Analysis Finds Flu Vaccine Efficacy Lacking, As Flu Vaccines Are Suspended Across Europe And Canada

[SEE3772]

By Dr. Joseph Mercola



With flu season just around the corner, health agencies are telling Americans to just "get your flu shot," assuring everyone that it's safe and effective. Many, like MedicineNet.com,1 chalk up any and all safety concerns as "myths."

"It's the time of year when you should be thinking about flu vaccinations for yourself and your family," they write. "Some people, however, decide not to get the flu vaccine and put themselves and others at risk of getting sick just because they believe long-held myths about the vaccine."

Myths? I think not.

Read More

---

Top 10 Drug Company Settlements

[theaustinescorts]

All vaccines are inherently dangerous. Any vaccine should only be used when the disease it seeks to prevent carries a high risk of mortality or other serious injury such as for polio or smallpox.

Using vaccines for such benign diseases as pertusis, the mumps, or chicken pox, much less for common influenza, is dangerous as the risks of harm from the vaccines outweigh the harms from such diseases.

In the US vaccines have now been made immune from all normal product liability accountability so that vaccine manufacturers can make vast profits selling unnecessary vaccines.

Every year thousands of children are killed, paralyzed or rendered retarded by vaccines. Since they cannot go to normal courts for accountability they are shunted into a special Federal "vaccine court" where they are paid off in secret by the parma corporations so no one can see in open records who and how the vaccines harmed.

Allowing anyone to inject you with a vaccine is an automatic vote of absolute trust in the parmaceutical industry.

How anyone could be so gullable at this point in history to do that is beyond me.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

All vaccines are inherently dangerous. Any vaccine should only be used when the disease it seeks to prevent carries a high risk of mortality or other serious injury such as for polio or smallpox.

Using vaccines for such benign diseases as pertusis, the mumps, or chicken pox, much less for common influenza, is dangerous as the risks of harm from the vaccines outweigh the harms from such diseases.

In the US vaccines have now been made immune from all normal product liability accountability so that vaccine manufacturers can make vast profits selling unnecessary vaccines.

Every year thousands of children are killed, paralyzed or rendered retarded by vaccines. Since they cannot go to normal courts for accountability they are shunted into a special Federal "vaccine court" where they are paid off in secret by the parma corporations so no one can see in open records who and how the vaccines harmed.

Allowing anyone to inject you with a vaccine is an automatic vote of absolute trust in the parmaceutical industry.

How anyone could be so gullable at this point in history to do that is beyond me.

How anybody could be so gullible as to listen to Jenny McCarthy is beyond me.

It is one thing to say that vaccines are not effective - that they don't really help fight the disease (flu). That just means you got nothing for your money.

It is a completely different thing to say that vaccines cause harm. There are lots of quacks toting anecdotal evidence that vaccines are harmful. But there are also plenty of scientifically sound epidemiological studies that indicate that vaccines do NOT cause any harm, no matter what Jenny McCarthy says.

Of course, the quacks allege that all of the real science studies are lies because they are all part of the vast conspiracy, but paranoid nuts would say that, wouldn't they?

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

In the US vaccines have now been made immune from all normal product liability accountability so that vaccine manufacturers can make vast profits selling unnecessary vaccines.

No. Vaccines are not immune from normal product liability law so pharma can make big profits.

Pharma companies are given limited immunity under certain conditions because if the immunity was not given, NO ONE would make vaccines because of the frivolous lawsuits.

Trial lawyers love to sue big companies over sick kids, even if they only have useless anecdotal evidence. All they want is to be able to make the threat of getting in front of a jury that will feel sorry for the kid and award $10 million, even if there is no evidence to support a connection between a drug and a sickness. The threat is often good enough to get big settlements.

But, after studying the scientific surveys, the government is satisfied that vaccines are safe. They may be wrong, but that is the decision. And the feds want the vaccines to be used because it will be far cheaper than the costs of a major epidemic. The problem is that no one will make the vaccines (as the government prefers) because they do not want to be bankrupted by lawsuits. Hence the limited immunity.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Every year thousands of children are killed, paralyzed or rendered retarded by vaccines. Since they cannot go to normal courts for accountability they are shunted into a special Federal "vaccine court" where they are paid off in secret by the parma corporations so no one can see in open records who and how the vaccines harmed.

No, there isn't a "special" vaccine court where people get paid off in secret. More paranoid shit.

It is the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) and it has jurisdiction over a number of different types of lawsuits, including monetary claims founded upon the Constitution, federal laws, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied-in-fact, with the United States, vaccines, and others. Read about it here:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/about-court

And its proceedings are not secret. If a plaintiff and a defendant reach an out-of-court settlement, the two parties can agree to keep the terms confidential. But you can do that in ANY type of lawsuit, not just vaccine lawsuits.

