief whistleblower, William Thompson, to testify in a court case involving a boy who was severely damaged by vaccinations.

Therefore, it’s time to remember William Thompson—again. Here are excerpts from two articles I wrote before the stunning film Vaxxed (trailer) was released. Vaxxed is all about Thompson’s revelations and their implications.

(August 2015) …William Thompson, long-time CDC researcher, publicly admitted he hid evidence that indicted the MMR vaccine for its connection to autism.

It’s been a year since Thompson publicly accused his colleagues at the CDC of doing the same thing. Two of those colleagues, Frank DeStefano and Collen Boyle, are high-ranking CDC executives in the area of vaccine safety.

During this past year, mainstream reporters and defenders of the realm have taken two approaches: silence; and vague claims that Thompson’s statements are false.

Both of these approaches are slimy and disingenuous, because the man we want to hear from is Thompson himself. And we have not.

We want to hear from him in a public setting, in front of a hearing where he can speak at length, where he can fill in details, where he can air all his claims without censorship.

At the moment, the possibility of such a hearing is remote, because the US Congress is bought and sold.

Short of a hearing, we want Thompson to sit down with a reporter and speak on camera, extensively, and submit himself to questions.

He has said he will not do this. He and his lawyer, Rick Morgan, know there are a number of reporters who will do a proper interview, without edits. I could easily name a dozen reporters who would conduct an in-depth interview, live, online, for the whole world to see.

What if there never is a full-blooded open Congressional hearing? What then? Will Thompson maintain silence for the rest of his life?

More is at stake here than the danger of the MMR vaccine. The CDC has done hundreds of key studies on vaccine safety. They are all thrown into doubt by Thompson’s assertion— recently quoted by Congressman Bill Posey on the floor of the Congress—that Thompson and his colleagues brought a garbage can into a CDC office and threw out documents that would have shown the MMR connection to autism.

This speaks of a massive indifference to human life and safety.

Thompson should also know, and certainly does know, that Congressional hearings have a way of soft-pedaling accusations against government agencies. There is no guarantee that, in such a setting, he would be able to air his confession and his grievances in full.

Whereas, in an interview with independent investigators/reporters, he would have complete latitude. Time constraints would not apply. He would be asked for many, many details. The full story, from his point of view, would emerge.

It is my conclusion that Thompson entered into an arrangement with his bosses at the CDC. After his public confession of a year ago, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle and cork it. But damage control could be undertaken.

Thompson could say (and he did) that he was willing (and only willing) to work with Congress to present the truth. His CDC bosses were confident they could, with the help of powerful friends in government and in the pharmaceutical industry, prevent Congressional investigation and exposure.

And if Thompson maintained silence otherwise, refusing to talk to reporters, he would be off the hook.

The CDC assured Thompson that he could continue to work for them and retire and receive his full pension.

That’s my conclusion. If I’m in error, let Thompson or his lawyer, Rick Morgan, correct me.

Beyond Thompson’s public confession, there are taped phone calls between him and Brian Hooker and Andrew Wakefield. In these fragments, Thompson expresses his outrage about the use of mercury in vaccines. He makes other damning statements about vaccines.

These statements should also be the springboard for an in-depth interview with Thompson, on camera.

Then there is the matter of a 2004 letter Thompson wrote to the head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding. He informed Gerberding that he had data about the MMR vaccine that was very sensitive and troubling. He was surely referring to the suppressed truth about the MMR-autism connection. Thompson was about to present these data at a major CDC vaccine conference

Apparently, Gerberding never answered the letter and instead stonewalled Thompson. His presentation was cancelled. But some five years later, when she left the CDC, Gerberding went to work for Merck as the president of their vaccine division…

And Merck does, in fact, manufacture the MMR vaccine.

What are the odds that this potential stick of dynamite would be permitted to explode during an open Congressional hearing, with Gerberding on the stand under oath?

The likelihood is on the level of the full moon turning into a cowboy on a horse in full view of the whole world.

So we have the silence of the Congress, the silence of the major media, and the silence of Thompson himself.

I have no doubt he fears for his life. On the other hand, can he maintain invisibility forever?

At stake is the severe neurological damage caused by the MMR and other vaccines.

