|
For the latest life-saving information please:
 |
|
Schedule a Class at Your Location |  | |
To schedule a class:
Call
617-312-3799
or Email
dclinton@clintoncpr.com
|
|
|
Greetings!
Flu shots are as American as apple pie. And they may be even more unhealthy. A first-of-its-kind study "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis" was just published on October 26th in the medical journal Lancet Infectious Diseases. It was the first study to pool together data from a number of smaller studies to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of the flu vaccine in the United States with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza. The results are striking. |
|
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics | |
 This study, called a meta-analysis, screened over 5,000 articles and found only 31 met their strict inclusion criteria. The researchers only included studies
that used direct virus detection methods as primary endpoints. In other words, they only accepted studies that directly measured whether participants got the flu or not based on physically detecting the flu. Many other studies use indirect measures such as blood serum levels, mortality, influenza-like illness, or reduction in sick days as study endpoints. In doing so, they unwittingly introduce so much skew into their data as to make it largely worthless.
They compared 18,797 subjects who got the flu vaccine to 13,095 subjects who didn't. They found that 221 of the 18,797 (1.2%) subjects who got the flu shot developed the flu, and 357 of the 13,095 (2.7%) not to receive a flu shot got the flu. That's the raw data. The processing is where things get interesting, media takes over, and science falls apart.
2.7% of unvaccinated patients developed the flu whereas only 1.2% of the vaccinated did. Therefore, even if we assume that the full difference between the two groups is completely and solely attributable to the flu shot, the vaccine only provided a 1.5% absolute risk reduction in getting the flu. To put that another way, 100 people must be vaccinated to prevent 1.5 cases of the flu. To put that yet another way, of the 100 people who receive the flu vaccine, 98.5% of them do not benefit from it. They either wouldn't have gotten the flu anyway or they still get the flu. It is possible that the 1.2% of the vaccinated who develop the flu may have a less severe illness, but I haven't found any solid data to back up that notion.
This study supports that a flu shot gives an adult age 18-64 a mere 1.5% absolute risk reduction of getting the flu. As if that weren't pathetic enough, there are no randomized controlled trials showing the flu shot works in people aged 2-17 years or adults aged 65 years or older. There are no randomized controlled studies, the gold standard of medical research, demonstrating that the flu shot even works in the high-risk populations it is specifically marketed to, and no one knows the long-term immunologic and neurological side effects of the many chemicals found in the vaccine such as the mercury-containing preservative thimerisal, formaldehyde, and octylphenol ethoxylate.
Now, here's where statistics craft a fraudulent reality. Many media outlets reported the results of this study something very close to the following "Flu Shot 60% Effective At Preventing Flu." Here's how they got the 60%. They took the percent of vaccinated participants who the flu (1.2) and divided it by the number of unvaccinated who got the flu (2.7) to get 0.44. They then subtracted 0.44 from 1 to get 0.56 and then multiplied it by 100 to calculate a 56 % relative risk reduction, meaning 1.2 is 56% lower than 2.7. The data was then slightly tweeked further to get it to 60%.
It is perfectly accurate to look at this data and say that the flu shot provided a 60% reduced relative risk of the flu, but it is also perfectly accurate to say that the flu shot only provided a 1.5% absolute risk reduction, 97.3% of the unvaccinated didn't get the flu, and 98.5% of those who got the flu vaccine didn't benefit from it while exposing themselves to sketchy chemicals injected directly into their body.
One might question if requiring direct detection of the flu caused the true incidence of flu to be underreported in this study, but that argument is bunk because the same standards were applied to the control the group. Some may argue that mass immunization provides "herd immunity" in that by getting the flu shot you become less likely to contract and then spread the flu. This is a flawed argument because it relies on the flu shot actually working, and the flu shot only provides a 1.5% absolute risk reduction, and 97.3% of the unvaccinated didn't get the flu anyway. |
| Numbers Lie, Money Talks | |
As you can see, there are many different ways to spin this data, and naturally the pharmaceutical industry spins the data to paint their product in the best light. That's advertising. Today's professional medical organizations are heavily-funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and in my opinion they are little more than fronts for the pharmaceutical industry. The Center for Disease Control is also motivated to continue hyping up the flu shot to avoid revealing their incompetency and scientific illiteracy. And most healthcare providers don't actually think for themselves (despite the fact that the U.S. is 50th in the world for life expectancy so clearly what we're doing isn't working), and instead defer to the professional medical organizations because they fail to realize that those organizations have been purchased.
Most healthcare providers have been so indoctrinated with the belief that the flu shot works, and they've been recommending it for so long, that their ability to objectively interpret new data is limited by the confirmation bias. As humans, our ability to interpret data is limited both by the confines of our mind which on some level seeks to reinforce preset beliefs and by our ability to access data. There is more data already in existence than can ever be processed. There is no raw science, there is no human truth, there is merely opinion. Many "scientists" fail to realize this, making them closed-minded, dogmatic, and dangerous. Science doesn't exist. There is only flawed human interpretation of science limited by the minds of those who seek to wield it. |
|
Putting It All Together | |
I submit to you the following:
1) There are no randomized controlled trials to show that flu shot works in children 2-17, nor adults >65. The flu shot first became recommended for seniors in 1960 following the 1957-58 flu pandemic despite a lack of randomized controlled trials demonstrating its efficacy in this age group. Since that time, seniors have been excluded from randomized controlled trials because it was deemed that it would be unethical not to vaccinate the control group. This, of course, is utterly ridiculous. It is backwards thinking to say that you can't deny a flu shot to a group of senior citizens to study the flu shot's efficacy given that there is no data to show the flu shot works in the elderly. Similarly, there are no randomized controlled trials demonstrating the flu shot works in children 2-17; there is merely the belief the flu shot works based on defective cyclical thinking.
