|
In 2004, when the menace of SARS loomed the world over, people were recommend to take the flu vaccine in order to avoid problems related to SARS. Although this message was void of scientific validity, fear caused even many people who were dubious to take the vaccine, as it did later in the case of the aviary flu. It's important to remember that press campaigns are not always based on objective facts and that the flu vaccine may be a useful prevention treatment, but it's not void of risks.
Let's take a look at the data:
- As with all vaccines, a flu vaccine can have some benefits, along with some harmful effects that should be clearly outlined so that the public can make informed choices.
- SARS has no connection whatsoever with the flu.
- Influenzas are extremely variable and it's very difficult to foresee the kind of diffusion that it will have: nevertheless, between September and October the headlines usually talk about millions of flu cases that in reality don't occur.
Maybe the people who are benefiting from the direct or indirect diffusion of the vaccines have some interest in persuading us that the scarcity of flu victims in Italy is due to this vaccination.
On the other hand, in past years entire soccer teams who were vaccinated were in bed with the flu instead on the field. Additionally, although some experts explain that taking the vaccine diminishes the danger of confusing flu symptoms with those of SARS (or the aviary, as was thought), we can't see how this can be true considering the number of flu cases that occur among vaccinated subjects.
We don't intend to get involved in the debate over the effectiveness of this treatment. However, considering the public and incessant invitation to vaccine all children (and not just those for whom the advantages could outweigh the risks), we feel that it's only right to publish information about the possible harmful effects as well, even though the official information channels seem to be deliberately or unconsciously omitting them.
Children on the front line
In a free and civil country people should be informed and allowed to choose. But if the people who are marketing the vaccines are the same ones who are providing the information, and this information continues to claim that the vaccine is totally harmless, something is awry. The information is false and the possible and potentially serious risks of the flu vaccine have been scientifically proven (but inadequately disclosed!)
If someone says that the more children are vaccinated, the less we will need to fear SARS, he is lying shamelessly and simply taking advantage of an intense emotional moment for his own financial benefit.
When a healthy child comes down with a flu (provided he becomes ill regardless of the necessary preventive measures, a healthy diet and an adequate mineral and vitamin support) he recovers from it, sometimes with the help of a remedy to alleviate the symptoms.
What's more, and we'll never get tired of repeating it, when he recovers his immune defenses are increased (during a viral infection there is an increase in interferon which defends us from future cancerous forms, among other things). Among the Italian population there is an extensive use of homeopathic and natural therapies for the prevention of recurring winter infections and flu.
If provided with the correct information, people could be free to choose whether to take the vaccine along with its possible benefits (and risks) or opt for a different, probably beneficial treatment (without the risks involved in the vaccine).
Scientific findings hidden under the rug
Now let's address the lies. We're not referring to the fact that too many vaccinations could be harmful (even though there is ever more data that should make us reflect on the subject), because on the other hand it could be said that we're clinging to an ideology or belief that differs from that which medical "science" proposes.
So we'll just refer to several scientific studies, some of which quite recent, that continue to underline the possible risks of the flu vaccine. These studies were conducted in the most renowned centers in the world for conventional medicine.
What would your reaction be if we told you that if all Italian children were vaccinated with the “innocuous flu vaccine”, we could expect at least 10-15 more cases of Guillaine-Barrè syndrome (GBS) than usual, that is at least 10-15 children under 7 (maybe ours included) semi-paralyzed for life; unable to move, act, or think as before?
A group of American epidemiologists published this data back in 1998 (N Engl J Med. 1998 Dec 17;339(25):1797-802). These findings coincide with a recent Australian study confirming that, as opposed to 67 cases of banal post-flu occurrences for every 100,000 doses of vaccine, there were as many as 16,7 serious cases for every 100,000 doses used on children under 7, in the years 2000 and 2002 (Commun Dis Intell. 2003;27(3):307-23).
But the list of studies on post-vaccine neurological damage doesn't end here. Although not frequent, these events are possible and serious; people who deny it are lying and distributing false health information.
The findings range from multiple sclerosis (Eur J Neurol. 2000 Nov;7(6):731-3) to optic neuritis (J Neuroophthalmol. 1996 Sep;16(3):182-4). In order to give a correct vision of the information, we need to remember that a complication of the same flu can cause nerve tissue inflammation. However, of the 58 DEATHS from Guillane-Barrè that occurred in 1977 in the USA, 40% of these subjects were not vaccinated, while 60% had been and in these subjects the disease broke out with similar symptoms 3-4 weeks after vaccination (Neurology. 1980 Sep;30(9):929-33).
Could it be that the damages caused by vaccination are greater than those of the disease? We can't be sure, but there is a great difference between expressing a doubt and arrogantly and guiltily assuring that the vaccine is harmless. As an immunologist, I would be inclined to express more than a single doubt.
After all, the children paralyzed by the vaccine won't be many in the Italian commercial economy. However, every single case would warrant an informed decision in order to be able to face a risk. He who chooses has the right to know and shouldn't be told that the vaccine is totally harmless when it's not true.
To cite another example, what can be said of the cases of ORS (Ocular-respiratory syndrome)? These events, which were immediately discussed on Eurosalus, were initially minimized and considered related to an anomalous vaccine, only to be re-confirmed today in a blind trial against a placebo among 44% of the subjects who had already had it. The study was pre-published on line several days earlier and its impact was such that its authors were moved to give specific information to those who suffered from the illness.
Surely the seriousness of this problem is very relative, but shouldn't people who take the vaccine know that they might lose their hair? This problem is mostly related to the obligatory hepatitis B vaccine, but to a large extent it also relates to the flu vaccine (JAMA. 1997 Oct 8;278(14):1176-8).
It's as if the vaccine industry felt that having bald children would be nothing if they avoided 4 days of fever and a sore throat.
What about the fact that in the May 2003 issue of Clinical Immunology (Clin Immunol. 2003 May;107(2):116-21 ), one of the most authoritative American scientists suggested that a written informed consent should be required along with the flu vaccination? He arrived at this conclusion after studying the 132 cases of post-flu vaccine Guillaine-Barrè syndrome found in the USA during the years 1991-1998. The study found that as many as 50 cases per year were caused by the vaccine and the particular amount of endotoxin related to the virus, compared to a 0 risk (null) for the anatoxin tetanus vaccine. But what's the use of an informed consent for something that should only do good?
As a citizen I believe that we deserve more than the partial and aggressive public information that we've been receiving during the latest flu vaccine campaign.
The population's awareness has probably increased and is able to perceive where commercial interests infringe upon respect. Nevertheless, I am indignant.
Although my choices may be different, I respect and appreciate my medical colleagues who recommend the flu vaccine out of personal conviction, but at the same time, advise patients of the potential risks involved.
However I denounce and condemn the commercial arrogance that attempts to hide "under the rug" the scientific truths that it defends so fiercely, when these become inconvenient.
Eurosalus has repeatedly offered complete guidelines for the many possibilities for natural prevention of winter cold forms, including the flu (also see the links to this article).
By now we're used to experiencing this kind of aggression every year from the television and the press.
Today, this article is meant to reassure those who decide of their own accord not to be vaccinated, and to not give their children the flu vaccine that has been proposed in such a pressing manner.
There are many scientific reasons that support this decision and fortunately there are means with which to face old and new viruses in a serene manner without having to worry about having made the wrong choices for your children.
We still live in a country that must guarantee a citizen's personal and informed choices. However, in one way or another, he can only choose if he is truly informed.
|
