WTF is going on with flu vaccine pushing these days? (Conspiracy)

submitted ago by DrLizardo

My day went like this. Go to work, walk in and I’m greeted by some outside volunteer saying ‘Would you like to get your flu shot today? It’s free!’ As if I now I have free ownership of something wonderful.

Had a Doc. Appointment, again the flu shot was offered for free. Leave work at end of day, pick up meds at drug store, Holy Shitballs!!! another offer for a free flu shot! WTF!

Cross the street and go into the library, at least I’ll fucking be safe there right?!! Fuck no! Some snot nosed High Schooler is handing out FREE flu shot coupons for a bus that will be by someday. FUCK YOU! I don’t want your Damn Flu Shot CDC!

I’ve never had the flu, never needed a shot, never will and I don’t know any of your toxic shots! And this shit ain’t free! It’s costing somebody something.

Next fucking person that asks I’m going to tell them a flu shot killed my baby and watch them try to rationalize it.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Tallest_Skil ago

Copypasta time!

Two subsequent years of receiving the flu vaccine boosts miscarriage rates from a baseline of 14 % to 77%. Everyone knows miscarriage rates are much higher than 14% “as a normal matter of course,” but as a side issue here, I figured out that the “as high as 40%” rate is a sham by the abortion industry to make abortion not look so bad. The normal miscarriage rate, after a woman comes up hot on a fertility test, is 14%. Obviously, this does not count failures to conceive after fertilization, because in those cases a woman never shows up as pregnant on any test. The abstract proves that every time you get the flu shot after the first shot, it is only a booster shot to make the anti-fertility component work even better. This study only shows what happens after two subsequent years of getting the shot. The numbers are not obvious to the layman, but by cross checking different data sources to make sure I understood what they were saying, I was able to extract the real miscarriage rate from a sea of planned parenthood inspired BS, and then put the numbers this abstract states into terms anyone can understand,

Normal miscarriage rates are 14% after pregnancy is confirmed (when you are not calling induced abortions miscarriages). After ONE flu shot, a woman’s chance of miscarriage increases to 37%. If, the next year, she gets another flu shot, her chances of miscarriage increase to 77%. The study did not go to the third year of getting the flu shot. The abstract is so damning that the numbers look impossible! If you use planned parenthood’s numbers–which are greatly overstated–and plug them into the numbers in this abstract, the miscarriage rate would have to be over 200% (which we all know is not possible). My corrected numbers make sense when plugged into this abstract and match pre abortion era medical stats.

Association of spontaneous abortion with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine containing H1N1pdm09 in 2010-11 and 2011-12

James G. Donahuea, Burney A. Kiekea, Jennifer P. Kinga, Frank DeStefanob, Maria A. Mascolac, Stephanie A. Irvingd, T. Craig Cheethame, , Jason M. Glanzf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.06.069

Abstract introductions inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended in any stage of pregnancy. but evidence of safety in early pregnancy is limited, including for vaccines containing A/H1N1pdm2009 (pH1N1) antigen. We sought to determine if receipt of vaccine containing pH1N1 was associated with spontaneous abortion (SAB).

My comment: the bolded text means that this was a study to see if the flu vaccine really was an anti fertility vaccine. hence the phrase “spontaneous abortion.” This proves they had a reason to be suspicious, because they only did this study to see if the flu vaccine was an anti fertility vaccine, which causes spontaneous abortions.

We conducted a case control study over two influenza seasons (2010-11, 2011-12) in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Cases had spontaneous abortion and controls had live births or stillbirths and were matched on site, date of last menstrual period, and age. Of 919 potential cases identified using diagnosis codes, 485 were eligible and confirmed by medical record review. Exposure was defined as vaccination with inactivated influenza vaccine before the SAB date: the primary exposure window was the 1-28 days before the SAB.

The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.6) for vaccine receipt in the 28-day exposure window; there was no association in other exposure windows. In season-specific analyses, the aOR in the 1-28 days was 3.7 (95% CI 1.4-9.4) in 2010-11 and 1.4 (95% CI 0.6-3.3) in 2011-12. The association was modified by influenza vaccination in the prior season (post hoc analysis). Among women who received pH1N1-containing vaccine in the previous influenza season, the aOR in the 1-28 days was 7.7 (95% CI 2.2-27.3); the aOR was 1.3 (95% CI 0.7-2.7) among women not vaccinated in the previous season. This effect modification was observed in each season.

My comment: The above states the ratios between unvaccinated and vaccinated women, also showing the maximum possible error swings. The error swings are reported in a way that is way out of whack to leave near-mentally deranged margins of error. In this case, the margin allowed was 2.0, when the normal rate of miscarriage was 1.4, which represents a margin of error that allows a result more than double normal miscarriage rates to simply be called “error” to help conceal the severity of the damage from the vaccines. But even this fails, because the damage was too much to bury even with that huge error swing allowed.

The first numbers outside of quotes - 3.7 followed by 1.4, shows 3.7 as the rate of miscarriage after vaccination in the first year (before their "error margins" were applied, and 1.4 as the baseline miscarriage rate in unvaccinated women for the same year. For the second subsequent year of women getting the flu shot, the rate of miscarriage in vaccinated women was 7.7, and the rate of miscarriage in unvaccinated women was 1.3

Conclusion: Spontaneous abortion was associated with influenza vaccination in the preceding 28 days. The association was significant only among women vaccinated in the previous influenza season with pH1N1-containing vaccine. This study does not and cannot establish a causal relationship between repeated influenza vaccination and spontaneous abortion, but further

research is warranted

My comment: It is clear they tried to lie here by leaving margin of errors so high that they buried the first year stats, but in the second year the damage was so much they could not hide it, no matter how they fudged the data. After showing an increase in miscarriage from 14 percent to 77 percent, they then say it is no big deal and can be ignored until further research proves the vaccine is actually a veiled anti fertility vaccine. But the numbers more than obviously speak for themselves.

turitelle ago

I always like to see the source, so in searching (note: not googling) for a link I came across this similar article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

https://illinoisvaccineawareness.org/cdc-study-shows-7-7-x-risk-of-miscarriage-after-flu-vaccines/

The CDC has just published a seismic study (Donahue et al.) linking spontaneous abortions in women to flu vaccines. The study reviewed data for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 flu seasons. Women vaccinated with the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in the 2010-2011 season had 3.7-fold greater odds of experiencing a spontaneous abortion within 28 days than women not receiving the vaccine. Over the entire study period (2010 to 2012), the odds for a spontaneous abortion for vaccinated women were 2.0 times greater than for those women not receiving the flu vaccine. Both figures showed a statistically significant increase in miscarriages when women received their flu shot. The median gestational age for spontaneous abortion was 7 weeks in the affected pregnancies. Most alarmingly, in women who received the H1N1 vaccine in the previous flu season, the odds of spontaneous abortion in the 28 days after receiving a flu vaccine was 7.7 times greater.

The vast majority of these flu vaccines were multi-dose formulations, containing 25 micrograms of mercury via the preservative thimerosal. In those years, out of approximately 150 million flu shots given in the U.S. annually, less than 50 million or 34% of those vaccines available for pregnant women were thimerosal-free.

For many years, health officials have warned pregnant women to avoid eating mercury-containing tuna. And, even before this latest study, some government scientists were questioning the wisdom of pressuring women to receive mercury-laden flu shots in any trimester of pregnancy. National Toxicology Program Deputy Director, Dr. George Lucier, said “The developing fetus should NEVER be exposed to any amount of mercury, period!” In the words of senior CDC epidemiologist, Dr. William Thompson, “So I don’t know why they still give it [the flu shot] to pregnant women, like that’s the last person I would give mercury to.”

CDC officially claims that thimerosal is the “safe” mercury because it is purportedly excreted quickly from the body. CDC bases this claim solely on its misinterpretation of data from a poorly designed study conducted in the early 2000s by an industry insider, Dr. Michael Pichichero. Subsequent studies have proven that the ethylmercury in thimerosal is actually far more persistent in organs than the methylmercury in fish (Burbacher et al.) (Rodrigues et al.). In flu shot package inserts, vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that flu vaccines have never been shown to be safe for pregnant women. In fact, overwhelming science shows clearly that this preservative is neurotoxic and deadly and that it may be particularly dangerous to the fetus during pregnancy. When given to pregnant women, mercury transports specifically to the placenta and into the fetus, which does not have any mechanism for detoxification (Ablesohn et al.). In fact, it has been shown that mercury levels in cord blood are on average 70% higher than those in maternal blood (Stern et al.).

The new study confirms the findings of a previous study by Goldman. Using CDC’s VAERS database, Goldman showed a similar uptick in spontaneous abortions due to the flu shot, specifically during the time when pregnant women were receiving both the seasonal flu shot and the pandemic H1N1 flu shot. In fact, the rate of miscarriages increased 11-fold in 2009 when the H1N1 vaccine was added to the recommended schedule. During this time period, pregnant women who received both shots were typically exposed to 50 micrograms of mercury via thimerosal.

