by Rhoda Wilson, Expose News:
The Pandermrix influenza vaccine was associated with a 1,400% increase in narcolepsy risk and was eventually pulled from the market due to its link with narcolepsy and cataplexy.
Flu vaccines are often ineffective, with annual efficacy rates in the US ranging from 23% to 52%, and independent figures consistently showing lower efficacy rates.
Flu vaccines are perhaps the most ineffective vaccine on the market and perhaps the most useless flu vaccine that should have never been approved was FluMist. Not only was FluMist found to be so ineffective that it was pulled from the market but, as with all live and attenuated vaccines, these vaccines have been shown to “shed” and infect people in contact with the vaccinated persons.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The development and promotion of the influenza vaccine are driven by financial interests, with the vaccine being a cash cow for vaccine makers, and the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) exaggerating flu infections to enforce flu vaccinations.
The Flu Vaccine: Science at its Worst
By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null published by Progressive Radio Network on 20 December 2024
Joshua Hadfield was a normal, healthy developing child as a toddler. In the midst of the H1N1 swine flu frenzy and the media fear-mongering about the horrible consequences children face if left unvaccinated, the Hadfield family had Joshua vaccinated with Glaxo’s Pandermrix influenza vaccine. Within weeks, Joshua could barely wake up, sleeping up to nineteen hours a day. Laughter would trigger seizures.
Joshua was diagnosed with narcolepsy, “an incurable, debilitating condition” associated with acute brain damage.[1] Looking back, Pandermrix was a horrible vaccine. Research indicates that it was associated with a 1,400% increase in narcolepsy risk. A medical team at Finland’s National Institute for Health and Welfare recorded 800 cases of narcolepsy associated with this vaccine. Aside from the engineered viral antigens, the other vaccine ingredients are most often found to be the primary culprits to adverse vaccine reactions. The Finnish research, on the other hand, indicated that the vaccine’s altered viral nucleotide likely contributed to the sudden rise in sleeping sickness.[2]
Although Pandermrix was pulled from the market for its association with narcolepsy and cataplexy (sudden muscle weakness), particularly in children, it should never have been approved and released in the first place. The regulatory fast-tracking of the HINI flu vaccines is a classic, and now common, example of regulatory negligence by nations’ health officials. The failure of proper regulatory evaluation and oversight resulted in Joshua and over 1,000 other people becoming disabled for life. Settlements to cover lawsuits exceeded 63 million pounds in the UK alone.
No one should feel complacent and assume flu vaccine risks only affect young children. Sarah Behie was 20 years old after receiving a flu shot. Three weeks later her health deteriorated dramatically. Diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome, a not uncommon adverse effect of influenza vaccination, four years later Sarah remains paralyzed from the waist down, incapable of dressing and feeding herself and rotting away in hospitals and nursing homes.[3]
Flu vaccines are perhaps the most ineffective vaccine on the market. Repeatedly we are told by health officials that the moral argument for its continued use is for “the greater good,” although this imaginary good has never been defined scientifically. Year to year, how effective any given seasonal flu vaccine will be is a throw of the dice. Annual flu vaccine efficacy rates in the US have demonstrated significant variability. Data from the CDC reveal efficacy estimates of approximately 39% for the 2020–2021 season, 37% for 2021–2022, 52% for 2022–2023 and a preliminary estimate of 50% for the 2023–2024 season. Preliminary CDC estimates for this flu season estimates 34% likely efficacy. Although these are CDC’s figures, independent figures are consistently much lower. At their best, flu vaccines in recent years are around 50% effective according to official health analysis. During some seasons, vaccine efficacy is a bust. For example, the 2014-2015 flu season strain match was such a failure that the CDC warned the American public that the vaccine was only 23% effective.[4] Nevertheless, these rates underscore the vaccine’s inconsistent protection.