The pretense of major media in all this is preposterous. After 30 years of working as a reporter, I know what makes a story. I know that a major researcher (which Thompson is) at a major government agency (the CDC), admitting to gross fraud in an area as charged as vaccines, is, without further ado or parsing, a blockbuster, a page-one headline. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

We aren’t talking about somebody coming in from the outside and claiming the CDC is cooking their research books. No, this is a house man, a valued member of the research club, blowing the whistle on himself and his highly placed colleagues, at considerable risk to himself.

This is already a huge story, without taking another step.

To achieve the stunning media silence, there was active repression and widespread collusion and pressure, and lies told and excuses made.

In retrospect, we can understand why a major push for mandatory vaccination has been launched. Thompson was cutting close to the bone with his revelations. Alternative news sites were bristling with stories exposing the dangers of vaccines. The powers-that-be decided it was time to double down.

It was time to overwhelm the noise and go all-out. It was time to pass new laws eliminating vaccine exemptions, and it was time to hurl waves of vicious accusations against truth tellers.

The Thompson case remains in limbo. Will he ever speak out and spill all the secrets? Will he emerge from the shadows?

This isn’t over. It’s far from over.

—here is my follow-up article about Thompson—

Bombshell: CDC destroyed vaccine documents, Congressman reveals; CDC whistleblower case is back (July 2015)

“…the [CDC] co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the [MMR vaccine-autism] study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.” (William Thompson, CDC researcher)

On July 29, US Congressman Bill Posey made his last stand on the floor of the House. Granted five minutes to speak, he laid bare the lying of the CDC in a now-famous 2004 study that exonerated the MMR vaccine and claimed it had no connection to autism.

“No connection to autism” was the lie.

Congressman Posey read a statement from long-time CDC researcher William Thompson, one of the authors of the 2004 Pediatrics study designed to determine, once and for all, whether the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine could cause autism.

Thompson saw and participated in violating the protocol of the study. He helped his co-authors destroy documents that would have shown an MMR-autism link.

Of note: two of the CDC researchers on the infamous 2004 study, who according to Thompson, destroyed vital documents, are Coleen Boyle and Frank DeStephano. They are both high-ranking executives at the CDC in the area of vaccine safety.

This calls into question every single CDC study, under their tenure, that claims vaccines are safe.

CDC whistleblower Thompson’s statement, which Posey read on the House floor, includes this bombshell: “However, because I [Thompson] assumed it [destroying the documents] was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office and I retained all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.”

Thompson has the smoking-gun documents. So does Congressman Posey. I believe others do as well.

There are lawsuits to be filed. Eleven years have passed since the CDC committed its crime of concealing the MMR vaccine-autism connection. How many parents, never informed of the truth, have permitted their children to receive this vaccine? How many children have been struck down by the vaccine?

The lawsuits should be filed against the CDC and the individual authors of the 2004 study. Lawyers must depose every CDC employee who had knowledge of the crime.

And what about the fact that the MMR vaccine is one of the shots that has been mandated, by law, in California, in other states, and in Australia? Mandating neurological destruction of children is a crime that must be investigated and punished. If these states (and other countries) insist on keeping the MMR on their schedules, they are guilty parties.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

WARNING: Regulatory Loophole Allows Genetically Modified Food Products To Be Marketed As Non-Genetically Modified Foods

image-Screen_Shot_201-735-253
Source:NaturalNews.com
Julie Fidler
July 19, 2016

The government isn’t particularly interested in making sure Americans know what they’re eating. It seems like knowing what is in the food should be a basic right, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact, last week Congress passed a federal requirement for labeling products containing genetically modified ingredients that signifies a big win for food companies.

The bill will require labels to be retooled or updated to show whether any ingredients had their natural DNA altered, but it will be years before the new labels are phased in, and food companies won’t be required to list specific information on their products.

GMO labeling proponents had hoped the bill would be more like a state law in Vermont, which requires food companies and grocers selling prepared foods to explicitly label foods that contain GMO ingredients by January.

The more vague bill passed by Congress will supersede these stricter state laws. [1]

The government is only willing to go so far in its definition of genetically modified foods. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says removing DNA from a crop is not the same as adding genes from another organism. This means that corn injected with outside DNA is technically considered a GMO, but canola that can tolerate herbicide because scientists removed a gene is not.

This also means that products created through gene-editing are already on store shelves in the U.S., but because of the USDA loophole, consumers don’t realize it. In fact, this regulatory gap allows American consumers to be duped into purchasing gene-edited products that are actually labeled non-GMO.

Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow Chemical have all struck licensing deals with smaller companies for gene-editing technology. Last year, 8,000 acres of gene-edited canola were harvested by U.S. farmers, and the crops were processed into cooking oil marketed as non-GMO.

Carl Jorgenson, director of wellness strategy at Daymon Worldwide, a retail marketing firm, said:

“There’s a feeling among consumers that they want their food as close as possible to what nature intended. There’s an overall distrust of Big Food and Big Science.”

GMO opponents are often portrayed in the media and many in the scientific community as conspiracy theorists and science-deniers. In light of the USDA’s unwillingness to acknowledge that food products with deleted DNA are just as genetically modified as products injected with genes, it’s not hard to see why that overall distrust exists.

Regardless, an increasing number of Americans are avoiding GMO foods. Some 52% of respondents to a Mintel survey said they deliberately purchase non-GMO products. Many food companies are responding to this push for all-natural products, and nearly 17% of new food products introduced in the U.S. last year carried a non-GMO label, up from less than 3% in 2011.  The issue of genetically modifying the food supply was named one of the top stories influencing behavior in Americans under 40 in 2015. [2]

But some of those labels are clearly deceptive, and even though last week Congress passed a fairly loose GMO-labeling bill, it won’t apply to gene-edited crops as regulations now stand.

It is also important to point out that under the bill passed last week by Congress, food companies that don’t want to reveal GMO ingredients on product labels can simply use a “QR code” that must be scanned using a smartphone or tablet. [3]

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com

FBI Caught Planting Microphones Under Rocks, Inside Light Fixtures, & At Bus Stops In California

Screen Shot 2016-05-15 at 2.03.05 PM
LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger
May 15, 2016

When a reporter for the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command interviewed Frank Zappa for the commands news syndicate, the story was held by a superior who demanded that Zappa – who had been rather hard on the army – answer one more question: just who does he think will defend the country without the army? 

Zappa’s reply: “From what? The biggest threat to America today is it’s own federal government…. Will the Army protect anybody from the FBI? The IRS? The CIA? The Republican Party? The Democratic Party?….The biggest dangers we face today don’t even need to sneak past our billion dollar defense system….they issue the contracts for them.” The interview was not run. 

*Note: It’s uncertain whether the above exchange ever took place, since the interview was never run. Nevertheless, the point is clear, instructive and serves as the perfect introduction for this post, whether the words were actually said or not.

One of the greatest afflictions affecting these United States at the moment is the general public’s overwhelming gullibility when it comes to government. You may think this sounds insane given surveys that consistently show Congress with a less than 10% approval rating, but I think this clouds the fact that most people have yet to accept just how completely corrupt and authoritarian government has actually become.

I don’t mean for this to become some sort of big rant against government in general. Our founders set up a brilliant system which has served the country well for over two centuries. What people seem to forget is our system of government wasn’t set up to create a new set of parental authority figures for the public. The entire intent behind the Constitution was to create a series of checks and balances to restrain government from becoming too powerful and working against the interests of the public. Government’s primary role in America is supposed to be to protect the Constitution and defend the cherished civil liberties defined within it. In 2016, it does precisely opposite.

Our government isn’t just corrupt though. Indeed, the primary function of government at the moment is to protect status quo criminals from the public, not the other way around. This is why the rich and powerful are never held to account, which is in turn why it continues to get worse and worse. A key gatekeeper in this whole scheme against the citizenry is the FBI.

Continue Reading At: LibertyBlitzKrieg.com

Congress Drops ‘Country Of Origin Labeling’ Rule On Meat Products

Congress has repealed a law requiring vendors to label the country of origin on meat packages. The World Trade Organization has given Canada and Mexico, America’s top two agricultural partners, permission to impose more than 1 billion in retaliatory tarrifs on companies that fail to remove country of origin labels from pork and beef packages. RT’s Brigida Santos explains how why the interests of cattle and hog companies may have led to the move.

The Real Reason Why The AMA Wants To Destroy Homeopathy

Source: NaturalNews.com
By: Jonathan Landsman

Why does Western medicine hate homeopathy? Since the 1800s, conventionally-trained medical doctors have been taught that homeopathy is quackery, even ‘devilish.’ Mind you, these are the same people that thought bloodletting, leeches, mercury and lead were good to “treat” disease conditions.