But the decisions of the CFC are not secret.

And finally, can you please post a link to a credible scientific study that demonstrates that THOUSANDS of kids are killed or brain damaged every year? And I mean a REAL scientific study that has been peer-reviewed and then successfully repeated. I don't mean a Jenny McCarthy-approved study. There is a reason Jim Carrey dumped that batshit crazy broad, despite the fact she is a major piece of ass.

[SEE3772]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

How anybody could be so gullible as to listen to Jenny McCarthy is beyond me.

It is one thing to say that vaccines are not effective - that they don't really help fight the disease (flu). That just means you got nothing for your money.

It is a completely different thing to say that vaccines cause harm. There are lots of quacks toting anecdotal evidence that vaccines are harmful. But there are also plenty of scientifically sound epidemiological studies that indicate that vaccines do NOT cause any harm, no matter what Jenny McCarthy says.

Of course, the quacks allege that all of the real science studies are lies because they are all part of the vast conspiracy, but paranoid nuts would say that, wouldn't they?


No. Vaccines are not immune from normal product liability law so pharma can make big profits.

Pharma companies are given limited immunity under certain conditions because if the immunity was not given, NO ONE would make vaccines because of the frivolous lawsuits.

Trial lawyers love to sue big companies over sick kids, even if they only have useless anecdotal evidence. All they want is to be able to make the threat of getting in front of a jury that will feel sorry for the kid and award $10 million, even if there is no evidence to support a connection between a drug and a sickness. The threat is often good enough to get big settlements.

But, after studying the scientific surveys, the government is satisfied that vaccines are safe. They may be wrong, but that is the decision. And the feds want the vaccines to be used because it will be far cheaper than the costs of a major epidemic. The problem is that no one will make the vaccines (as the government prefers) because they do not want to be bankrupted by lawsuits. Hence the limited immunity.


No, there isn't a "special" vaccine court where people get paid off in secret. More paranoid shit.

It is the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) and it has jurisdiction over a number of different types of lawsuits, including monetary claims founded upon the Constitution, federal laws, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied-in-fact, with the United States, vaccines, and others. Read about it here:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/about-court

And its proceedings are not secret. If a plaintiff and a defendant reach an out-of-court settlement, the two parties can agree to keep the terms confidential. But you can do that in ANY type of lawsuit, not just vaccine lawsuits.

But the decisions of the CFC are not secret.

And finally, can you please post a link to a credible scientific study that demonstrates that THOUSANDS of kids are killed or brain damaged every year? And I mean a REAL scientific study that has been peer-reviewed and then successfully repeated. I don't mean a Jenny McCarthy-approved study. There is a reason Jim Carrey dumped that batshit crazy broad, despite the fact she is a major piece of ass.

One of many studies...

Following a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which revealed that many infant monkeys given standard doses of childhood vaccines as part of the new research,developed autism symptoms, question marks over the ultimate safety of vaccines have come to the fore.

The groundbreaking research findings presented at the International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR) in London, England, have revealed that young macaque monkeys given the typical CDC-recommended vaccination schedule from the 1990s, and in appropriate doses for the monkeys’ sizes and ages, tended to develop autism symptoms. Theirunvaccinated counterparts, on the other hand, developed no such symptoms, which points to a strong connection between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders.

and this
GSK fined over vaccine trials; 14 babies reported dead

this
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_1...-of-oxycontin/

this
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=570572

and this
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=561413

Just a few, there are too many to post.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

How anybody could be so gullible as to listen to Jenny McCarthy is beyond me.

It is one thing to say that vaccines are not effective - that they don't really help fight the disease (flu). That just means you got nothing for your money.

It is a completely different thing to say that vaccines cause harm. There are lots of quacks toting anecdotal evidence that vaccines are harmful. But there are also plenty of scientifically sound epidemiological studies that indicate that vaccines do NOT cause any harm, no matter what Jenny McCarthy says.

Of course, the quacks allege that all of the real science studies are lies because they are all part of the vast conspiracy, but paranoid nuts would say that, wouldn't they?


No. Vaccines are not immune from normal product liability law so pharma can make big profits.

Pharma companies are given limited immunity under certain conditions because if the immunity was not given, NO ONE would make vaccines because of the frivolous lawsuits.

Trial lawyers love to sue big companies over sick kids, even if they only have useless anecdotal evidence. All they want is to be able to make the threat of getting in front of a jury that will feel sorry for the kid and award $10 million, even if there is no evidence to support a connection between a drug and a sickness. The threat is often good enough to get big settlements.