The maternal flu shot, given specifically in the first trimester of pregnancy, has also recently been implicated in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in a paper by Zerbo et al. from insurance giant Northern California Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser’s data showed that those women who received the seasonal flu vaccine (between 2000 and 2010, when the majority of vaccines distributed contained thimerosal) were 25% more likely to give birth to a child who would later be diagnosed with ASD. This result was also statistically significant. See this interview from a mother describing her miscarriage immediately following a flu shot. The aborted child’s twin was born with severe autism.

Thimerosal exposure has previously also been associated with birth defects (Heinonen et al. 1977 Birth Defects and Drugs During Pregnancy, Publishing Sciences Group, Littleton, MA), tics (Thompson et al.), speech and language delays (Andrews et al., Verstraeten et al.), among many other developmental disorders. My book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak details over 400 studies on the toxic effects of thimerosal. Given all of this evidence, it is now past time to completely protect our children and pregnant mothers from this potent neurotoxin.

Accumulating research indicates that flu vaccines, perhaps even those without thimerosal, administered during pregnancy, can induce an inflammatory response in the mother and potentially cause harm to the fetal brain during critical windows of neurodevelopment, including harm associated with autism.

A study by Christian, in 2011, found an increase in two inflammatory markers, C reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) in pregnant women given a seasonal flu vaccine. Increases in these inflammatory compounds indicate a significant level of inflammation, which was identified during the first two days following vaccination. It is unclear for this study how many of these flu shots contained mercury, but there is good reason to be alarmed by these findings. A 2014 studyby Alan Brown, M.D. and his colleagues of over 1.2 million pregnant women found that elevations in CRP, the same marker of inflammation that increases after flu vaccination, are associated with a 43% greater risk of having a child with autism. An earlier study by Lisa Christian, Ph.D. and her colleagues found that pregnant women suffering from depression developed a more marked inflammatory response to influenza vaccines than women who did not have symptoms of depression. Researchers found that depression during pregnancy has also been associated with an increased risk of autism.

The CDC’s current recommendation that all pregnant women receive flu shots is a dangerous proposition according to California Institute of Technology Professor Paul Patterson, a neuroscientist whose research has included immune activation during pregnancy. In his research, Dr. Patterson reported that any immune activation during pregnancy, whether from an infection or a vaccine, can cause damage in the developing fetal brain. In 2008, Scientific American Mind quoted Patterson criticizing the CDC’s policy of administering flu vaccines during pregnancy, “I don’t think they have considered this risk. In fact, I know they have not considered this risk.” Patterson elaborated, “If you take it seriously and vaccinate everybody, then what is going to happen? Researchers cannot yet predict how often a prenatal immune response might lead to fetal brain damage, but even if it happens less than 1 % of the time, vaccinating an entire population of pregnant women could affect thousands of children.”

In a study published in the British Medical Journal in 2014, Giuseppe Traversa and colleagues assessed maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of women given the influenza A/H1N1 vaccine. The outcomes of over 86,000 pregnancies revealed that vaccinated women had significantly higher rates of gestational diabetes and eclampsia. Eclampsia is the development of seizures in a woman with severe toxemia, a condition characterized by high blood pressure and protein loss in the urine. Eclampsia is fatal in 2% of women affected and can result in long-term health problems in those who survive. Fetal complications, including neurological damage and death, are also common. Both gestational diabetes and eclampsia are related to inflammation and immune dysregulation, making the connection to the immune stimulation of the flu vaccine very plausible. In a 2016 study,Chambers et al. found a moderately elevated risk for birth defects among children born to mothers who received one flu vaccine during the 2010-2014 flu seasons.

Among the team of researchers who authored CDC’s earthshaking new flu study is Dr. Frank DeStefano, the Director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. The CDC’s official reaction to the study has been a gag order forbidding any CDC vaccine division employee even talking to the press or responding to inquiries. At the end of the Donahue et al. paper, CDC has also announced a follow-up study on the 2012-2015 influenza seasons but it will not report the results until next year. Perhaps, the CDC should move things along faster, with 4 million babies at risk this flu season.

Gringojones ago

This would be easily provable in the US. There is a flu season here. It is not a year round illness. 9 months after the flu season there would be a drop in birth rates among women who receive the flu shot for the first time, equivalent to the claimed increase in miscarriage rates.

Including this data, if it exists, would make the study nearly irrefutable.

DrLizardo ago

Great information thank you.