A sinister plan to suppress the truth.
Since the 1800s, despite its popularity among the most respected people in society, the American Medical Association (AMA) has done everything it can to wipe out homeopathy. On the next NaturalNews Talk Hour, Jonathan Landsman, and Ronald Whitmont, M.D. talk about how homeopathic remedies can help to resolve infections plus many other chronic disease conditions.

The world’s elite praise the value of homeopathy, while the masses receive toxic drugs

Talking about homeopathy, John D. Rockefeller once said it’s “a progressive and aggressive step in medicine.” In fact, J.D. Rockefeller took many homeopathic remedies throughout his later years. Maybe that’s why he lived to a ripe old age of 97 – despite having many health issues. Unfortunately, thanks to the Flexner Report and the destructive efforts of the AMA, all homeopathic colleges were wiped out by 1950 and most U.S. citizens know little about its healing potential.

For nearly 200 years, advocate like William James, Daniel Webster, Britain’s Royal Family, Charles Dickens, Wolfgang Goethe and Pope Pius X supported the health benefits of homeopathy. But, never mind all that, the agenda of Western medicine is clear: Convince a gullible public that suppressing (and treating) symptoms with toxic drugs are “better” than looking at the cause of disease.

Thankfully, the public is waking up. And, homeopathy is growing (again) in popularity. Don’t forget to join us for a great show about natural remedies that work!

The dark side of modern medicine: How the Flexner Report destroyed homeopathy in the United States

Simply put, oil tycoon J.D. Rockefeller was determined to control the pharmaceutical industry and ‘modern’ medicine – but, first, he had to get rid of the competition such as, naturopathy, homeopathy, herbalists or any other physician associated with holistic medicine. To do this: Rockefeller funded Andrew Flexner to create the “Flexner Report” – by 1910.

In this bogus report, Flexner visited all the medical schools in the United States and determined that we had ‘too many’ physicians and medical schools. Ultimately, in a classic strategy of “problem, reaction, solution” – Rockefeller (through his media connections) generated enough public outcry to motivate Congress to declare the AMA – the only group authorized to grant medical school licenses in the U.S.

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Flu Flop – Another Year of Dangerous CDC Lies

Flu Vaccine Flop

via: Mercola.com
By: Dr. Mercola

Despite the fact that last year’s (2014 to 2015) flu vaccine was a major flop with an abysmal 18 percent effectiveness rate, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publicly expressed unreserved confidence in this year’s (2015-2016) vaccine.

In September 2015, CDC Director Tom Frieden said in a news conference, “Get vaccinated … That’s the best way to protect yourself, your family and your community against flu.”1

A CDC analysis also was used to reassure the public that the most common strains of influenza virus circulating in the US and in other regions match the strains included in this year’s vaccine.2,3

That was in August 2015 and the “get vaccinated” advertisements have been out in full force – at airports, grocery stores, subways and more – telling Americans that the best way to prevent influenza and stay well during the flu season is by getting a flu shot.

It remains to be seen how effective (or ineffective) this year’s flu vaccine will be, but in the meantime research has shown that much remains to be understood about the potential negative effects of frequent vaccination on human health.

Getting Flu Shots Regularly May Make You More Susceptible to the Flu

Data collected from Canada and Hong Kong during 2009-2010 showed that people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 had twice the risk of getting the H1N1 “swine flu” compared to those who hadn’t received a flu shot.4,5,6

ABC News reported at that time that such shots may actually set you up for less “broad” protection than if you get, and recover from, a natural infection.7

It’s also been shown that getting previous flu shots led to a blunting effect or “interference” that left the recipient less protected from certain influenza strains in later years

In fact, research in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that vaccine-induced protection against influenza was greatest among those not vaccinated during the prior five years.8

In other words, the long-term effects of getting an annual flu shot are completely unknown, but it appears this strategy may be backfiring, leaving those who have been vaccinated annually less protected than those who have not been frequently vaccinated.

Dr. Michael Gardam, director of infection prevention and control at Toronto’s University Health Network, told CBC News:9

“People do not have a good explanation for why … The idea basically is that your immune system is occupied elsewhere. It would be like getting the swirling ball of death on your Mac where your operating system is doing something else rather than opening the file.”

