One of my very good friends, who has a brilliant mind, recently called me out on my objection to the “flu shot.”
This followed a lecture here at Cady Wellness institute by our biomedical consultant, Marcella Piper-Terry, MS, on the dangers of several different types of immunizations.
However, horrifying reactions to the flu vaccine notwithstanding, the media is quick to alarm you with tales of 30,000 and more people each year that “are killed by the flu.” Not so fast, there!
Here’s the problem with those numbers. As the CDC points out on its page http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm , “CDC does not know exactly how many people die from seasonal flu each year. There are several reasons for this. First, states are not required to report individual seasonal flu cases or deaths of people older than 18 years of age to CDC. Second, seasonal influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates of people who die from flu-related complications. Third, many seasonal flu-related deaths occur one or two weeks after a person’s initial infection, either because the person may develop a secondary bacterial co-infection (such as bacterial pneumonia) or because seasonal influenza can aggravate an existing chronic illness (such as congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Also, most people who die from seasonal flu-related complications are not tested for flu, or they seek medical care later in their illness when seasonal influenza can no longer be detected from respiratory samples. Sensitive influenza tests are only likely to detect influenza if performed within a week after onset of illness. In addition, some commonly used tests to diagnose influenza in clinical settings are not highly sensitive and can provide false negative results (i.e. they misdiagnose flu illness as not being flu.) For these reasons, many flu-related deaths may not be recorded on death certificates. These are some of the reasons that CDC and other public health agencies in the United States and other countries use statistical models to estimate the annual number of seasonal flu-related deaths. Flu deaths in children were made a nationally notifiable condition in 2004, and since then, states have reported flu-related child deaths in the United States through the Influenza Associated Pediatric Mortality Surveillance System. There’s more to read on the page. And for all the noise that the amount of flu related deaths calculated maybe UNDER reported, based on their line of reasoning, there is still not causally reported link between: “You get the flu, the flu kills you, you die, and these are the numbers we are counting.”
Essentially, the bottom line is that the numbers of flu “fatalities” are estimated, and there is not a one to one causal link between having the flu and being killed EXCLUSIVELY from it. It should be noted that in the elderly with depressed immune systems, ANY kind of infection can be fatal. Given that the aluminum adjuvant in the flu vaccine is suppressing to the immune system, and given that the flu vaccine is always a best guess estimation of what is going to be making the viral rounds that flu season, and given the fact that people have been living for centuries with influenza in their societies without flu vaccines and high levels of aluminum adjuvants in them, I think a balanced approach is necessary.
The question, in my mind, is this: is it worth the risk to take the shot, suppress your immune system (which will make you more likely to die of a strain of influenza that is NOT in the flu vaccine), and to take your chances with the significant numbers of injuries and death from the vaccine itself, or to concentrate on maintaining optimal health, boosting your immune system, getting adequate nutrients and exercise, etc.
There was certainly one notorious and highly fatal flu epidemic in 1918. It was so severe, it was categorized as a “pandemic,” described as a “plague”, and killed an estimated 50 million people. It infected 1/5th of the world’s population. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/influenza-epidemic/ ) . This was a particularly virulent strain of influenza that has not returned. (One interesting footnote: post-mortem autopsies showed that the victims who had died had shriveled up, exhausted adrenal glands. in other words, fighting the virus off had overtaxed their adrenal glands – the “stress response glands” that sit on top of your kidneys. Those who were taking adrenal supplements survived. You can read more about this in Dr. James L. Wilson’s book, Adrenal Fatigue.)
Now here’s the problem: the influenza virus has the potential to mutate. The strain in 1918 had never been seen before. It has not been seen since. It is not protected against in the current flu vaccine, and it would be irrational to have the vaccine so formulated. In fact, even had there been a “flu vaccine” available in 1918 based on the types of flu that had been seen in 1917, this virus of 1918 would not have been immunized against because it had not appeared before. And, following this epidemic, if there had been flu vaccinations available in 1919, arguably putting the 1918 strain of influenza in the vaccine might not have done much for the public good because everyone exposed to the previous virus would either be dead or immune, and therefore not spreading it. (And there would be new mutations to guess about).
This study on the adaptability of the H1N1 influenza virus in 2009 is worth a look, as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25210166 . This is an example of the difficulty of trying to “hit a moving target.”
The bottom line – influenza vaccination is shooting at a moving target, with no studies showing that if you get the shot it is going to be effective for the particular strain of viruses floating around that year. And getting the immunization subjects you to a toxic amount of aluminum injected into you (based on the FDA limits for amounts of aluminum in parenteral solutions) which will suppress your immune system.
My personal choice was to claim a religious exemption from taking this vaccination at a hospital locally on which I am on the courtesy staff. I think this is bad science at play and media driven hysteria with the mouthpieces of the medical establishment and the media collaborating in a siren song of easy (and baseless) reassurance that somehow this immunization is going to protect you.
I am advising all of my patients NOT TO TAKE IT.
Louis B. Cady, M.D.
Cady Wellness Institute – October 29, 2014