Do Not Require Flu Vaccines for Health-care Workers Deadly Viruses

Neil Z. Miller, "Vaccine Science vs. Science Fiction: Make Informed Decisions." Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, 2013. Copyright © 2013 by Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Neil Z. Miller is a medical research journalist and the director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute.

Research on vaccine safety shows hazards and immunity limitations. Studies on vaccine safety are often exaggerated or false, and evidence of harm is often not reported by the mainstream media. Many studies are poorly designed, making it impossible to adequately assess the true safety of vaccines. In addition, there are often conflicts of interest in the way the studies are funded, calling into question the conclusions reached by researchers on vaccine safety.

I have been investigating vaccines for more than 25 years. When my son was born, the matter became important to me. I began by studying medical and scientific journals. The data was disturbing. Evidence showed that vaccines are often unsafe and ineffective. In fact, some vaccines cause new diseases. I was even more shocked to learn that powerful individuals within the organized medical profession—including members of the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the World Health Organization (WHO)—are aware of vaccine safety and protection deficiencies but seem to have an implicit agreement to obscure facts, alter truth, and deceive the public. Vaccine manufacturers, health officials, medical doctors, lead authors of important studies, editors of major medical journals, hospital personnel, and even coroners, cooperate to minimize vaccine failings, exaggerate benefits, and avert any negative publicity that might frighten concerned parents, threaten the vaccine program and lower vaccination rates.

Research on Vaccine Safety

During my research, I discovered a shadowy underworld of vaccine production and corruption within the industry. For example most people have no idea how vaccines are made or what they contain. Formaldehyde, aluminum and Thimerosal—yes, some vaccines still contain this dangerous mercury derivative—are just a few of the ingredients used to manufacture vaccines. In addition, oral polio vaccines are incubated in monkey kidneys, the chickenpox vaccine is brewed in "human embryonic lung cell cultures," and the new HPV vaccine includes particles of sexually transmitted viruses which are now being injected into an entire generation of chaste, young girls.

My main goal today in continuing to research vaccines is to provide families with evidence of vaccine safety and efficacy defects—information that they are unlikely to hear from their doctors—so that truly informed decisions can be made. Congressional efforts to initiate positive change within the vaccine industry have failed, so parents are the only remaining defense to protect their children. I am opposed to bogus "proofs" of vaccine benefits (including studies funded by vaccine manufacturers), health mandates (forced immunizations) and other coercive tactics used to intimidate wavering parents into vaccinating against their will. Although generations of children are falling victim to medical "progress," autism and other developmental disorders are not childhood rites of passage.

80 percent of non-randomized studies turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials.

I researched vaccine studies and articles from around the world. There is extensive evidence of vaccine hazards and immunity limitations. I never intended to ratify traditional beliefs regarding vaccine safety and efficacy. Instead, my research is designed to countervail conventional dogma. The information I uncovered does not support the oft-heard claim that vaccine benefits outweigh their risks. If you'd like to read more about vaccine benefits and less about the risks, there are plenty of "official" websites that you can visit (or speak to your doctor). I encourage this course of action. Of course, official vaccine websites are mainly supported by vaccine manufacturers and allopathic health organizations such as the FDA, the CDC, and WHO—institutions with a mandate to promote vaccines and vaccinate as many people as possible.

The Problem with Scientific Studies

Many "scientific" studies are literally nonsense. This is not a conspiracy theory. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a paper [by John Ioannidis] showing that one-third of "highly cited original clinical research studies" were eventually contradicted by subsequent studies. The supposed effects of specific interventions either did not exist as the original studies concluded or were exaggerated.

PLOS Medicine recently published a paper entitled "Why Most Published Research Findings are False." The author of the study, Dr. John

Ioannidis, is an internationally esteemed scientific researcher, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He concluded that "it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true." In fact, 80 percent of non-randomized studies turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials. "At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded," says Ioannidis. Thus, vaccine studies need to be read very closely, otherwise significant information that could affect their validity may be overlooked.

In some instances, study results may be preordained. For example, when the vaccine-autism link became a public concern, vaccine proponents moved into high gear to produce authentic-appearing studies that contradicted genuine data. I remember when tobacco companies used this very same ploy. They financed numerous bogus studies ostensibly "proving" that cigarettes didn't cause cancer. The real studies got lost in the muddle. Sadly, it's all too easy to obfuscate truth and deceive the public.

Research That Shows Harm

At the infamous Simpsonwood conference held in Norcross, Georgia in June 2000, experts knew that Thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines was damaging children. They had irrefutable proof—the very reason for convening the meeting. (Dr. Tom Verstraeten, a CDC epidemiologist whose research was the focus of the meeting, had analyzed the agency's massive Vaccine Safety Datalink database containing thousands of medical records of vaccinated children. He declared: "We have found statistically significant relationships between exposure [to mercury in vaccines] and outcomes. At two months of age, developmental delay; exposure at three months, tics; at six months, attention deficit disorder. Exposures at one, three and six months, language and speech delays—the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays.")

Sadly, the mainstream media rarely publishes anything that challenges the sacrosanct vaccine program.

Instead of making this important information public, authorities hatched a plan to produce additional "studies" that denied such a link. In fact, vaccine proponents had the audacity to claim in subsequent papers that mercury in vaccines not only doesn't hurt children but that it actually benefits them! In the topsy-turvy world of overreaching vaccine authorities, the well-documented neurotoxic chemical mercury somehow makes children smarter and more functional, improving cognitive development and motor skills. Of course, this is absurd. Many valid studies confirm mercury's destructive effect on brain development and behavior.

