With a Consumer Reports poll showing nearly 2/3rds of U.S. parents will hold off on having their children vaccinated with the H1N1 late-2009 season flu vaccine, health authorities are likely to resort to scare tactics as they have in past years to induce parents into having their children vaccinated. You can’t cry wolf every year. The Consumer Reports telephone survey shows 50% of U.S. parents are delaying their decision to have their children vaccinated and another 14% will forego vaccination altogether.

Anticipate millions of unused doses of vaccine

There may be hundreds of millions of doses of unused vaccine if the public holds to their guns on no flu vaccination.

The U.S. government has ordered 250 million doses of the H1N1 late-2009 flu strain vaccine from five suppliers: MedImmune, a unit of AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis (France), Australia's CSL, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. In past years the CDC ordered over 100 million doses of the seasonal flu vaccine.

Recognizing resistance to flu vaccination, flu shots are not just being offered at clinics this year. There is coercion at schools, hospitals and workplaces to undergo flu vaccination. The military must take the vaccine.

Reported cases of the flu are likely to be on the upswing as human immunity declines with the seasonal tilt of the Earth away from the sun in northern latitudes, thus reducing intensity of vitamin D-producing solar ultraviolet-B radiation. Despite doing the obvious – promoting vitamin D supplements – vaccines are forced onto the public.

Nasal vaccines will accelerate spread of the flu

The first flu vaccines in use will be nasally-administered Flumist® which utilizes "live" viruses. Flumist®-vaccinated individuals will shed viruses for 5 days following inoculation and are likely to spread the virus to family members. This will predictably accelerate infection rates. Look for health authorities to liken an upsurge in flu cases to the late-season return of the 1918 Spanish flu rather than viral shedding from the nasal-instilled vaccine.

It is not difficult to see how rapidly the flu will spread with Flumist®. For example, breast-feeding infants are at risk for flu infection should their mothers receive Flumist®. Older siblings in grade school are likely to be inoculated with Flumist® and bring the virus home and spread it to their mothers who are breast-feeding their infant children.

Young grade school students are likely to be administered nasal Flumist and subject senior-aged teachers, who are at higher risk for flu-related mortality, to an avoidable risk.

Individuals considered high-risk, such as asthmatics and individuals taking immune-suppressing drugs, should also avoid contact with individuals who receive Flumist®. Any individual receiving Flumist® should not visit a hospitalized patient within 5 days of inoculation. But hospitals post no warning about this.

The Flumist® is not recommended for adults over age 50, and senior adults living in a home with others who have received Flumist® are at greater risk to become infected, though no warning is issued over this.

Vaccines unapproved for the very young

According to package inserts, none of the current vaccines approved by the FDA have been tested for use among pregnant females or in children below the age of 2 for Medimmune Flumist®, or for injectable vaccines, not below age 18 for CSL (Australia) vaccine; not below age 4 for Novartis (UK-USA) vaccine; not below 6 months of age for Sanofi Pasteur (France) vaccine. However, these vaccines are being widely promoted for use among pregnant women and very young infants.

Assessing the real flu threat

Public confidence in the nation’s flu vaccination program exists only because the news media chooses to parrot the many falsehoods offered by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the FDA and the vaccine industry.

For example, no one in the news media confronts the mistaken claim that the late-2009 season H1N1 flu has produced a "pattern similar to that seen in the deadly 1918 flu pandemic." As virologist Vincent Racaniello PhD, Higgins Professor in the Department of Microbiology at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, says: "There is no evidence that mutation led to the emergence of a ‘more virulent’ virus that caused more severe disease in the fall of 1918. The only virus available to study was reconstructed from material obtained in November 1918. The first influenza virus was not isolated until 1933. The idea that a more virulent virus emerged in the fall has nevertheless become firmly established – without any scientific evidence to support the hypothesis." See here for more information.

It is this contrived idea that the Spanish flu could reappear, that the current flu in circulation could reassort or mutate into a deadlier flu virus resembling the 1918 Spanish flu, which is driving the public’s fear over this year’s flu season.

