The first thing is that the Swine flu vaccine produces non-function antibodies in most people. Just a mere inconvenient detail, that...
Did you know that Poland doesn't use seasonal or pandemic flu vaccines, and they had a far lower rate of Swine Flu than countries which do use them, as well as fewer serious cases? Why might that be? A December 2010 letter by Monsalvo, to Nature Medicine, detailed that serious cases of Swine Flu were those who had had "prior" exposure to influenza viruses, BUT had not made protective antibodies against them.
What's the best way to get influenza antibodies that don't protect? To have a whole lot of regular vaccines.
And before you suggest that "that didn't apply in 1918" - think again. Here are the lists of vaccines in 1911, and from the Appendices to Parliamentary journals in 1919. I just haven't had time to go back to the history room and search out the "gaps". I fell over those quite by accident...
Monsalvo's letter followed hard on the heels of a Canadian published study in April 2010 by Skronski, which showed that people who were given the seasonal flu shots were MORE LIKELY to get swine flu. Viboud and Simonsen, discussed this study, which they considered very important. It's also important to remember that Simonsen has not allowed her mouth to be shut by anyone, and has delivered scathing assessments of the flu vaccines in 2005 and 2009.
Then a 2011 Australian study, Kelly et al - which gave a very low efficacy to their influenza vaccine, had a similar interesting situation:
Within the control group, there was a higher percentage of full vaccination among children who tested positive for another respiratory virus compared with those who tested negative (53% vs. 34%, P 0.01).
Interestingly, they dismissed this as biologically implausible:
This could be interpreted to mean that influenza vaccination increases the risk of being infected by viruses other than influenza, but we believe that this explanation is biologically implausible.
There are two problems with dismissing this finding.
1) First is that infection susceptibility can't be ignored as "implausible", because the p-value for this is better than the one for flu vaccine protection against flu.
2) Second, is that to dismiss this finding, the lead author Kelly, has essentially ignored the findings of both Skronski and Monsalvo.
The second question you could logically ask is, "Oh, but I've had the H1N1 and other vaccines for years now, so why do I need another one?"
In the past you've been told that the reason for annual flu shots is that the viruses change every year. However, this year, that story is changing, because the formulation of the flu shot for the coming season is the SAME as last year. So in the face of logical people asking a logical question, CDC announced that you have to have the same vaccine AGAIN, because flu vaccines wear off in a matter of months and won't protect.
So, whereas a REAL flu infection will protect you in the future, a flu vaccine gives you short "pseudo" protection. And, in the event of a new virus suddenly appearing out of nowhere, those vaccines might make you a sitting duck for more serious infection (if you're vitamin D deficient...) . Poland has pretty much proven that, because they were the ONE country in Europe, which doesn't use annual flu vaccines and escaped H1N1 with the least cases, or severity.
In spite of the fact that ALL the Cochrane Evidence-based reviews on Influenza give a resounding thumbs down on the flu vaccines for any age, be it children, adults, health workers looking after elderly, and the elderly, you will be told that the flu vaccine is better than nothing ... "it might not be as serious if you have our vaccine" will be rolled out yet again. It's important to know the key discussion points of the Cochrane Reviews on influenza.
But here's another bit of mumbo-jumbo Dr Jennings doesn't explain to people. It isn't "just" influenza that is counted in the stats. It's "influenza-like illnesses". The two, are not the same. It's important to know the difference, and realise that what is happening here is gargantuan statistical sculpturing. (the pdf will come up with an error three pages from the end... but just ignore it)
Notice the twit on the CDC article who said that more flu vaccines won't hurt you? Where is his proof? Sweden, which had a far better early reaction reporting system than New Zealand, was certainly not prepared for 93 cases of Narcolepsy, from a "safe" vaccine!
But let's get back to the Monsalvo article. First, note that Monsalvo never mentions vaccines. Like anyone who wants to be published, you dance around the issue, and leave some ambiguity. It's important to read between the lines where he's not ambiguous, and the ones where he sort of trails off into the ether... Monsalvo says quite clearly, that those with strong natural immunity, had future protection against a similar strain many years down the line. Monsalvo also says very clearly that those with "repeated" exposure to similar strains, giving high levels of antibodies which DON'T cross protect, are at high risk of having serious disease when confronted with a new pandemic strain such as H1N1, .... exactly what the Canadians found in their study.
Monsalvo stays away from talking about the SOURCE of the repeated exposure to those strains which predispose to serious influenza disease later.
If you want good immunity against the flu, which will protect you in the future, make sure that your vitamin D levels are above 80, (which in NZ, is important for more than just influenza), and eat plenty of fruit, vegetables and good food, all year around. There are many people who are walking the planet who are proof that it works. But you won't hear about that, since to admit that, would be to admit that vaccines are completely unnecessary.
There is also plenty of very good evidence that the majority of influenza cases are so mild, no-one even notices them, and the ones recorded, are the tip of the iceberg. There is also plenty of good evidence that the people LIKELY to suffer serious influenza, are those with co-morbidities, (such as obesity, respiratory diseases etc..) AND those who are vitamin D deficient. They are the ones most likely to get pneumonia and die of it.
So why are we hearing about Lance Jenning's crystal ball predictions, and the ramp up to go have your vaccines?
It's all part of the industry-created, agreed-upon yearly implementation of the Nowak Plan, which is all about continually feeding fear, expanding the sales of annual money-for-jam flu vaccine market, and driving vaccine uptake as far and high as possible, so that manufacturers make as much money as possible.
To do that, you need to have in place in every country, what is known as a "Key Opinion Leader" who can brain-wash the gullible. These are people who have a long association with regular pharmaceutical funding, are held in "high esteem" in their country, and who can be relied upon to give only the manufacturers' messages at all times.
In New Zealand, that person is...., Lance Jennings. He's also the international chair of a very important sounding assortment of similarly highly paid people, but the organisation itself, is merely a front for the flu vaccine manufacturers. Furthermore, did you see the mention of the school campaign for safe sneezing? As has been disclosed to Sunday Star Times last year, this man doesn't do this for nothing. As far as Dr Jennings is concerned, all this is quite normal. He is the "figurehead" behind Safe Sneezing, and gets paid for it. Why does he not go the whole hog and talk about the effectiveness of physical barriers?
What disappoints me about Dr Jennings though, is that he never talks about any of the really important stuff - about what people can do for themselves, or the information above. But that's understandable, because as a well-courted "Key Opinion Leader", he isn't going to bite the hand that so diligently supports him.