But, after studying the scientific surveys, the government is satisfied that vaccines are safe. They may be wrong, but that is the decision. And the feds want the vaccines to be used because it will be far cheaper than the costs of a major epidemic. The problem is that no one will make the vaccines (as the government prefers) because they do not want to be bankrupted by lawsuits. Hence the limited immunity.


No, there isn't a "special" vaccine court where people get paid off in secret. More paranoid shit.

It is the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) and it has jurisdiction over a number of different types of lawsuits, including monetary claims founded upon the Constitution, federal laws, executive regulations, or contracts, express or implied-in-fact, with the United States, vaccines, and others. Read about it here:

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/about-court

And its proceedings are not secret. If a plaintiff and a defendant reach an out-of-court settlement, the two parties can agree to keep the terms confidential. But you can do that in ANY type of lawsuit, not just vaccine lawsuits.

But the decisions of the CFC are not secret.

And finally, can you please post a link to a credible scientific study that demonstrates that THOUSANDS of kids are killed or brain damaged every year? And I mean a REAL scientific study that has been peer-reviewed and then successfully repeated. I don't mean a Jenny McCarthy-approved study. There is a reason Jim Carrey dumped that batshit crazy broad, despite the fact she is a major piece of ass.

It's pathetic that you have to raise Jenny McCarthy as a straw woman in order to try to defeat the simple facts of this issue.

The undeniable fact is that if you've been harmed by a vaccine you cannot sue under normal product liability anymore. And this has meant that vaccine manufacturers are now much more negligent in their testing and saftey than they were previously. In fact most vaccines are now produced either in Puerto Rico or other horrible places by unqualified workers to increase the manufacturers' profits. It means that vaccines don't have to show that their benefits outweigh their harms. It means that their manufacturers can blitz the public with all manner of new vaccines for conditions which are completely benign by alarming them.

The fact that you would assert that vaccine manufacturers require immunity from normal product liability accountability because without it there would be "frivilous lawsuits" preventing them from functioning is utterly untrue.

Normal product liability law applies to surgical implants, medications, and virtually all medical products and devices and doesn't hinder any of these from functioning.

"Frivilous suits" doesn't affect any of these manufacturers from functioning.

ONLY vaccine manufacturers have this immunity, and was lobbied for because the manufacturers cannot PROVE the benefits of their products OUTWEIGH their risks in any regular court.

The explosion in marketing of unnecessary vaccines is a direct result of the immunity now granted their manufacturers.

As someone who worked for years for a medical device manufacturer I saw from the inside how utterly indifferent medical companies are to the harms their products can have. Medical companies only care about the same issues any other corporation cares about - increasing sales, grabbing more market share, cutting costs of production and inventories, etc. The company I worked for was the target of one of the largest instances of product liability in the history of device manufacturers, and our executives only agenda was to seek to avoid responsibility.

[IIFFOFRDB]

ExNYer.. you seem to be a little strange?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The fact that you would assert that vaccine manufacturers require immunity from normal product liability accountability because without it there would be "frivilous lawsuits" preventing them from functioning is utterly untrue.

Clearly you know nothing about the law or lawyers. I do, however.

If the "vaccine" courts are some kind of sham to protect pharma profits, why is it limited to vaccines? Why stop there? If pharma had that kind of clot, why not protect breast implants? Heart medications? Cancer drugs?

Answer - the government wants it to be cheap and plentiful so everybody (or nearly everybody) gets the shot.

I got my flu shots at Tom Thumb and they cost something like $10 or $20 and that INCLUDES the cost of the service (i.e., injection) from Tom Thumb. The Tom Thumb pharmacists don't do that for free, especially if they might get sued. So the vaccine maker only gets a portion of the $20. And in other situations, like schools, the vaccinations are paid for by the government and are therefore free. So vaccines are a low margin product. That's why only a couple of companies make them. If they had the same profit margins as Viagra, EVERYBODY would make them.

Why does the government want it to be so cheap? Herd immunity. If 95% of the people get vaccinated, even the 5% that aren't protected have a reduced risk because they have a greatly reduced chance (95% reduced) of bumping into someone who is infected and contagious.

But if the vaccination shot costs $50 or $100, a whole lot of people won't get it. If only 15% or 20% of the population gets the shot, you get much less herd immunity than if 75% of the population got the shot.

And, if pharma has to pay $25 million for every kid that supposedly became autistic because of a vaccine, the shot won't be $10, it will be $200 - if you can get it at all.

Pharma will make something else instead. Like dick pills or weight loss pills.

