UK Department of Health Deliberately Exposes Vulnerable Population to Flu Infection
Is the vaccine program there to prevent harm or to foist commercial products on a captive market at the public expense? The parrot cry of health officials trying to bully citizens into vaccinating is that they are putting other people at risk, but it is very easy to call their bluff when they pursue a contradictory policy over nasal flu vaccine and children, a vaccine which sheds and will put in harm's way immune-compromised people and younger siblings. From September this year in the United Kingdom children above the age of two are to be offered a nasal influenza vaccine ‘Fluenz’ which is the same as the ‘Flumist’ many American children already get, and this is to be rolled out for all schoolchildren next year. Here is the text of my recent letter to the British Medical Journal, so far unpublished:
It is deeply disturbing that this senseless project ploughs forward regardless. While government seems to have seized the agenda over influenza vaccination by unwarranted claims of (influenza) mortality [1,2] there are definable risks to the use of nasal influenza vaccine. Manufacturer's product information states among other things :
"FLUENZ should not be administered to children and adolescents with severe asthma or active wheezing because these individuals have not been adequately studied in clinical studies.
"Do not administer FLUENZ to infants and toddlers younger than 12 months. In a clinical study, an increase in hospitalisations was observed in infants and toddlers younger than 12 months after vaccination (see section 4.8).
"Vaccine recipients should be informed that FLUENZ is an attenuated live virus vaccine and has the potential for transmission to immunocompromised contacts. Vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid, whenever possible, close association with severely immunocompromised individuals (e.g. bone marrow transplant recipients requiring isolation) for 1-2 weeks following vaccination. Peak incidence of vaccine virus recovery occurred 2-3 days post-vaccination in clinical studies. In circumstances where contact with severely immunocompromised individuals is unavoidable, the potential risk of transmission of the influenza vaccine virus should be weighed against the risk of acquiring and transmitting wild-type influenza virus."
Children could therefore become a mass hazard to immunocompromised people, younger siblings etc. Moreover, given the poor record of anticipating which influenza virus strains would otherwise proliferate , this could expose people unnecessarily to virus strains they would otherwise not encounter. The wisdom and ethics of this seem dubious, particularly with health officials for ever insisting that we need to vaccinate to protect other people this is manifestly a self-contradictory, not to say absurd, exercise.
 John Stone, 'Re: Author's response' 26 December 2009, http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/re-authors-response-2
 John Stone, 'Discrepancies in published data' 2 February 2010, http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c613
 Annex I, Summary of product characteristic (Fluenz) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2011/2011012793189/anx_93189_en.pdf
 Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E.,
'Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20614424
Check lists and consent forms published the United States government and associated bodies present a remarkable list of issues which ought to be addressed before the decision to administer this vaccine is given. The very project of mass administration - say 10 million young people in a population of just over 60 million – poses the question of good sense. Here is an example from Immunize Action Coalition (which is funded by the Centers for Disease Control)):
1. Is the person to be vaccinated sick today?
2. Does the person to be vaccinated have an allergy to eggs or to a component of the influenza vaccine?
3. Has the person to be vaccinated ever had a serious reaction to intranasal influenza vaccine (FluMist) in the past?
4. Does the person to be vaccinated have a long-term health problem with heartdisease, lung disease, asthma, kidney disease, neurologic or neuromuscular disease, liver disease, metabolic disease (e.g., diabetes), or anemia or another blood disorder?
5. If the person to be vaccinated is a child age 2 through 4 years, in the past 12 months, has a healthcare provider ever told you that he or she had wheezing or asthma?
6. Does the person to be vaccinated have cancer, leukemia, HIV/AIDS, or any otherimmune system problem; or, in the past 3 months, have they taken medications that weaken the immune system, such as cortisone, prednisone, other steroids, or anticancer drugs; or have they had radiation treatments?
7. Is the person to be vaccinated receiving antiviral medications?
8. Is the child or teen to be vaccinated receiving aspirin therapy or aspirin-containing therapy?
9. Is the person to be vaccinated pregnant or could she become pregnant within the next month?
10. Has the person to be vaccinated ever had Guillain-Barré syndrome?
11. Does the person to be vaccinated live with or expect to have close contact with a person whose immune system is severely compromised and who must be in protective isolation (e.g., an isolation room of a bone marrow transplant unit)?
12. Has the person to be vaccinated received any other vaccinations in the past 4 weeks?
However, with ten million children and young people out there how much care will be taken over this? How will people even know about the medical vulnerability of all the people these children will come into contact with (what about chance encounters)? How will children of compromised health be protected in schools from the recently vaccinated?