2) The flu shot provides a 1.5% absolute risk reduction of contracting laboratory-confirmed influenza in adults 18-64. If you receive a flu shot, your odds of getting the flu go from 2.7% to 1.2%. To gain that benefit, you expose yourself to the unknown long-term health effects of the chemicals contained within the vaccine, including mercury which is a known neurotoxin.
3) To claim that the flu shot reduces the risk of flu 60% is both true and misleading. The flu shot provides a 60% relative risk reduction of laboratory-confirmed influenza, which sounds great, but it's actually quite pathetic. This is statistical trickery. The pharmaceutical industry routinely selectively highlights either relative or absolute risk to paint their product in the best light because that is good business, but it is terrible science, and most healthcare providers are unable to see through the ruse because many healthcare providers don't actually read studies for themselves, many of their minds are already made up on the subject, there is tremendous peer pressure and propaganda encouraging the flu shot, their income may depend upon promoting it, and frankly, a lot of healthcare providers just aren't very good at interpreting published studies.
4) There is no data to show that the flu shot is more effective than oral Vitamin D supplementation to prevent the flu. Winter brews Vitamin D deficiency, and already the majority of Americans are Vitamin D deficient, and almost all Americans have suboptimal levels of Vitamin D (click here for more information on Vitamin D). Vitamin D is needed to properly regulate the immune system. I believe flu spreads in the winter because most Americans' immune systems are crippled by Vitamin D deficiency. I believe a population-wide recommendation for adults to supplement with 2500 IU of oral Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) in an oil-based gelcap is a far more sane and effective form of flu prophylaxis, though patients with hyperparathyroidism, sarcoidosis, granulomatous tuberculosis, and some cancers may need to restrict Vitamin D to avoid abnormally high blood calcium levels. There is an urgent need for randomized controlled studies comparing the efficacy of the flu shot to oral Vitamin D supplementation. I predict Vitamin D will greatly outperform the flu shot by bolstering host defenses more naturally, more diversely, and more powerfully than the flu shot.
5) There is not strong data to support that the flu shot does anything more than reduce the risk of contracting the flu from 2.7% to 1.2% in adults 18-64, but the media-generated belief that flu shot works great remains, protected by a billion-dollar industry and cognitive inertia. Existing data reveals that 98.5% of people who get the flu shot do not avoid a case of laboratory-confirmed flu because of it. Spending billions of dollars and the incredible amount of man hours necessary to vaccinate the American public against the flu simply does not make sense, but statistics have been used to obscure that fact. Most healthcare providers currently believe the flu shot works, which makes it an uphill battle to get them to see how truly ineffective the flu shot is. Given the flu shot's poor efficacy, funds may be better spent on programs that enhance maternal and child nutrition, encourage breastfeeding, promote handwashing, facilitate exercise, and provide and study Vitamin D supplementation with monitoring of 25-hydroxy Vitamin D levels. Various currently-known methods may be capable of preventing the flu and improving overall health better than the flu shot with greater efficacy and a better safety profile at an exponentially lower cost.
To sum it all up: The flu shot is not nearly as effective as is widely believed, heads-up randomized trials are needed to compare the efficacy of oral Vitamin D to the flu shot, the long-term ramifications of the cumulative doses of heavy metals and other vaccine additives are unknown, and each individual must weigh the risks and benefits for themselves.
Best Wishes,
Dan
Daniel A. Clinton, RN, BSN
Nurse, Researcher, Tutor, CPR Instructor
www.clintoncpr.com
www.awesomenursingtutor.com
P.S. Do you know of anyone else who may benefit from this information? Please feel free to and take advantage of the awesome social media bar at the top to share this newsletter on your Facebook and tweet it to your followers. |
| About The Author | |
Dan Clinton is a Registered Nurse, CPR and First Aid Instructor, Professional Anatomy, Physiology, Nursing, and NCLEX-RN tutor, Researcher, Writer, Entrepreneur, and overall swell guy. Dan channels his passion for helping others through his businesses, striving to fulfill the American dream of succeeding through altruism, hard work, persistence, and ingenuity. As a CPR and First Aid Instructor, he offers comprehensive and cutting-edge American Heart Association CPR and First Aid instruction throughout Massachusetts and the New England area. As a professional tutor, Dan holistically aids his clients reach (and often exceed) their goals, and he has quickly developed a reputation as one of Boston's premier tutors for the nursing board exam (the NCLEX-RN).
Dan lives in Waltham, Massachusetts, works way too hard, and hopes to soon finish his first book which will show how to fix the fractured American healthcare system and teach its readers everything they need to know to dramatically improve their health. It is the greatest book ever written. |
|
|
|
|