Ergo, limited immunity.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Normal product liability law applies to surgical implants, medications, and virtually all medical products and devices and doesn't hinder any of these from functioning.

"Frivilous suits" doesn't affect any of these manufacturers from functioning.

ONLY vaccine manufacturers have this immunity, and was lobbied for because the manufacturers cannot PROVE the benefits of their products OUTWEIGH their risks in any regular court.

You haven't paid much attention to breast implant litigation. That's a perfect example of frivolous lawsuits destroying an industry.

That litigation bankrupted the boob makers back in the 1990s - based on BS anecdotal evidence - until finally a slew of scientific studies demonstrated that there was no connection between silicone breast implants and a whole host of diseases set forth by trial lawyers. Read a quick summary of it here:

http://ezinearticles.com/?History-of...999&id=1877909

That article is NOT advocating some position. It is a just a listing of significant events in the history of boob job litigation. Note that towards the ends, courts outright rejected implant law suits because there was NO scientific proof to back it up. Just anecdotal evidence that so called "experts" (i.e., paid liars) would swear to.

One sure sign that a products liability scam is being advanced is the allegation that a particular medicine causes not one or two particular, easily verifiable, medical conditions, but rather a whole slew of medical conditions, generally ones that are hard to detect so you have to take the patients word for it. In other words, if it is bad for one thing, it is bad for all things. But it only works that way in lawsuits, not in nature.

Generally, a chemical that causes harm causes one particular type of harm. Thalidomide, for example, is a teratogen - it causes birth defects that resulted in shortened limbs. But it didn't cause rheumatoid arthritis, and depression, and connective tissue disease, and suppressed immune systems or auto-immune disease, or joint pain, or neurological disorders that were difficult to prove even existed.

According to trial lawyers (and no one else), implants did all that plus about 20 other things. As long as they could get away with it, they kept bringing frivolous suits.

So, YES, frivolous suits have affected other medical products. And some of those companies went broke.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

ONLY vaccine manufacturers have this immunity, and was lobbied for because the manufacturers cannot PROVE the benefits of their products OUTWEIGH their risks in any regular court.

No, vaccine manufacturers get the immunity because of simple mathematics.

How many people each year need a hip replacement that uses a silicone joint? A few thousand? A few tens of thousands? How many need a heart valve? Similar small numbers. You can ensure for those types of numbers.

Now how many people get the flu shot every year? Tens of millions every year. You can't get ensured for those types of numbers. Not without making shots that cost $200.

It's the "one fuck up and you're dead" rule. If a vaccine maker does make a flu shot that cause harm, there's no coming back from it. If your company made a flu vaccine that 100 million people took in the last 10 years and some study demonstrated it caused increased the risk of throat cancer by 20% or caused a 3% increase in autism, you can be sued by everyone that ever took the flu shot even if they haven't developed symptoms yet.

So, the potential damages start out in the billions and go up to the 10s of billions. Especially if kids are involved That's why no one will make vaccines without some kind of protection from lawsuits.

And YES!!!! drug companies DO care a lot about making money. That is why they exist. That is their job, their reason for being, their raison d'etre. Just like every other company.

That's still no excuse not to grant immunity.

You take away the immunity only if the ACTUAL harm (not imaginary) caused by vaccines is greater than the benefit you get from stopping the spread of diseases. And at the point, you don't even have to take away the immunity to stop them. The FDA can force them to pull the vaccines off the market.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Clearly you know nothing about the law or lawyers. I do, however.

If the "vaccine" courts are some kind of sham to protect pharma profits, why is it limited to vaccines? Why stop there? If pharma had that kind of clot, why not protect breast implants? Heart medications? Cancer drugs?

Answer - the government wants it to be cheap and plentiful so everybody (or nearly everybody) gets the shot.

I got my flu shots at Tom Thumb and they cost something like $10 or $20 and that INCLUDES the cost of the service (i.e., injection) from Tom Thumb. The Tom Thumb pharmacists don't do that for free, especially if they might get sued. So the vaccine maker only gets a portion of the $20. And in other situations, like schools, the vaccinations are paid for by the government and are therefore free. So vaccines are a low margin product. That's why only a couple of companies make them. If they had the same profit margins as Viagra, EVERYBODY would make them.

Why does the government want it to be so cheap? Herd immunity. If 95% of the people get vaccinated, even the 5% that aren't protected have a reduced risk because they have a greatly reduced chance (95% reduced) of bumping into someone who is infected and contagious.

But if the vaccination shot costs $50 or $100, a whole lot of people won't get it. If only 15% or 20% of the population gets the shot, you get much less herd immunity than if 75% of the population got the shot.