Study conclusions often contradict core data in the study. I am always astounded when I read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine's apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. For example, a large study analyzed the safety of Thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs) and found dangerous side effects: "Cumulative exposure at 3 months resulted in a positive association with tics." In addition, there were "increased risks of language delay" for cumulative exposure at 3 months and 7 months. Yet, the paper [by T. Verstraeten et al.] concluded that "no consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes."

In another high profile study published in JAMA Pediatrics in January 2013, researchers [J.M. Glanz et al.] compared fully vaccinated children to children who were under-vaccinated due to parental choice. (These were parents who researched vaccines and decided not to follow the official immunization schedule.) The under-vaccinated children had "lower rates of outpatient visits and emergency department encounters." Yet, the paper concluded that "under-vaccinated children appear to have different healthcare utilization patterns." Sadly, the mainstream media rarely publishes anything that challenges the sacrosanct vaccine program. Newspaper stories about vaccines, and reviews of vaccine studies that are published, merely mimic the original spurious or deceptive conclusions.

Poorly Designed Studies

Another ploy used by vaccine proponents is to design studies comparing vaccinated people to other vaccinated people. Honest studies would compare vaccinated people to an unvaccinated population. For example, the clinical safety studies for the pneumococcal vaccine compared the number of adverse reactions in a group of infants who received the new shot, to a "control" group of infants who received a meningococcal vaccine and a DTaP shot. This created the illusion of a similar safety profile. The group receiving the new vaccine was never compared to a true control group of unvaccinated infants.

Vaccine control groups rarely receive a true placebo, which should be a harmless substance. The scientific method has always been predicated upon removing all potentially confounding influences. However, many vaccine studies do not conform to this integral component of valid research. This is an important concept to grasp. For example, when the HPV vaccine was tested for safety, one group of female teenagers was injected with the experimental HPV vaccine (which is manufactured with an aluminum adjuvant to stimulate antibodies) while the "control" group received an injection of aluminum as well (rather than a harmless substance).

When a new rotavirus vaccine was tested for safety, the "control" group received a placebo that "had the same constituents as the active vaccine but without the vaccine virus." Thus, the control group received a solution containing ferric (III) nitrate, magnesium sulfate, phenol red, and 10 additional chemical substances—everything that was in the experimental vaccine minus the rotavirus. When new vaccines are compared to other vaccines or to placebos that are not harmless, the rate of adverse reactions in the control group will be artificially high making the new vaccine appear safer than it really is. Whenever this deceptive tactic is utilized, the manufacturer may claim that its new vaccine has a "non-inferior" safety profile.

Some clinical studies that are used to license vaccines exclude people in certain groups. For example, they may be too young, too old, pregnant, ill, or have other preexisting health ailments. However, once the vaccine is licensed, it may be recommended for people in these groups. Much like using false placebos, this unethical practice artificially inflates the vaccine's safety profile and places more people at risk of adverse reactions. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine published a large study that looked at whether administering Thimerosal-containing vaccines to infants is safe. However, this study excluded infants from the study if their birth weight was less than 5.5 pounds—even though low birth weight infants are more likely to have serious reactions to Thimerosal-containing vaccines and low birth weight infants throughout society received them! (Vaccines are not adjusted for the weight of the child. Today, a 6-pound newborn receives the same dose of hepatitis B vaccine—with the same

amount of aluminum and formaldehyde—as a 12-pound toddler.)

When important vaccine studies are jeopardized by conflicts of interest, generations of people—and society itself—are placed at risk.

In another study, 73 percent of all children that were hospitalized after being infected with chickenpox (varicella) were healthy before contracting the disease; just 27 percent had preexisting health problems. (A small number of children who contract varicella experience serious complications. Many of these children have preexisting health problems, such as AIDS, leukemia or cancer. However, it's easier to convince parents to vaccinate their children against a relatively benign disease such as chickenpox—and to justify mandating this shot for all children—if a larger percentage of those who experience complications of varicella are healthy, rather than unhealthy, before the onset of the ailment. This is because it's frightening to imagine that your normal child could be devastated by a common disease. Thus, after the chickenpox vaccine was licensed, several articles began to appear asserting that such complications occur "predominantly" in children in whom one would not predict problems.) However, one very important bit of information was easy to miss if you only skimmed the study— it excluded oncology patients! In other words, this "study" omitted unhealthy children (with cancer) from analysis, then claimed that serious complications mainly occurred in healthy boys and girls.

Conflicts of Interest

Vaccine studies may be funded by pharmaceutical companies that have a financial interest in the outcome. Lead authors of crucial studies that are used to validate the safety or efficacy of a vaccine are often beholden to the manufacturer in some way. They may own stock in the company or may be paid by the manufacturer to travel around the country promoting their vaccines. Lead authors may receive consultation fees, grants or other benefits from the drug maker. For example, the large pharmaceutical company that manufactured the shingles vaccine (Merck) participated in oversight activities and monitored the progress of the primary study that was used to justify licensing this vaccine. In addition, some leading authors of this study received consultation fees, lecture fees, and honoraria from Merck. Some study authors received grant support from Merck or owned stock in the company while concurrently working on the study, or had "partial interests in relevant patents."

Several of the authors of the main clinical study on the efficacy of the HPV vaccine—the FDA looks at this study to determine if this vaccine should be licensed—were either current or former employees of the HPV manufacturer. Some of the study authors had an equity interest or held stock options in this company. Several of the study authors received consulting fees from or served on paid advisory boards to this company. These practices contravene ethical boundaries and compromise the integrity of the study. When important vaccine studies are jeopardized by conflicts of interest, generations of people—and society itself—are placed at risk.

Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition) Miller, Neil Z. "Evidence Does Not Show That Benefits of Vaccination Outweigh the Risks." Vaccines, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2015. At Issue.