Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Snopes and H1N1

Since my earlier warnings about the swine flu vaccine, a number of people have pointed to the Snopes site which apparently debunks the concerns that I and others have raised.

The irony is that Snopes is a propaganda site purporting to be a neutral fact checking site. It tends to reflect the same biases as the mainstream media. They are highly anti-creationist, pro-IRS, etc. Several Snopes articles have been flat out wrong even on mundane subjects. So, I don't trust Snopes or, though some of their information is accurate.

I have read that the adjuvant is mixed into the vaccine at the distribution point - ie the doctor's office, so it might be technically true that the vaccine is shipped with no squalene, but the squalene is added before the injection. The nasal form has no squalene at all, because squalene only excites the immune system if injected.

You read the patent yourself. Squalene is a key ingredients what Snopes says, though it may be interchangeable with polysorbate.

The information on the CDC site ( is equally suspect. Consider some of their claims:

1. "Getting the flu shot is the single best way to protect against the flu."

Actually, there have been absolutely zero double blind controlled studies to test that belief. The vaccine industry so strongly believe that flu vaccine is effective, they say it would be "unethical" to actually test the vaccine where you give half of the randomly selected test subjects a placebo shot and half the vaccine. This is begging the question.

They have found that people who take flu shots are half as likely to die from flu as people who don't. However, this doesn't mean the flu shot is preventing flu (ergo hoc post propter hoc). Because the people who take flu shots are self-selected volunteer group, it may very well mean that the kind of people who voluntarily take the flu vaccine are the same group of people who tend to be healthy in the first place. Ie, people who take care of their health (and take annual vaccines) may be half as likely to die from flu, regardless of whether they take the vaccine.

2. "Research has found that pregnant women who had a flu shot get sick less often with the flu than do pregnant women who did not get a flu shot."

The vaccine circular states that it has not been tested to see how it affects pregnancy or the reproductive system. So the CDC is making different claims than the actual vaccine manufacturers.

Additionally, in Canada it has been reported that people who take the seasonal flu shot are MORE likely to go into intensive care from Swine flu.

3. "Seasonal and 2009 H1N1 flu shots can be given on the same day but should be given at different sites."

No studies have been shown to determine if this is safe. Since flu shots contain adjuvants such as thimerosol and squalene, both of which have adverse effects that increase with dosage, it seems common sense to think that taking a double dose in the same day, when one has a fetus on board is not a good idea.

4. "Flu shots have not been shown to cause harm to pregnant women or their babies."

Has this even been tested? Quite a few women have been reporting micarriages after taking flu shots, especially 2009 H1N1. It certainly hasn't been tested on H1N1.

5. The patent is 2008.

The patent for the swine flu vaccine is 2008. Of course that raises questions, like, how did they patent the vaccine for a specific disease before the outbreak of that new virus occured? We'll not touch that question. Another question is, "If the seasonal flu shot is patented under a different process than the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, then how can you say that the two vaccines are equally safe? If no testing in people was done with the new vaccine until September 2009, how can you say that you know it is safe?"

The CDC is a government agency, which makes me wonder if it is more of a propaganda machine than anything else.

Post a Comment

Buy Essential Oils at Discounted Prices!