Would it not actually be infinitely wiser not do it at all?
"Is the vaccine program there to prevent harm or to foist commercial products on a captive market at the public expense?"
I thought you would never ask.
Obviously one important reason for the "flu shot" is to inject 25 mcg of mercury in as many people and fetuses as possible. Getting mercury into a 12 gram fetus is especially important if your object is autism, the ADSs and the other diseases of "vaccination". The low body mass of the fetus multiples the effects of the mercury by thousands of times. When I was a kid they almost NEVER injected a pregnant woman with anything but that was long ago when morality was quite different.
Another reason is to get a NEEDLE in as many arms as possible. We should never forget that in 2009 Baxter Labs put the deadly H5N1 live virus in 100s of thousands of "seasonal flu vaccine" doses and distributed it to 19 countries. This would have been the long awaited "pandemic outbreak" the authorities have been warning us about for over a decade but the Czech Republic tested the "vaccine" and found the live H5N1 virus.
"Flu shots" and all "vaccines" are immunosupressive and hinder your ability to fight off the flu and ALL OTHER DISEASE.
"Flu shots" may be the leading risk factor for Alzheimer's.
"We have found that clinically normal individuals aged 60-65 who receive influenza vaccine three or four times during a five-year period, will five years later have an incidence of Alzheimer's disease 10-fold greater than age-matched individuals who did not receive it." Doctor H. Hugh Fudenburg, MD, Note and CDC cannot figure out where Alzheimer's is coming from. Right! 90% of our seniors are getting the "flu vaccine" toxin.
“There is some evidence that flu shots cause Alzheimer’s disease, most likely as a result of combining mercury with aluminum and formaldehyde. Mercury in vaccines has also been implicated as a cause of autism. Three other serious adverse reactions to the flu vaccine are joint inflammation and arthritis, anaphylactic shock and other life-threatening allergic reactions, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, a paralytic autoimmune disease." Doctor Joseph Mercola MD
"Flu shots" help condition you to accept other "vaccines" and other medical life shortening toxins.
What the "flu shot" does not do is prevent or ameliorate the seasonal flu.
So we can readily see if your object is depopulation "flu shots" are an excellent idea. And since it is past "1984" I guess we can call all the death and destruction Public Health Policy.
Posted by: Lou | May 11, 2013 at 08:02 PM
Currently a prison doctor, I deal with the public in a specifically medical context. I have never had a flu jab. Can you point me to the evidence that vaccination against flu is absolutely necessary for folk like me?
PS. If you can get out of bed you've probably not got flu. I couldn't get out of bed just before my 'A' level exams in 1974. I had the flu. I did much better at my exams than expected and eventually went on to medical school. I never had the flu again and I've never been as ill again in my life. I've also had measles, mumps and rubella, which were trifling in comparison. And I cannot remember sending a patient to hospital who turned out to have flu. As a GP I once sent a child into hospital with what I thought was the flu. I was wrong. That 6 year old child was ill, very ill, but turned out to have meningococcal septicaemia ... and survived with prompt treatment.
Posted by: Mark Struthers | May 11, 2013 at 09:57 AM
John Stone's pertinent letter has not yet been published on BMJ.com. However, this is the response you get when you post a letter to the BMJ:
"Thank you! Thanks so much for your letter. We intend to publish as rapidly as possible all rapid responses that contribute substantially to the topic under discussion."
Of course, the BMJ is not really as grateful as its effusive thanks would suggest, as the substantiality of any contribution to the topic is wide open to the BMJ's infinitely inscrutable interpretation. A pox on the BMJ.
Posted by: Mark Struthers | May 11, 2013 at 09:28 AM
@ John O Neil and Jeannette Bishop
How bad can it get when it comes to administering vaccines?
Recent local newspaper published a lenghty (scaremongering)column by a professional "health expert with ten years experience" titled: "Urge lawmakers to increase access to vaccines" .. wherein she ended her column with the frigthening suggestion that vaccines should be: "distributed in unconventional sites, such as, street corners, churches, pharmacies, grocery stores and workplaces"
My equally lenghty response was .. predictably .. NOT published. Two small paragraphs of my unpublished response were:
"Common sense and the CDC recognize that vaccines are serious. That's why the CDC issues "guidelines" to make certain: "the right patient, the right vaccine or dilutent, the right time, the right dosage, the right route, needles length and technique, the right site .. and .. the right documentation, is applied to each encounter when vaccines are administered".
"In addition, the CDC vigorously recommends: "all patients be screened for contraindications and precautions every time a vaccine is administered, even if the patient has previously received a dose of that vaccine. The patient's status can change from one visit to the next or a new contraindication or precaution may have been added."
