Sign Up Now Keep up to date with the latest blogs, books & events

More CDC Nonsense About the Flu Vaccine

The CDC just released its latest numbers on the 2012-13 flu vaccine effectiveness. (1)  The article was picked up by the mainstream media which reported that the flu vaccine was 56% effective against the flu.  The CDC states, “Confirmation of the protective benefits of the 2012–13 influenza vaccine among persons aged 6 months–64 years offers further support for the public health benefit of annual seasonal influenza vaccination and supports the expansion of vaccination, particularly among younger age groups.”  Is the flu vaccine really 56% effective and should it be expanded?  Maybe in the Land of Oz it is effective and should be expanded, but on our planet this vaccine is virtually worthless, especially for those who need it most—the elderly.

I thought it would take me a few minutes to pour through the data to write this blog.  I was wrong.  Slogging through the fog of this article took me two hours.  CDC’s articles are not for the faint of heart.  Some Oompa Loompa CDC employee must be saying, “I can’t report that the flu vaccine is worthless.  I have to manipulate the numbers to show the vaccine does work.”  Manipulate the numbers is what they did.  In fact, what the mainstream media reported was a vast misrepresentation of the actual data.  Let’s take a look at what I found.

The CDC enrolled 2,697 adults in this study.  Let’s first look at the first group—I will call them Group A– that did not get the flu. Group A consisted of 1,582 subjects who did not get the flu.  In Group A, 793 were given the vaccine in this group—50%.   So, the CDC can tout a 50% efficacy of the flu vaccine.  However, the other 50% of the subjects did not get the flu vaccine nor did they contract the influenza virus.  I say, these numbers show the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine.  Since 50% of the subjects did not get the vaccine or get the flu, where is the effectiveness of the vaccine? As the old Wendy’s commercials stated, “Where’s the beef?”

Let’s move to Group B—those that were diagnosed with the flu.  The Group B data showed that of 1117 subjects who tested positive for the flu, 367 received the vaccine.  That means that 33% of those vaccinated still became ill with the flu.   If we take the 50% from group A who did not get the flu and had the flu shot and subtract the 33% from group B who got the flu vaccine and also became ill with the flu, we have a net benefit of 17%.  So, the flu vaccine is, at best, 17% effective from protecting you against the flu!  But, keep in mind, that 50% of the non-vaccinated subjects never became ill with the flu.  Again, “Where’s the beef?”   These numbers provide no information supporting the efficacy of the flu vaccine.

One final comment.  This study reported that roughly 50% of the subjects contracted the flu.  In the general population, only about 5-20% becomes ill with the flu.  This study was suffering from a selection bias—it was studying a population that was more prone to get the flu as compared to the general population.  This bias would only serve to show a false increased effectiveness of the flu vaccine.

What was not reported by the media was that the flu vaccine was totally worthless in the elderly.  This is the population that the flu vaccine was originally developed for.   Also not reported was that the flu vaccine still contains mercury—the third most toxic element known to mankind.

To mandate the flu vaccine for health care workers is idiotic.  It is best to avoid getting any ineffective vaccine or any vaccine that contains toxic elements.

(1) Accessed 3.10.13.  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6207a2.htm

 

NOTE:  A few readers pointed out a (rare) mistake in my calculations in paragraph 4.  Thank you and sorry for the late night mix up. It is now correct. 3.11.13 db

 

Author Info

David Brownstein

Subscribe to Dr B’s Blog

Comments ( 21 )

Leave a Reply to rvhhappf76 Cancel reply