Friday, February 22, 2013

Shock CDC Study: Flu Vaccine Ineffective in 91% of Seniors

Activist Post

A study released today by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows shockingly low rates of effectiveness for this year's flu vaccine.

According to the report, the flu vaccine was effective for only 9% of seniors over 65 years old. In other words, 91% of seniors in the study who were vaccinated were still susceptible to getting the flu.

The CDC showed somewhat better results for younger persons. They claimed that the flu vaccine was effective for 58% of those aged 6 months-17 years, 46% for persons aged 18–49 years, and 50% for persons aged 50–64 years.

Overall, the CDC claimed this year's flu vaccine was "moderately effective" and made the unprovable claim that "influenza vaccination reduced the risk for medical visits resulting from influenza A and B by 56%."

But since young people generally have stronger immune systems than seniors it's unclear how many of the younger test subjects would not have gotten the flu whether they were vaccinated or not.

It seems that the figure for seniors is far more accurate as to the actual effectiveness of the vaccine precisely because they have weaker immune systems.


One would think these dismal numbers should dampen the CDC's enthusiasm for flu vaccines, but it seems to have done just the opposite. The CDC claims that the figures for younger adults "confirm the benefits" and "offers further support" for annual flu vaccines.

The editors of the report state:
Confirmation of the protective benefits of the 2012–13 influenza vaccine among persons aged 6 months–64 years offers further support for the public health benefit of annual seasonal influenza vaccination and supports the expansion of vaccination, particularly among younger age groups.
The CDC called the woefully low effectiveness in seniors "nonsignificant", only that it "reinforces the need for continued advances in influenza vaccines," and that "vaccines remain the best preventive tool available."
The nonsignificant adjusted VE of 9% against A (H3N2) among persons aged ≥65 years is similar to the estimate in a recent interim report from Europe (6) and reinforces the need for continued advances in influenza vaccines, especially to increase protective benefits for older adults. 
One possible explanation for these findings is that some older adults did not mount an effective immune response to the influenza A (H3N2) component of this season's vaccine. Nonetheless, this finding should not discourage future vaccination by persons aged ≥65 years, who are at greater risk for more severe cases and complications from influenza. Influenza vaccines remain the best preventive tool available.
However, according to their own data, a strong immune system is the best preventative measure against the flu, but Big Pharma doesn't make any money from that.

Finally, the CDC concludes the report with a recommendation to increase the use of flu vaccines; "This report highlights the value of both increasing the use of influenza vaccines, especially among children and young adults, and continuing efforts to develop more effective vaccines and vaccination strategies."

If a 91% failure rate is "nonsignificant" to the CDC, what level of failure must be reached for them to disavow vaccines?

Read other articles from Activist Post Here



BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Those numbers show that the flu shot given to seniors caused the flu. If 91% of seniors given a flu vaccine fall ill to the flu, what percentage of those who did not receive a flu shot fall ill?
Guarantee it is less than 91%.
It is quite clear that the flu shot is giving seniors the flu.
Is the flu shot a plan to euthanize seniors to reduce social security payments?

William said...

Stop and think: could all the stories we've been reading: environmental disasters, the defective consumers products, 9/11, the drug fueled mass shootings being used to justify greater police state laws, fracking, the Gulf oil spill, Fukushima, contaminated vaccines and poisoned foods, drugs that don't work, untested and are actually dangerous, using DU for crockery, genetically toxic GMO foods, modified wheat that is addictive, fructose that causes obesity, ignored cheap alternative fuels, marginalized cures for cancer, recreating the Spanish flu...I could probably come up with an extensive list...are these unconnected, accidental, mere incompetence, or is it even worse: deliberate acts meant to create depopulation and sow chaos, laying the foundation for a totalitarian New World Order?

Dr. David Ritchie, DC said...

Agreed with "Anonymous" above... these numbers are worse than placebo. A shot of saline would have had a better effect.

My take on it: http://cafechiropractorwalnutcreek.com/blog/2013/02/22/cdc-flu-vaccine-only-9-effective-in-seniors/

Anonymous said...

Great list William, we are getting hit from all sides and this onslaught is most definitely NOT a series of coincidences or incompetence, it is very deliberate, calculated, and insidious by design.

Anonymous said...

The writer of this story has made a common mistake re-interpreting the CDC 9% statistic into 91%. The writer assumes that 91% of the vaccinated get the flu. This is almost certainly not the case.

I suspect the CDC statistic really refers to "relative risk" not absolute risk. The difference between these measures is described in depth in the book "Calculated Risks" by Gerd Gigerenzer.

The 9% almost certainly means that in the vaccinated elderly population the proportion who get the flu is 9% less than the proportion of the unvaccinated elderly who get the flu.

For example, if 100 out of 1000 unvaccinated elderly get the flu, the CDC claim probably means that only 91 out of 1000 vaccinated elderly would get it. This would be the 9% effectiveness mentioned.

Without knowing the actual incidence of flu in the unvaccinated population, it is impossible to really make sense of this statistic. But from the example, it should be clear that is does not necessarily imply that 910 out of 1000 vaccinated elderly get the flu.

Statistics are so wildly misrepresented in all media, I urge every reader to check out Gigerenzer's book. The section on breast cancer screening alone is worth the read.

Anonymous said...

The writer has made a common mistake re-interpreting the CDC 9% into 91%. The number 9% almost certainly refers to a "relative risk" reduction rather than an "absolute risk" reduction. The crucial difference between these concepts is well-described in the book "Calculated Risks" by Gerd Gigerenzer.

The CDC statistic should probably be interpreted as following: if. for example, 100 out of every 1000 unvaccinated elderly people get the flu, then only 91 out of 1000 vaccinated elderly get the flu. This would be the 9% effectiveness described by the CDC.

This example hopefully makes it clear that we should not necessarily assume that 91% of vaccinated people get the flu. The 9% statistic can only be understood correctly if the incidence of flu among the unvaccinated is stated, which it is not in this article.

The media-- including alternative media-- frequently misrepresents statistics. I urge readers to protect themselves by becoming more statistically literate. Gigerenzer's book is an excellent start. The section on breast cancer screening alone is worth the read.

Anonymous said...

I don't even think the math will add up on this one.

Overall Effectiveness: 56%

Groups with Effectiveness of 56% or Greater:
1 - children between the ages of 6 mos. - 17 years
(Effectiveness = 58%)

If you just include the group that is closest to the overall average that is under the average,

Age group 50-64 - Effectiveness = 50%

then you would have to have roughly 3 times as many children between the ages of 6 mos. - 17 years, taking the shots as those between the ages of 50-64 to get an overall effectiveness percentage of 56%.

If you weight each of the three groups under 56% effective equally, which certainly understates the number of senior citizens getting the shot, then the number of those 6 mos. - 17 years taking the shot would have to be over 10 times the number taking the shot in all other groups combined, just to get an overall 56% effective rating.

How they get away with these reports is amazing.

The moral of the story :
DON'T BELIEVE CDC DATA, THEY ARE LIARS.

Anonymous said...

Its time to secede. This rogue gov doesnt give a fk about
its people or the Constitution. We're def at war.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11:40, thanks for that.

Didn't see full stats out yet on the COST of the vaccination program for 2012. Did find a list of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. They pay 95% of the Average Wholesale Price. The CMS website listed codes for pricing at an average of $17.19 per dose. That was after throwing out a low of $6.65 for an infant dose and $30.92 as the highest. Presumably all these prices are at 95% of a wholesale price, so who knows what a retail price is. Millions vaccinated. Bunch of money no matter how you slice it.

I still think young health people should accept the flu as part of life, a few days of misery in exchange for a lifelong resistant to that strain. If seniors hadn't been exposed to so many flues over their lifetime, they'd be dropping like flies if they were depending of the vaccine.

Anonymous said...

Why trust the manufacturers of these vaccines? I guess you have to be someone who walks around thinking bio warfare companies care about your health.

Anonymous said...

Even for those who got their Flu Shits there is still a strong chance you will get that Flu nor another like it anyway. What a scam by our government so big pharma can make billions off the tax payer dole. Talk about corporate welfare at the expense of the people and then on top of that the Flu Shot has been known to kill people to boot. None of us can win for losing on this one. Our government going to depopulate this nation one way or the other. By sickness, by GMO, by radiation, by taxes by spreading their own mixtures of diseases or by the continual Dumbing Down of America in the public school system.

Anonymous said...

Just more Fear Porn for the masses. They want everyone vaccinated, no matter what so they now must create an even stronger vaccines STAB. Why the hysteria? Why are healthcare workers losing their jobs over following their conscience? Why are schools demanding vaccines? Whatever's in these repugnant vaccines bears closer scrutiny. We are a self-healing species, and everything we need is right here on Earth. We are not to be destroyed by Chemicals and man-made diseases!

SNAKEBELLY said...

You nailed it William...

Anonymous said...

The flu vaccine is an inactivated virus. That means that 100% of all virus particles in it must be inactivated, or you are mainlining flu by taking the shot. Given the recent revelations of QC right here in the US resulting in 35 deaths, do you really trust the vaccine you get in the supermarket?

Anonymous said...

You all assume that the researchers are honest.Not so , they are all in the pay of the illuminati Banksters,FDA, and BIll Gates.It is a well known fact that statistics are manipulated to achieve the desired result. This is done to allay the publics legitimate fears that we are being poisoned by the Elite. All vaccines bypass most of the innate defense mechanisms.All vaccines are loaded with neurotoxins, sterilisers and cancer causing agents as well as such dangerous substances they will not divulge calling them market sensitive. Take it from me as a Medical Scientist that all docters drugs and vaccines are designed specifically as slow acting genocidal agents with the global UN depopulation agenda 21 in mind. Doctors are by far the greatest killers on earth and most of them don't even realise it. Thats how ignorant and stupid they are.They are the front line troops of the WHO ( World Homocide Organisation) and have been so indoctrinated and enslaved that they only treat chronically ill patients with the most damaging drugs instead of the well proven curative agents that mother nature provides in abundance. They all follow the Hegelian dialectic which is . " create a crisis where there is none ,. have the solution ready, which invariably turns the victim into a serf, and a very sickor dead one indeed.

Emanuel

Post a Comment