The vast majority of the flu-related deaths in 1918 were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not the flu. Many of these subjects are reported to have had TB, not the flu. [Journal Infectious Disease 2008 Oct 1; 198(7):962–70] Far more people die of lung tuberculosis than the flu. If the $9 billion being spent to ramp up for the 2009–10 flu season were spent on TB eradication, far more lives would be saved. This lends further evidence that the current flu hysteria is driven by commercial interests, not protection of human life or promotion of public health.

How do you kill a virus?

Another falsehood that is often repeated to give false assurance that flu vaccines are safe is that injected vaccines are comprised of "killed viruses." But given that assurance, health authorities go right ahead and administer live flu virus via nasal instillation to young children, which causes viral shedding for 5 days and accelerates spread of the disease.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "live" or "killed" flu virus. As Dr. Racaniello says: "Viruses are not living, so they cannot be killed." Viruses require a host cell to replicate. Viruses are inactivated by use of heat, UV radiation or treatment with chemicals such as formalin. [Virology Blog, Vincent Racaniello PhD]

It is possible for some vaccine vials in a batch to harbor "active" viruses if the "inactivator" has not been completely employed. So-called "hot lots" of vaccines are never reported to the public. Technically, a "hot lot" is a vaccine lot that receives 10 or more reports of adverse reactions and/or two reports of seizures as well as one or two reports of death. 

Need for age-matched vaccines

Another obvious problem is that it appears flu vaccines, if employed at all, should be designed for age groups, since some generations have been exposed to flu viruses and maintain immunity while others have not.

Examine the following chart which compares the age groups infected by the seasonal 2007–08 flu and the novel late-2009 season H1N1 flu. Typically the aged incur higher rates of flu infection. But the late-2009 season H1N1 flu virus is about five times less infective among adults over age 65 than the 2007–08 flu. Young-to-middle aged adults are more likely to become infected this year (2009–10). Usually the very young and the very old comprise most of the cases of the flu. Not this year. This means millions of Americans get flu shots with no potential health benefit and only risks for side effects.

Why would anyone consider receiving this vaccine?

In another misdirection, the Centers for Disease Control continues to advise the public to undergo vaccination for the seasonal flu in addition to the novel H1N1 late-2009 season triple reassortant flu. However, according to the CDC’s own website, 99% of all influenza A viruses currently in circulation (late September 2009) are the late-2009 H1N1 viruses. The seasonal flu strains have virtually disappeared. Seasonal flu shots would be superfluous and even problematic.

Dr. Racaniello asks: "Why would anyone consider receiving this vaccine?" Yet this is being promoted by the CDC and this recommendation is being parroted by the news media.

Positive spin on flu vaccination program is maintained by news media

The news media is aiding and abetting the flu hysteria, dramatizing every flu-related death even when there has been no laboratory confirmation that the H1N1 flu strain was involved, and serves as a free publicity agent for vaccine makers. Behind the scenes there must be mumblings to news reporters they are not to print or air negative reports that would cause the public to lose confidence in the nation’s vaccination program.

An ABC News report cites US health officials as saying low vaccination rates "could have dire consequences," despite the fact this flu outbreak has produced fewer deaths than the typical seasonal flu and did not result in abnormal mortality as it swept through South America during its summer flu season there.

Complicity between vaccine makers, public health authorities and the news media maintains undeserved public confidence in a flu vaccination program that often only offers side effects and no disease prevention or reduction in mortality. The news media is filled with legions of biology-trained reporters or even MDs. They surely must be aware of the following information about the ineffectiveness of flu vaccines. Instead, we see these health reporters rolling up their sleeves on television to receive a flu shot.