Dr. Danuta Skowronski, a Canadian researcher who conducted the original study discovering individuals with a history of annual seasonal flu shots increased their risk of infection with pandemic H1N1 influenza, noted that the findings are so new that “policy-makers have not yet had a chance to fully digest them or understand the implications.”10

Unfortunately, instead of warning the public that annual flu shots may carry unknown risks and cause effects that are not well understood, public health officials continue to promote them as a panacea for influenza prevention. To say this is misleading is a vast understatement.

Why Might Flu Shots Increase Your Risk of Certain Flu Infections?

Similar evidence demonstrating that flu shots might make you sicker continues to be released. For instance, research presented at the 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego revealed that children who had gotten seasonal flu shots were more at risk for hospitalization from H1N1 pandemic influenza than children who had not gotten previous flu shots.

Children who had received the influenza vaccinations had three times the risk of hospitalization for H1N1pandemic influenza as children who were not vaccinated. Among children with asthma, the risk was even higher.11 Skowronski offered two hypotheses for why those who received seasonal flu shots in 2008 may have been at increased risk for pandemic influenza in 2009:12

  • No Protective Antibodies Generated: It’s possible that the 2008 seasonal flu vaccine protected against an H1N1 virus that was related to the 2009 circulating pandemic influenza virus – but not similar enough to generate antibodies to neutralize it. The 2008 flu shot may therefore have “facilitated infection with the pandemic virus” the following year.

A similar mechanism is seen with dengue viruses transmitted by mosquitoes, which cause hemorrhagic dengue fever in humans; those infected with one type of dengue virus are at increased risk of developing life-threatening dengue if they’re infected with one of the other three virus strains.

  • Infection Block Hypothesis: If you’re naturally infected with influenza, your body will build antibodies that may fight off other influenza strains that circulate in future years. Flu vaccine, however, will only protect you against the type A or type B influenza strains it contains and artificial vaccine acquired immunity is not identical to naturally acquired immunity. So it’s possible that people who didn’t get influenza A infection prior to 2009, were therefore more susceptible to the influenza A pandemic virus.

Skowronski stressed to CBC News that these are only theories, noting:

“… [W]ho knows, frankly? The wise man knows he knows nothing when it comes to influenza, so you always have to be cautious in speculating.”13

Flu Shots Urged for Pregnant Women Despite Unknown Effects

The flu vaccine is widely recommended for pregnant women, despite a lack of adequate safety testing. It was around this time in 2014 that a study came out in the New England Journal of Medicine stating the flu vaccine provided partial protection against confirmed influenza in pregnant women and their infants.14

The media began touting headlines like “flu vaccine safe for pregnant women,” and one news outlet, News 4 Jax, even quoted maternal-fetal medicine Dr. Erin Burnett as saying, “All pregnant women should get the vaccine because it’s 100 percent safe in pregnancy.”15

This is quite a statement, since even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lists influenza (and Tdap) vaccines as either Pregnancy Category B or C biologicals, which means that adequate testing has not been done in humans to demonstrate safety for pregnant women, and it is not known whether the vaccines can cause fetal harm or affect reproduction capacity.16

There are ingredients in flu vaccines, including mercury-containing (Thimerosal) preservatives, and many more bioactive and potentially toxic ingredients that have not been fully evaluated for potential genotoxic or other adverse effects on the human fetus developing in the womb that may negatively affect health after birth.

The rush to vaccinate pregnant women to try to passively vaccinate the developing fetus is a clear case of policy preceding science, as NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher pointed out in her public comment at a recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine advisory committee meeting where public health officials made preparations to fast track vaccines targeting pregnant women to licensure. She said,

“Maternal vaccination policy has preceded vaccine safety science. Now there are proposals on the table here in this Committee and in the 21st Century Cures Act backed by FDA and industry to lower FDA licensing standards to ensure that vaccine policy can continue to precede vaccine safety science in the future.”17

It is clear that in the future many pregnant women are not only going to be urged to get the current government recommended influenza, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines during every pregnancy but also be urged to get more vaccines that may not have been thoroughly tested. While women are evaluating their options for staying well during pregnancy, it is always wise to optimize  vitamin D levels, which has the potential to not only cut your risk of the flu in half but also can protect you and your baby from serious complications, such as premature delivery and preeclampsia.

