Home

Flu Shots, Fosamax and Pharmaceutical Fakery: The Common Use of Deceptive Statistics in the Vaccine and Pharmaceutical Literature

2 Comments

 

Duty to Warn

By Gary G. Kohls, MD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Lancet article that revealed the lack of efficacy of flu shots did indeed report a “60% efficacy rate”, and that phrase was prominently reported in the media, which pointed out the commonly-accepted past estimates of 90% efficacy. The problem was that both the 60% and the 90% figures were intentionally misleading RRR stats. But what wasn’t reported in the media coverage was the fact that the actual risk reduction (ARR) for the flu shots was a miniscule 1.5%. “

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Several years ago there was a temporary media buzz generated by an October 2011 article in The Lancet Infectious Disease journal, which is a pro-vaccine, pro-pharmaceutical industry medical journal that is published in Britain. The article showed that flu vaccinations were far less effective than had been previously believed. In fact, the study suggested that the trivalent flu vaccine currently being pushed at that time approached worthlessness.

The article’s principle author was Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, a widely published infectious disease researcher who, prior to his current faculty position at the University of Minnesota, had served in various capacities with the CDC and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), including a high-profile role as the MDH’s Chief of the Acute Disease Epidemiology Section. For 15 years of that association with the MDH Osterholm served as Minnesota state epidemiologist. Osterholm has published over 300 articles and is highly respected in his field.

The Disconnect Between Real, Unbiased Science and Profit-focused Corporate Propaganda

The Lancet study, in the reports that I listened to on NPR and read about in various print media reports, was deceptively reported as showing that the trivalent flu vaccines should still be regarded as “moderately effective” for flu prevention rather than being brought into question as the minimally effective vaccine that the article suggested. What could explain the disconnect between the science and the propaganda? More

Gardasil and Cervical Cancer: A Hoax in the Making?

2 Comments

Duty to Warn

new-logo25kohls

By Gary G. Kohls, MD

 

 

(Exploring Big Pharma’s Unproven Assertion that Gardasil Will Prevent Cervical Cancer)

According to a recent Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) report, cancer of the cervix was the 14th most common malignancy among Minnesota women. Cervical cancer was also listed as the 17th most common cause of cancer death in Minnesota.

In Minnesota, according to the statistical information provided by the MDH , the incidence of cancer of the cervix among Minnesotan females of all races is a miniscule 6.8/100,000 population (ie, 6.8 newly diagnosed cases per 100,000 women per year). (Incidence is the term for the number of new cases of a disease diagnosed during a specified period of time, usually a year.)

The age-related peak incidence for a diagnosis of cancer of the cervix is 44 years of age. In the 40 – 44 year age group, the MDH says that in any given year there are only 14 newly diagnosed cervical cancers per 100,000 population, which means that 99,986 out of every 100,000 44 year-old Minnesotan women will not be diagnosed with cervical cancer.

By the age of 50, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 80% of American women will have been infected at one time or another with human papillomavirus (HPV). And yet, amazingly, well over 99,000 out of every 100,000 women will never be diagnosed with cervical cancer. (It is useful to point out that deaths from cervical cancer are an even more miniscule 1.5 cases per 100,000 females per year.) Those statistics should make obvious that girls who don’t go along with the crowd – by refusing the CDC’s recommendations – have a close to zero chance that they will ever get cervical cancer.

More

Minnesota Department of Health Vaccine Insanity

4 Comments

strip banner

new-logo25Marti Oakley ©Copyright 2013 All rights reserved

_____________________________________________________________________

Minnesota Department of Health: Coercion and entrapment

Question:  If vaccines actually work with any degree of efficiency (not efficacy), why would non-vaccinated individuals represent any kind of threat to the vaccinated?  Doesn’t the vaccine provide you with magical protection against whatever disease you supposedly took it for?

This opt-out was obviously not created by the people at MDH, but more likely created by lobbyists from either big pharma or from the CDC, if not both.  The clear intent of this opt-out form is to imply that the parent, regardless of the knowledge that their child is more likely to be harmed by the vaccine than from a naturally occurring virus, is an intentional attempt to coerce the parent into self-incrimination.  This is a trap and one that has been intentionally set.

_______________________________________________________________

The Minnesota Department of Health is in the process of attempting to introduce even more vaccines into the mandated schedule for children from infancy, on.  The toxic load of heavy metals, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, fetal cell lines from aborted babies (diploids), DNA strands from non-related species such as chickens and swine, live and dead viruses, thimerisol, mercury and whatever else could be found to giving_babies_drugs-18540load the vaccines, has many parents wondering just what is really going on.  *Flu shots contain 25 micrograms of mercury. One microgram is considered toxic. By age two, most US children have received around 237 micrograms of mercury through vaccines alone. *See list below of contents of one vaccine alone**

Minnesota just recently banned formaldehyde in all products EXCLUDING VACCINES!

One childhood shot can contain as many as one million strands of someone or something else’s transfective DNA, now circulating in your child’s body.

So-called moral and social obligations that are being cited as a means of coercion to encourage parents to subject their infants, toddlers and young adults to intentional infection, heavy metal poisoning and the high risk of autism and other life long impairments, is just that: COERCION

The one size fits all approach of vaccines has produced an efficiency rate of about 34% over-all.  That means that without hand-picking an ideal group [efficacy] that could possibly respond positively to the vaccine, there is only a 34% chance the vaccine will work at all [efficiency].

Efficacy simply means that IF a selected and ideal group of candidates for the vaccine were found and isolated, the vaccine could work at least some of the time.  To find this ideal group would require extensive testing to exclude pre-existing known or unknown genetic disorders, current infections, past infections, blood work panels, and various other biological factors and medically based  information gathering. This information gathering is almost never done.

How many times has any physician done any of these tests before admonishing parents to vaccinate their child?

While harping continually on the “efficacy” of vaccines, not one of those proposing increasing the toxic load have addressed the difference between “efficacy” as opposed to “efficiency”.  Using the word [efficacy] is intentional and avoids the real issue of [efficiency].

MDH: We’ll set you up for future charges!

In their efforts to force compliance with this intentional assault on our children, the Minnesota Department of Health has responded by creating this form for parents who object to intentionally risking their children’s lifetime health with the injection of toxins in vaccines.

As is, the form is intentionally worded to imply that the parent or guardian is endangering their child(ren):

___________________________________________________

At about page 23. MDH Developed this form to have parents sign that looks like this

D.

If the parent/guardian conscientiously opposes required immunizations:

Not following vaccination recommendations may endanger the health or life of my child and others that

my child might come in contact with.

I hereby certify by notarization that:

I am opposed to all immunizations.

I am opposed to only the vaccines indicated. Vaccine(s) I oppose:

______________________________________________________

This opt-out was obviously not created by the people at MDH, but more likely created by lobbyists from either big pharma or from the CDC, if not both.  The clear intent of this opt-out form is to imply that the parent, regardless of the knowledge that their child is more likely to be harmed by the vaccine than from a naturally occurring virus, is an intentional attempt to coerce the parent into self-incrimination.  This is a trap and one that has been intentionally set.

Here is a more relevant opt out form to use that avoids the word trap included in the proposed opt out by MDH: More

%d bloggers like this: