World Mercury Project: Hiding Behind Genetics to Avoid Culpability for Environmental Causes of Autism
1 in 36: ASD Rate Set a New Record High in 2016

ABC News Report Possible 90% Flu Shot Fail Rate in 2018

FAIL-BUZZER-350x233Note: Good grief. The spin here is ridiculous. Even if you are completely pro vaccination, this report has got to make you pause before your roll up your sleeve.   Can you think of another product outside of maybe a cancer drug, where 10% efficacy is not only acceptable, but the product is still recommended? If the flu is so deadly, as Public Health officials warn, why aren't they screaming that we need a 90% effective flu vaccine? Nope. They just tell the public the vaccine is failing, but hey, go ahead and get it anyway. Why not.  "It's better than 0%." Is it?

From ABC News

The upcoming flu season may be a particularly severe one in the U.S., some medical experts warned today, citing preliminary data from Australia, where the flu season is waning.

The flu vaccine used this year in Australia — which has the same composition as the vaccine used in the U.S. — was only 10 percent effective, according to a preliminary estimate, at preventing the strain of the virus that predominantly circulated during the country's flu season,an international team of medical experts wrote in a perspective published today in The New England Journal of Medicine.

"However imperfect, though, current influenza vaccines remain a valuable public health tool, and it is always better to get vaccinated than not to get vaccinated," the team emphasized...


Hans Litten

Posted by: david m burd | December 01, 2017 at 01:40 PM

2) Sodium deoxycholate; "Is a biological detergent used to kill and dissolve (lyse) animal cells, including human cells."

Even some of the Doctors & Nurses are fooled.

Cynthia Cournoyer

Whenever the standard news outlets choose to publish articles like these, it is because it leads to something else. These articles will prepare the masses for the "universal flu vaccine." The new vaccine is in the works, and to get you to embrace it, they must first convince you that a new vaccine was necessary and that they are solving a problem.


My partner and I were watching a news story gravely recommending the ten percent effective flu shot. It was so crazy that it seemed like a Saturday Night Live sketch. We were keeling over laughing.


NUDGE . Improving Decisions about Health,Wealth and Happiness. Book By Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein .
Slante mhath to your very good health and " Lang may yer Lum reek "meaning may you never be without fuel for your fire to wish people a long and happy, healthy life!
Vaccine risk assessment ,systematic failure .
Ah well ,as our own dear Eddie Turnbull used to say to ma father, we are telling them to."Hold that last result, the baw;s up on the slates,so the game's a bogey .


How to fudge a nudge ! One fool dose FLU=AD adjuvated ,inactivated,flu vaccine trivalent standard dose. Ed bernase style selling sauce with a bariatric portion selling us an overdose of a hope and a promise to us" Stupid days and silly sausages." Specific populations suitable for pregnancy and over 65yrs . Pregnancy .Risk assessment/clinical trials experience ,tested on bunny rabbits apparently as indicated on the patient information leaflet . Post marketing experience data not available .Away with the faries perhaps?

False scientists

Angus and Kate you've given me my laughs for the day. I imagine significant side effects could outweigh benefits at this point! Yes, but why do we not be joyful at the usage of Mercury and aluminium so that they may boost big pharma's profits. Oh joy, oh bliss...

Donna L.

It would sure make for an amusing ad campaign, wouldn't it? A picture of ten sheeple rubbing their sore (SIRVA) shoulders, with the caption: "One out of 10 people who get the flu shot probably won't get the flu. Will you be the one?"

david m burd

Here are the flu vaccines' ingredients (called excipients) published by the CDC itself. Here are three I picked out illustrating the dangerous chemicals injected into infants and everybody (as cited by many chemical industry sources).

1) Propiolactone; "Warning, propiolactone is an animal carcinogen; toxicity via inhalation and ingestion is high --- irritation to skin, eyes, mouth, esophagus, GI tract, and respiratory tract."
2) Sodium deoxycholate; "Is a biological detergent used to kill and dissolve (lyse) animal cells, including human cells."
3) Polysorbate 80 (Tween 80); A "solvent for pharmacological experments."

And, as revealed by yearly Vaccine Makers Production and Distribution Reports, 80% to 95% of flu shots (including those injected into infants beginning 6 months) still have full complements of toxic Thimerosal; 12.5 milligrams of mercury going into infants per shot; 25 micrograms of mercury going into infants/kids starting 35 months of age and thereafter for all those kids and adults who get a yearly shot!

At any rate, here the CDC list of toxic chemicals/substances going into the various flu concoctions -- ALLthese shots being extremely toxic, with basically NO BENEFIT as to warding off flu illness.

Influenza (Afluria)
Trivalent & Quadrivalent
sodium chloride, monobasic sodium phosphate, dibasic sodium phosphate, monobasic
potassium phosphate, potassium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium taurodeoxycholate,
ovalbumin, sucrose, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B, beta-propiolactone, thimerosal (multidose

Influenza (Fluad)
squalene, polysorbate 80, sorbitan trioleate, sodium citrate dehydrate, citric acid
monohydrate, neomycin, kanamycin, barium, egg proteins, CTAB
(cetyltrimethylammonium bromide), formaldehyde

Influenza (Fluarix)
Trivalent & Quadrivalent
octoxynol-10 (TRITON X-100), α-tocopheryl hydrogen succinate, polysorbate 80 (Tween
80), hydrocortisone, gentamicin sulfate, ovalbumin, formaldehyde, sodium deoxycholate,
sodium phosphate-buffered isotonic sodium chloride

Influenza (Flublok)
Trivalent & Quadrivalent
sodium chloride, monobasic sodium phosphate, dibasic sodium phosphate, polysorbate 20
(Tween 20), baculovirus and Spodoptera frugiperda cell proteins, baculovirus and cellular
DNA, Triton X-100, lipids, vitamins, amino acids, mineral salts
Influenza (Flucelvax)

Trivalent & Quadrivalent
Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell protein, protein other than HA, MDCK cell DNA,
polysorbate 80, cetyltrimethlyammonium bromide, and β-propiolactone
Influenza (Flulaval)
Trivalent & Quadrivalent
ovalbumin, formaldehyde, sodium deoxycholate, α-tocopheryl hydrogen succinate,
polysorbate 80, thimerosal (multi-dose vials)
Influenza (Fluvirin) ovalbumin, polymyxin, neomycin, betapropiolactone, nonylphenol ethoxylate, thimerosal

Influenza (Fluzone)
egg protein, octylphenol ethoxylate (Triton X-100), sodium phosphate-buffered isotonic
sodium chloride solution, thimerosal (multi-dose vials), sucrose

Jeannette Bishop

Speaking of vaccine fails ...

"Dengue vaccine (DengVaxia) philippines - doc adam explains"

Jeannette Bishop

It just occurred to me that in much of the flu vaccine research, they would have likely recorded all flu-like illnesses suffered by participants before they obtained get lab confirmation of illnesses involving flu. Maybe some of that data is still available for non-specific effects analysis?


Can someone do the math on the injury rate vs. the 10% efficacy rate from the insert. I bet that alone exceeds the 10% making the entire argument that the flu shot is worth it idiotic! I love how so many people will support childhood vaccines but then balk at the flu vaccine saying , " Oh I know so many people who've gotten sick after it....and old people in nursing homes die from it so I'll never Get that one! It doesn't even work anyway!" Yet, somehow they can't seem to comprehend that childhood vaccines have just as shitty an efficacy rate, higher injury rate, but because it's kids who can't advocate for themselves that it's ok to overlook or deny.

Jeannette Bishop

I suspect that if they ever study all health impacts of the flu vaccine, even just all infectious outcomes in recipients vs. non-vaccinated, they are going to find that hands down this vaccine has negative value to recipients.

But even in this study with up to 69% efficacy, that meant that only about two percent of the vaccinated avoided (I believe just vaccine targeted) influenza compared to the "unvaccinated" (and maybe the vaccinated are all set up to become more sick in coming years: ):

If this 10% effective calculation is coming from the same type of analysis, what does that mean? One less box of tissues was consumed (on flu anyway) per a hundred vaccinated?

Angus Files

Where else can they legally dump Mercury have a heart its Christmas have your vaccine go on!

Pharma For Prison



"It's better than 0%." Is it?

No - it's not - because getting the flu shot annually can increase your chances of getting flu.

L  Land

Consumer Reports came this week with its pro flu vaccine article so I just threw it in the trash

CU claims to be independent and to test products but they just parrot the drug companies Can you imagine them saying to buy a refrigerator that fails 90% of the time with the logic that it keeps the food colder than room temp so you will get a milder case of food poisoning???

bob moffit

'However imperfect, though, current influenza vaccines remain a valuable public health tool, and it is always better to get vaccinated than not to get vaccinated," the team emphasized..."

Who exactly are the members of the TEAM that made this preposterous recommendation?

If the TEAM's standard for recommending "imperfect" vaccines is "it is ALWAYS better to get vaccinated than not get vaccinate" ... wouldn't that very same standard ALWAYS apply to ALL other "imperfect" products .. such as .. drinking "imperfect" water with high lead content .. or .. driving cars with "imperfect" tires known to be dangerous?

God help us if our public health bureaucracies are relying upon this TEAM for advice.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)