I ended my comments thus: "Vaccines ought not be administered on "street corners" as if they were "happy meals" .. the "safety" of our childrens health demands it"
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | May 11, 2013 at 06:49 AM
Alli is correct:
I seen them pimping the poison in Perth Scotland last year..
Posted by: Angus Files | May 10, 2013 at 07:13 PM
Show us the studies of how those infectious antigens behave in gene sharing stealth infections that can share up to 40% of their genes found so far- we already know the public is infected with by at least 80%.
Russia did not kick out USAID for nothing...They don't like being sold JUNK!
Posted by: Silvermaven | May 10, 2013 at 05:56 PM
I'm sorry to watch the U.K. follow after the U.S. in "healthcare" trends.
Any store here that has a pharmacy (our small town has 5), you can pretty much expect to received a barrage of posters and intercom announcements telling us you still have time to get your flu shot for about 6 months of the year.
In California now, state senator Ed Hernandez, is sponsoring legislation to let optometrists (he is one) provide the same service, SB492. I guess he figures optometrists know as much about vaccines as any other "healthcare" vendor.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | May 10, 2013 at 04:18 PM
Alli is correct: you can get vaccinated at Tesco or Boots in the UK
Posted by: John Stone | May 10, 2013 at 03:47 PM
I have to say, in reply to Alli Edwards, I've never seen vaccines offered in a supermarket.
I'd also like to say that unless you're in an "at risk" group (I am - I had pneumonia last year), or are dealing with the public (specifically in a medical context) I'm not convinced that 'flu jab is absolutely necessary.
Posted by: John O'Neill | May 10, 2013 at 03:35 PM
Thanks for all these wonderful comments, only to add that although - of course - inclusion on VAERS is not proof that a vaccine event occured, it is also the case that in a passive reporting database such as VAERS only a small fraction of events are ever likely to be reported.
Posted by: John Stone | May 10, 2013 at 01:19 PM
FluMist was first licensed in the U.S. in 2003
In May 2011, the FDA approved a request by the manufacturer of the vaccine "To revise the package insert to include new information about vaccine virus replication and shedding."
According to the FDA: "In each age group, among subjects who shed, shedding was most often observed on days 2-3 post vaccination. Among the population for whom FluMist is currently approved for use, i.e., individuals 2-49 years of age (n = 443), vaccine virus titers did not exceed 1.5 log10 TCID50/mL after day 11, though some individuals shed vaccine strain virus as late as day 28 postvaccination."
The FDA document also included the following statements:
"The clinical review of safety data from the studies submitted to this sBLA did not identify any new safety concerns that warrant revisions in labeling."
"The Vaccines and Related Biologics Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) was not convened to discuss this supplement. Advice from VRBPAC was not thought to be critical to the review because the data and proposed changes to labeling do not affect the indication or use of the vaccine or reveal major safety concerns."
All this was certainly not widely advertised.
Posted by: Ed Yazbak | May 10, 2013 at 11:42 AM
We have had a nine and half year experience with FluMist in the United States, almost as long as our experience with the MMR vaccine before its licensing in the UK.
Because FluMist is most often administered alone, related VAERS reports are more specific than when other vaccines are concomitantly administered.
A just performed VAERS search reveals that there were 1023 reported events where the vaccinees were 2 to 6 year-old children and the onset - interval of the adverse event was 0 (same day) to 3 days after vaccination. About 20% of the children were 2 - 3 years old.
In all, there were 5,511 events reported to VAERS following vaccination with FluMist from October 2003 to date. The largest percentage of reports per year of age was in the 3 to 6 year-old group. http://tinyurl.com/dxu6tsl
Obviously, a report to VAERS does not necessarily mean that a vaccine adverse event indeed occurred.
Posted by: Ed Yazbak | May 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM
My daughter caught the flu from a friend who had been recently vaccinated. (We know this friend had flu type B because her mother had her nose swabbed.) My kid was as sick as I've ever seen her for three days. I, on the other hand, felt kind of lousy for one. So now I know that I do get the flu, but for me it's not bad. Perhaps I can thank my disease-ridden childhood.
"Mar 1, 2013 (CIDRAP News) – Experts are puzzled by a new study in which influenza vaccination seemed to provide little or no protection against flu in the 2010-11 season—and in which the only participants who seemed to benefit from the vaccine were those who hadn't been vaccinated the season before."