Studies such as those by Skowronski and Belongia further highlight flu vaccines’ variability and force to question whether the vaccine is capable of providing any reliable protection.[5,6] Moreover, Cochrane Collaboration reviews, known for their rigorous analyses, consistently find that flu vaccines reduce influenza-like illness by only about 1% in healthy adults and have negligible impact on hospitalisations and mortality rates. This limited efficacy raises critical concerns about the vaccine’s utility, particularly when weighed against its risks.
Perhaps the most useless flu vaccine that should have never been approved was Medimmune’s live attenuated flu vaccine (“LAIV”) FluMist, which the CDC later had removed from the market because it was found to be so ineffective – only 3 per cent according to an NBC report.[6] However the real reason may be more dire, and this a fundamental problem of all live and attenuated vaccines: these vaccines have been shown to “shed” and infect people in contact with the vaccinated persons, especially those with compromised immune systems. Consequently, both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated are at risk. The CDC acknowledges this risk and warns “Persons who care for severely immunosuppressed persons who require a protective environment should not receive LAIV, or should avoid contact with such persons for 7 days after receipt, given the theoretical risk for transmission of the live attenuated vaccine virus.”[7]
According to the FDA’s literature on FluMist, the vaccine was not studied for immunocompromised individuals (yet was still administered to them) and has been associated with acute allergic reactions, asthma, Guillain-Barre, and a high rate of hospitalisations among children under 24 months – largely due to upper respiratory tract infections. Other adverse effects include pericarditis, congenital and genetic disorders, mitochondrial encephalomyopathy or Leigh Syndrome, meningitis and others.[8]
The development and promotion of the influenza vaccine was never completely about protecting the public. It has been the least popular vaccine in the US, including among healthcare workers. Rather, similar to the mumps vaccine in the MMR, it has been the cash cow for vaccine makers. Determining the actual severity of any given flu season is burdened by federal intentional confusion to mislead the public. The CDC’s first line of propaganda defence to enforce flu vaccinations is to exaggerate flu infections as the cause of preventable deaths. However, validating this claim is near impossible because the CDC does not differentiate deaths caused by influenza infection and deaths due to pneumonia. On its website, the CDC lumps flu and pneumonia deaths together, currently estimated at 51,000 per year. The large majority of these were pneumonia deaths of elderly patients. Yet in any given year, only 3-18% of suspected influenza infections actually test positive for a Type A or B influenza strain.[9]
As an aside, it is worth noting that during the first two years of the covid-19 pandemic, an extraordinary and unprecedented phenomenon occurred: influenza infections, which have long been a seasonal health challenge, seemingly disappeared. Federal health agencies such as the CDC attributed this sharp decline in flu cases to the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (“NPIs”) like mask-wearing, social distancing and widespread lockdowns. However, this explanation raises critical questions about its plausibility. If these measures were effective enough to virtually eliminate influenza, why did they not similarly prevent the widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2? This contradiction highlights the need to critically examine the possible explanations behind the anomaly, questioning whether the disappearance of the flu was truly a result of public health measures or due to other factors such as diagnostic practices, viral interference and disruptions to seasonal flu patterns. If these interventions were indeed effective, their impact should not have been so starkly selective between two similarly transmitted viruses. This contradiction undermines the plausibility of attributing the disappearance of flu cases solely to NPIs.
A more plausible explanation for the disappearance of flu cases lies in the diagnostic focus on SARS-CoV-2 during the pandemic. People presenting with flu-like symptoms were overwhelmingly diagnosed for covid-19 with faulty PCR testing methods rather than influenza, as public health resources were directed toward managing the pandemic. This prioritisation inevitably led to a significant underreporting of flu cases. Furthermore, the symptoms of influenza and covid-19 overlap significantly, including fever, cough and fatigue. In the absence of influenza testing, many flu cases were wrongly diagnosed as covid-19, further inflating SARS-CoV-2 case numbers while contributing to the perceived disappearance of the flu.