More People Opting Out of the Flu Vaccine in the UK

Last year, the flu vaccine in the UK was even more of a failure than in the US. In the UK, during the 2014-15 flu season the flu vaccine was only 3 percent effective.

The Conversation described this as “one bad year,” but even during a good year the effectiveness is usually around 50 percent, which means whether or not it will protect you amounts to the flip of a coin.18

So it’s no wonder that this year the UK is seeing low uptake of the vaccine – influenza vaccination rates are down 6 percent compared to last year.19 Vaccination rates are even low among groups considered to be most vulnerable to the flu, such as the elderly, children under 5 and those with chronic heart, lung or kidney disease.

The fact is that people are right to be skeptical about an annual vaccine with this kind of questionable track record. Its effectiveness is wholly dependent on the educated “guesses” of public health officials to choose the “right” influenza strains that circulate widely in any given year to include in the vaccine.

And then they are banking on the hope that the virus won’t mutate into a new strain between the time the vaccine is developed in the spring and when the “flu season” begins in the fall.

This is precisely what happened last year. In June 2015, research was published in Cell Reports showing that the influenza A virus that had widely circulated during the 2014-2015 flu season had mutated. However, that mutation was not factored in when the vaccine was developed in early 2014.20

Even then, if all conditions are accounted for and you’ve been vaccinated against the exact same influenza strain you’re likely to be exposed to in real life, the vaccine is not 100-percent effective. As mentioned, on a good year it may only be 50 or 60 percent effective.

During the past three flu seasons the CDC has claimed the flu vaccine’s overall effectiveness in the US was between 47 percent and 62 percent, but some experts have measured it at 0 to 7 percent.21,22

Statins May Weaken the Effect of the Flu Vaccine

If you’re taking statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, you should know that this may weaken your body’s response to the flu vaccine. In those over 65 who received a flu shot, researchers found antibody concentrations were between 38 percent and 67 percent lower than those in people not taking statins.23 Among younger individuals a weakened response was also seen.

Those who received a flu shot and were taking statins were 11 percent more likely to develop a respiratory illness that required medical attention compared to those not taking the drugs.24 It’s thought that statins’ anti-inflammatory properties may be responsible for lowering the immune system’s response to the vaccine.

Considering that one in four Americans over aged 45 take statins, this could be one reason why the flu vaccine appears particularly ineffective among the elderly. The Lancet even concluded, “evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking25 The “solution” was to come out with a new, higher dose vaccine – Fluzone High-Dose vaccine. It contains four times the amount of antigen found in a standard dose.26

Research published in 2014 showed Fluzone may lower the risk of getting influenza by 24 percent among seniors compared to the standard-dose vaccine.27 This still isn’t saying much, considering during the 2012 to 2013 flu season the standard flu vaccine was just 9 percent effective in seniors aged 65 and over.

Even when getting a vaccine with four times the dose, only one in four cases of influenza in older patients was potentially prevented. And it’s unclear whether the vaccine actually lowers the risk of influenza-related health complications and deaths.

Now, in another attempt to force the elderly to respond to the notoriously ineffective influenza vaccine, the FDA has licensed a potentially highly reactive flu vaccine that contains a controversial oil in water MF59 (squalene) adjuvant, which has been associated with development of narcolepsy and other autoimmune disorders and chronic illness.

The Fluad vaccine developed by Novartis (sold in 2015 to Australia’s CSL Group now trading as Seqiris) is supposed to stimulate a supercharged inflammatory immune response in those over age 65 that will be more protective.  At a September 2015 FDA committee meeting, consumer advocates protested that not enough study had been done in U.S. seniors to prove the squalene-adjuvanted vaccine was safe for them.28

Even Congress Is Asking Why the Flu Vaccine Isn’t Working

At a congressional hearing held by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Oversight and Investigations in November 2015, lawmakers questioned federal officials about why more progress hasn’t been made toward developing effective flu vaccines and treatments.

Witnesses from the CDC, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority were questioned, with most lawmakers expressing “frustration that the health agencies were not further along.” As reported by STAT:29

“We are still developing flu vaccines with 1940s technology,’ said Representative Tim Murphy, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the subcommittee. ‘We need better testing to quickly learn of mutations.’ And Representative Diana DeGette, of Colorado … showed her impatience with the group, noting that ‘I’ve been pushing for 10 years to fix the system.'”

Continue Reading @Mercola.com