We were doing some gardening on 'the verge' (the disputed piece of communal land opposite our road that has resulted in more UN resolutions than Gaza and Somalia combined) when the neighbours returned from their doctors appointment.
'How did the flu shot go?" I asked.
'Not great. The doctor advised me I should get the pneum-something vaccine too.' she said.
I laughed out loud. I'd already told them that all flu vaccines are in essence, by their very nature, untested in proper clinical trials.
'I bet he's never read a paper on it,' I said 'he's just doing what he's been told to by some 'guidelines' and guidance'. He probably is on a bonus to immunise you. I wouldn't go near it if I were you.'
'Hmmm...' they said.
So I spent another 5 minutes researching this one. I quickly came across this study of 90 000 people. that is the 'evidence' used to justify the vaccine.
Hidden within it were the following blinding revelations of how great this vaccine is:
- You need to immunise 1 000 people to prevent one pneumococal pneumonia: deaths stayed the same in both groups.
- The vaccine group got 50% more serious illnesses after immunisation; more adverse effects, more serious adverse affects and more local effects than placebo.
In fact, for every pneumococcal pneumonia prevented, FIVE people got a new chronic illness... woohoo!
What an amazing vaccine, heh? The drug companies must just love this one.
From a business point of view the drug companies not only sell millions of next to useless vaccines, but they also create NEW DISEASE that needs to be treated. I
Postscript: How do you hide this kind of damning data? Well in this case they had a 'safety subgroup' that was MUCH smaller than the main group. This meant that even though EVERY parameter was worse in the vaccine group the numbers simply didnt get up to 'statistical significance'. Of course any honest research would say we need to increase the power (the number of people studied) because there is clearly a trend. You may ask why wasn't this done?
Maybe, just maybe, it's something to do with who funded the research... just maybe...
... although at the bottom it does say 'no other potential conflict of interest'... ha ha ha