And, if pharma has to pay $25 million for every kid that supposedly became autistic because of a vaccine, the shot won't be $10, it will be $200 - if you can get it at all.

Pharma will make something else instead. Like dick pills or weight loss pills.

Ergo, limited immunity.


You haven't paid much attention to breast implant litigation. That's a perfect example of frivolous lawsuits destroying an industry.

That litigation bankrupted the boob makers back in the 1990s - based on BS anecdotal evidence - until finally a slew of scientific studies demonstrated that there was no connection between silicone breast implants and a whole host of diseases set forth by trial lawyers. Read a quick summary of it here:

http://ezinearticles.com/?History-of...999&id=1877909

That article is NOT advocating some position. It is a just a listing of significant events in the history of boob job litigation. Note that towards the ends, courts outright rejected implant law suits because there was NO scientific proof to back it up. Just anecdotal evidence that so called "experts" (i.e., paid liars) would swear to.

One sure sign that a products liability scam is being advanced is the allegation that a particular medicine causes not one or two particular, easily verifiable, medical conditions, but rather a whole slew of medical conditions, generally ones that are hard to detect so you have to take the patients word for it. In other words, if it is bad for one thing, it is bad for all things. But it only works that way in lawsuits, not in nature.

Generally, a chemical that causes harm causes one particular type of harm. Thalidomide, for example, is a teratogen - it causes birth defects that resulted in shortened limbs. But it didn't cause rheumatoid arthritis, and depression, and connective tissue disease, and suppressed immune systems or auto-immune disease, or joint pain, or neurological disorders that were difficult to prove even existed.

According to trial lawyers (and no one else), implants did all that plus about 20 other things. As long as they could get away with it, they kept bringing frivolous suits.

So, YES, frivolous suits have affected other medical products. And some of those companies went broke.


No, vaccine manufacturers get the immunity because of simple mathematics.

How many people each year need a hip replacement that uses a silicone joint? A few thousand? A few tens of thousands? How many need a heart valve? Similar small numbers. You can ensure for those types of numbers.

Now how many people get the flu shot every year? Tens of millions every year. You can't get ensured for those types of numbers. Not without making shots that cost $200.

It's the "one fuck up and you're dead" rule. If a vaccine maker does make a flu shot that cause harm, there's no coming back from it. If your company made a flu vaccine that 100 million people took in the last 10 years and some study demonstrated it caused increased the risk of throat cancer by 20% or caused a 3% increase in autism, you can be sued by everyone that ever took the flu shot even if they haven't developed symptoms yet.

So, the potential damages start out in the billions and go up to the 10s of billions. Especially if kids are involved That's why no one will make vaccines without some kind of protection from lawsuits.

And YES!!!! drug companies DO care a lot about making money. That is why they exist. That is their job, their reason for being, their raison d'etre. Just like every other company.

That's still no excuse not to grant immunity.

You take away the immunity only if the ACTUAL harm (not imaginary) caused by vaccines is greater than the benefit you get from stopping the spread of diseases. And at the point, you don't even have to take away the immunity to stop them. The FDA can force them to pull the vaccines off the market.

Dude you don't know shit about product liability law.

It's very very difficult to prevail in product liability litigation. You have to prove negligence according to very strict proof, and the notion that "frivilous suits" are taken by lawyers trying to "extort" settlements when they don't really have a case is something only someone ignorant of the law could believe.

Breast implant litigation is an exception however, but only because of the corruption of the FDA. The FDA falsely claimed that silcone was unsafe for implantation was it was only adulterated forms of it which were linked to harms. Unadulterated medical-grade silicone has never caused anyone harm, but the FDA falsely conflated all silicone products, and that's how many breast implant plaintiffs were able to litigate when they otherwise would not. What these plaintiffs were doing was claiming that their lupus or whatever was caused by the presence of silicone in their bodies, when there was no evidence that it was the silicone...but it was the FDA that claimed it was.

The reason why vaccines were singled out for immunity was because the vaccine manufacturers falsely claimed in their lobbying that the "greater good" of society demanded that the public not be discouraged by the occassional cases of vaccine harms, therefore it was framed as a public health problem.

None of the other products you mention such as medical implants, drugs, etc., have a public health dimension. If someone fails to get a hip implant it won't cause someone else to get arthertis. It's only because not getting a vaccine can potentially cause someone else harm that the Congress granted vaccines immunity.

It's only because the manufacturers framed the issue as a priority of public health, and that the public shouldn't know of the cases of vaccine harm, that the Congress narrowly passed the statute affording vaccines immunity from liability (that's a pun by the way....vaccines granted immunity he he).