Posted by: Carol | May 10, 2013 at 08:42 AM
Of course, the product information would seem to indicate that it is considerably worse than useless, but this is a very similar situation to a great many medical products, and it is just particularly silly in this case. Moreover, it is a matter not so much of not doing something, but doing something even though it is known to be stupid - I remember Dr Marc Girard commenting about this particularly extravagantly during the swine flu frenzy:
"In the medieval age, when there was an epidemic, people burned Jews. That was a way of doing something.”
Posted by: John Stone | May 10, 2013 at 08:40 AM
I think Jan's comment "It beggars belief" is just about it. Of course, this product has been in use for a while but I wonder if it has ever been used on such a scale (a Christmas present from Dave Cameron to Astra Zenica, formerly Imperial Chemical Industries). One thought that occurs is that although these are attenuated viruses it might influence which virus strains proliferate (ie a self-fulfilling prophecy), so the WHO might actually do better with their predictions in future. It all seems a great big experiment (and a very foolish one).
Posted by: John Stone | May 10, 2013 at 08:20 AM
It beggars belief, that despite so much evidence of side effects and the possibility of damage to vulnerable groups, that this is still being railroaded across the country? I have friends who last winter were both extremely ill after the flu vaccine, bearing in mind the wife had recently had a stroke and was still given it! My neighbours both 80, again became ill after the flu jab last winter and the husband has been ill for months, and still is suffering from a supposed "rare" reaction involving an all over body rash and his immune system is shot! Safe? says who? One day these people will have to come face to face with what they have done-I just hope I am around to witness it.
Posted by: JanP | May 10, 2013 at 07:58 AM
Several questions come to mind.
(1) You said “Children could therefore become a mass hazard to immunocompromised people, younger siblings etc.” Isn’t this similar to the lethal effects on the immunocompromised populations in the 1993 U.S. cryptosporidium outbreak? This outbreak was in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that resulted in “infecting 400,000 and causing the death of more than 100.” See Kathleen Blair, MS, Epidemiologist, City of Milwaukee Health Department at http://www.waterandhealth.org/newsletter/old/03-01-1995.html . See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptosporidiosis .
(2) Kathleen Blair reported that “At this point there is no single, clear source of contamination of the Milwaukee watershed, and we may never know exactly what happened in April 1993. Possible sources include cattle along the two rivers that flow into the Milwaukee harbor above the southern treatment plant, local slaughterhouses and human sewage. Rivers swelled by significant rain and snow runoff may have transported oocysts great distances into the lake and from there to the intake of the southern plant.”
But in the UK doesn’t everyone know the “source of contamination” for illness from the nasal influenza vaccine ‘Fluenz’ is the mass administration of attenuated live flu virus?
(3) Would the UK Department of Health also add cryptosporidium contamination to the drinking water supply to boost the cryptosporidium immunity of UK citizens?
Posted by: Jim Thompson | May 10, 2013 at 07:35 AM
Why do the UK Goverment ever never ever say ..you know that false measels scare who was responsible for that it cost the country millions....Neverland!!
Posted by: Angus Files | May 10, 2013 at 06:57 AM
Here in the UK, flu jabs have been moved out of GP surgeries and into big shopping malls at Boot the Chemists, and in Sainsbury's supermarkets. Not only are the public charged a fee but what chance is there avoiding getting ill, if the recently vaccinated or nasal sprayed are coughing, sneezing and spluttering live virus all over our groceries and automatic till-points. Is this a deliberate
attempt to kill off the weak?
Posted by: Alli Edwards, UK | May 10, 2013 at 06:23 AM
Boycott all vaccine ........simple as that.
Posted by: White Rose | May 10, 2013 at 06:06 AM
"It is deeply disturbing that this senseless project ploughs forward regardless. While government seems to have seized the agenda over influenza vaccination by unwarranted claims of (influenza) mortality [1,2] there are definable risks to the use of nasal influenza vaccine. Manufacturer's product information states among other things"
John .. we here across the pond .. in the wake of recent terrorist bombing attack at the Boston Marathon .. are constantly being told if we "see something .. say something". Unfortunately, this strategy is useless if the homeland security/intelligence agencies don't "DO SOMETHING" AFTER THEY ARE TOLD .. which appears to have happened following prior Russian warning of our home grown terrorist.
Apparently, the manufacturer you write of in the UK has done his public duty .. he "saw something" .. then "said something" .. in his warning insert. Unfortunately, UK public health officials have decided to DO NOTHING regarding his warnings.
As I said .. of what use is the "see something .. say something" stragtegy if the authorities .. be they intelligence agenices or public health officials .. decide to "do nothing"?
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | May 10, 2013 at 06:01 AM