Lack of evidence of effectiveness

While older adults are at the greatest risk for dying from the flu, surprisingly there is only one randomized controlled study among older persons (60 years and up) which reported a 33% reduction in flu-like illness and a 56% reduction in circulating viral count. But this means the vaccine was ineffective in most people in regard to preventing symptoms. [Journal American Medical Assn 1994; 272:1661–1665]

Centers for Disease Control officials concede the ability of flu vaccines to generate sufficient antibodies and effectively reduce symptoms and prevent death is only about 30–50% among currently licensed vaccines. [Current Topics Microbiology Immunology 2009; 333:413–29]

Data collected over 33 flu seasons shows flu vaccination reduced the death rate substantially less than expected. [Journal American Medical Assn 2003; 289: 179–86; Archives Internal Medicine 2005; 165: 265–72]

But news reporters must put a positive face on flu vaccination, despite evidence to the contrary.

Mismatched vaccines

Another major problem is that the flu viruses in the vaccines often do not match the flu viruses in circulation in the population. [Vaccine 2008; 26 (Supplement 4): D5–D9]

For example, in 2007 the trivalent flu vaccine (contained 3 strains of the flu) was only 40% protective due to mismatched flu strains. [Cleve Clin J Med. 2008 Dec; 75(12):865–70] The percentage of viruses that were matched to vaccine strains was 5% (3 of 62) in 2004–2005, 5% (2 of 42) in 2005–2006, and 91% (85 of 93) in 2006–2007. [J Infect Dis. 2009 Jan 15; 199(2):159–67]

In the 8 years spanning 1998–2005, flu vaccine mismatch occurred in 4 of those years including both the 2003–04 and 2004–05 consecutive seasons. The nation had no protection beyond natural immunity in many recent flu seasons. Due to flu strain mismatch, 84% of the vaccinees over 75 years of age who received the flu vaccine in 1997–98 were not protected against infection. [J. Medical Virology 61:94–99, 2000] The public is never alerted to this.

A major review encompassing 64 published studies which evaluated the ability of flu vaccines to reduce symptoms or viral count showed overall effectiveness of just 23% during seasons when the flu strain in the vaccine matched the virus in circulation within the population. Effectiveness did not differ from years when vaccines were mismatched. [Lancet 2005; 366:1165–1174]

Vaccination rate

Just how far the doctor-reporter-vaccine maker triumvirate will go in promoting useless and problematic vaccines is yet to be determined. While public health authorities are claiming they will have enough flu vaccine to inoculate a majority of the US population, and have established a goal for a 70% vaccination rate, researchers in Japan says over-vaccination may induce genetic pressure that will produce a more virulent flu strain which can result in an epidemic that is much more severe and infects more people than before a vaccination program. In their drive to sell vaccines they are placing the public’s health at risk. [PLoS One. 2009; 4(3):e4915]

It’s possible for a vaccination program to eradicate a dominant and more prevalent strain of the flu that is sensitive to the vaccine, leaving a less prevalent but vaccine-resistant form which will overtake the population and result in greater morbidity and mortality. [J Theoretical Biology 2009 Jul 21; 259(2):219–28] The mindless drive to vaccinate the masses may end up being mass manslaughter.

Doctors circle their wagons

With all that has been said here about the shortcomings of the flu vaccination program, physicians, particularly pediatricians, have taken a dogmatic and arrogant stance regarding vaccination.

In a survey of members of the American Academy of Pediatrics, almost 40% said they would not provide care to a family that refuses all vaccines and 28% said they would not provide care to families that even refused selected vaccines. [New England Journal Medicine 2009; 360: 1981–88] This should be deemed patient abandonment.

Look for growing public discontent over the flu vaccination program.

Reasons Why Flu Shots Aren’t Always Effective

Type of vaccine: "live" attenuated virus is more effective than "killed" viruses

Dosage and adjuvants: Lower dosage means greater use of adjuvants to spike antibody production. Very young children need two shots, one to prime the immune system and the other to produce sufficient antibodies.

Age: Very young and very old don’t develop sufficient antibodies and may require priming with 1 shot and then a subsequent shot.

Match with flu strain in circulation: often not matched

Season: Fall and winter are the peak seasons for the flu due to falling natural immunity. Vaccination during summer may appear to produce a better result due to natural immunity.

Vaccine resistance: flu strain in circulation may be resistant to the vaccine

Malnutrition: malnourished individuals often cannot produce sufficient antibody response to vaccines.