asd

Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines

NaturalNews) As somebody with a great deal of schooling in scientific thinking & the scientific technique, I have put considerable work in to looking for any actual scientific facts backing the widespread use of influenza vaccines (flu season shots). Before learning about nutrition & holistic health, I was a computer application entrepreneur, & I have a substantial scientific background in areas such as astronomy, physics, human physiology, microbiology, genetics, anthropology & human psychology. of my most-admired thought leaders is, in fact, the late physicist Richard Feynman.

I don't speak from a "scientific" point of view on NaturalNews often because it is often a dry, uninteresting presentation style. But I do know the difference between actual science & junk science, & I find examples of junk science in both the "scientific" side of things as well as the "alternative" side of things.

Similarly, flu season vaccines are mainstream medicine's version of psychic surgical procedure: It is all "medical sleight of hand" based on nothing over smart distractions & the obfuscation of scientific facts. Flu season shots, you see, basically don't work on 99 out of 100 people (& that is being generous to the vaccine industry, as you'll see below).

For example, so-called "psychic surgical procedure," as least in the way it's been popularized, is nothing over smart sleight-of-hand where the surgeon palms some chicken gizzards & then pretends to pull diseased organs out of the abdominal cavity of some patient. The demonstrations I have seen on film are obvious quackery.

A year ago, I offered a $10,000 reward to any who could find scientific proof that H1N1 vaccines were safe & effective (http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H...). No even made a claim to collect that reward because no such facts exists.

Conventional medicine, they say, is "Evidence-Based Medicine" (EBM). That is, everything promoted by conventional medicine is meant to be based on "rigorous scientific scrutiny." It is all supposed to be statistically validated & proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it works as advertised. & in the case of flu vaccines, they are advertised as providing some kind of absolute protection against influenza. "Don't miss work this flu season. Get a flu shot!" The idea, of coursework, is that getting a flu shot offers 100% protection from the flu. In case you get a shot, they say, you won't miss work from disease.

This implication is wildly inaccurate. In fact, it is flat-out false. As you'll see below, it is false promotion wrapped around junk science.

You see, there was seldom an independent, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study proving either the safety or effectiveness of the H1N1 swine flu vaccines that were heavily pushed last year (& are in fact in this year's flu shot cocktail). No such study has ever been completed. As a result, there is no rigorous scientific basis from which to sell such vaccines in the first place.

To try to excuse this, vaccine hucksters claim that it would be "unethical" to conduct a placebo-controlled study of such vaccines because they work so well that to deny the placebo group the actual vaccine would be harmful to them. Everybody benefits from the influenza vaccine, they insist, so the mere act of conducting a scientifically-controlled check is unethical.
Do you smell some quackery at work yet? This is exactly the kind of pseudoscientific gobbledygook you might listen to from some mad Russian scientist who claims to have "magic water" but you cannot check the magic water because the mere presence of measurement instruments nullifies the magical properties of the water.

Similarly, vaccine pushers often insist it is unethical to check whether their vaccines work. You must "take it on faith" that vaccines are universally lovely for everybody.

Yep, I used the word "faith." That is fundamentally what the so-called scientific community is invoking here with the vaccine issue: BELIEVE they work, everybody! Who needs scientific facts when they have got FAITH in vaccines?



Forget about evidence-based medicine. Forget about any rational cost-benefit analysis. Forget about the risk-to-benefit ratio calculations that ought to be part of any rational decision making about vaccines. No, the vaccine industry (& its apologist bloggers) already know that vaccines are universally lovely for you, therefore no such rigorous scientific assessment is even necessary!

The Scientific Method, in other words, doesn't apply to the things they already think in. Faith can override reason in the "scientific" community, in case you can think that! What is next, are they going to claim vaccines work because some kind of "vaccine God" makes them work?

Here, take your vaccine shot. & don't forget to pray to the Vaccine God because that is how these things work. Vaccine voodoo, in other words. (Hey, that would have been a great title for the vaccine song, come to think of it...)

Unethical to find out in the event that they work?
I got to wondering about the whole explanation of the way it would be "unethical" to check whether the H1N1 vaccines actually work. This deflection strikes me as odd, because it comes with an implied follow-up statement. Here's what they are actually saying when they invoke this excuse:

#1) It is "unethical" to conduct placebo-controlled studies on seasonal flu vaccines to find out in the event that they actually work.

#2) But simultaneously, it is entirely ethical to give these shots to hundreds of millions of people, even while lacking any actual proof that they are safe or effective.

In other words, it is unethical to conduct any actual science, but entirely ethical to keep injecting people with a substance that might be entirely useless (or even harmful). That is a hint of the kind of warped logic & failed ethics that typify our modern vaccine industry.

Vaccine advocates claim that H1N1 vaccines are so effective that NOT giving vaccines to a placebo group would "put their lives in danger." That alone is apparently reason to keep away from conducting any actual science on these vaccines.

But I am not purchasing this. I think it is a cover story -- an excuse to keep away from subjecting such vaccines to rigorous scientific inquiry because, deep down inside, they know vaccines would be revealed as an elaborate medical fraud.

In studies, researchers who already knew that "cooling" would save lives nevertheless subjected 350 heart assault patient to a randomized study protocol that assigned comatose (but resuscitated) patients to either "cooling" temperatures or normal temperatures.

So I poked around to see if there were other randomized studies being conducted that might actually put people's lives in danger. It didn't take long to find some. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine recently published studies regarding post heart-attack patient cooling which seeks to minimize brain destroy by physically lowering the temperature of the brain of the heart assault patient until they can reach the acute care technicians at a nearby hospital.

This post was written by:ahmedslem

Franklin Manuel is a professional blogger, web designer and front end web developer. Follow him on Twitter