“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

Parents want the truth about the flu vaccine, Professor Phillips.

Hilary Butler - Thursday, March 14, 2013

A headline in PerthNow (Adelaide Advertiser) recently read, "Chief medical officer Paddy Phillips says it's time to end debate on jabs" Of course, to Professor Paddy Phillips vaccines are wonderful, safe, effective and anyone who suggests otherwise is misinformed and patently insane.  So he wants all the non-vaccinators to see sense and vaccinate their children.  That's his answer - dictatorship control.  My answer is simpler. Those who want vaccines can have them, and those who don't, can be left alone.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, Adelaide Advertiser  has this piece of browbeating in the paper today. (pdf)

SA Health chief medical officer Paddy Phillips urged parents to ensure their children were immunised against diseases and that all South Australians get a flu jab.

"I think absolutely the debate should be over, people should do the right thing and get their children, themselves and their families vaccinated," Prof Phillips said.

"There is no doubt that vaccination, to protect ourselves and the community, is the right thing to do."

A University of Adelaide study - published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal yesterday - found the number of children hospitalised with chicken pox or shingles had dropped 68 per cent since the introduction of the vaccine in 2006.

A second study, which was published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, highlighted the benefits of a US vaccination program during the 2009 outbreak of H1N1, or swine flu.

Prof Phillips said vaccines became publicly available only once stringent quality and safety testing processes had been followed.

"Absolutely effective and cost-effective."

So is euthanasia. Is compulsory euthanasia at aged whatever, the next on your list?

Absolutely ironic that Professor Paddy Phillips would say this:

"Prof Phillips said the Australian Vaccination Network Inc, a group that advocates debate about vaccination, was spreading misinformation and lies. "They don't put a balanced argument and I honestly don't understand why they do this."

And this?

The swine flu study found the H1N1 vaccination was associated with a small excess risk - about 1.6 extra cases per one million people vaccinated - of acquiring Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disorder of the nervous system that can result in paralysis and sometimes death.

The authors said the the vaccine had prevented an estimated 700,000-1.5 million influenza cases in the US.

"In view of the morbidity and mortality caused by 2009 H1N1 influenza and the effectiveness of the vaccine, clinicians, policy makers and those eligible for vaccination should be assured that the benefits of inactivated pandemic vaccines greatly outweigh the risks," the study says.

Prof Phillips said the Australian Vaccination Network Inc, a group that advocates debate about vaccination, was spreading misinformation and lies. "They don't put a balanced argument and I honestly don't understand why they do this."

So let's tell the public the TRUTH that Paddy Phillips chose to miss out.

First the estimates as to how many cases the H1N1 vaccine prevented is a mathematical model which has no relevance since the numbers of people who got the pandemic vaccine in the USA was around 10%, therefore the vaccine is irrelevant. Furthermore, a recent study in USA casts doubt on every single preconceived idea about flu vaccines. The  2013 Ohmit study just published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, shows that the flu vaccine:

1)  had a 40% effectiveness which they said "wasn't statistically different to zero".  

2)  didn't prevent household transmission (which begs the question of whether it will prevent flu in vaccinated staff, or prevent vaccinated staff giving it to patients) 

3)  in the optimum population with the best immune system, the vaccine didn't work, and did not reduce hospitalisations or medical attendances at all.  

4) that PREVIOUS vaccination interfered with the most recent vaccine resulting in even FEWER antibodies, than developed in people who had had no previous flu vaccine.

These findings FLY IN THE FACE of everything previously said about the flu vaccine, and clearly expose all of Professor Paddy Phillip's statements that everyone should have flu vaccines because studies have shown them to be very effective, wonderfully safe and to create herd immunity.... to be the ULTIMATE in  misinformation.  It is Professor Paddy Phillips, who is the one who doesn't put a balanced argument to parents. Here are some extracts:.


 



Even more intriguing, the accompanying medical journal editorial by Treanor says:





Treanor in his editorial, struggles with  ... remarkable.... disbelief - ("apparent" failure.....), and has some even more bizarre excuses - but I want to leave them for another blog.  In the light of the previous revelations, let's look at this bizarre claim by Professor Paddy Phillips:

Prof Phillips said vaccines became publicly available only once stringent quality and safety testing processes had been followed.

"That means that it not only has to be effective and be valuable but it has
to show absolutely, without any question of a doubt, that it's cost-effective," he said.

So he's saying that lots of clinical trials will have proved that the flu vaccine is effective, valuable, have stringent quality control and are uber safe - absolutely without any question of doubt????

So how come CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy) wrote about the CCIVI's (Cidrap Comprehensive Influenza Vaccine Initiative) recent evalution of ACIP's (the American Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice) decision making about the flu vaccine over the last 50 years, which has shown that:

 


Note those words.... "A strong belief".... If you read the whole document, you will see that while they acknowledge that the recommendations to use a vaccine that doesn't work,  were all opinion, and not fact, they also indulge in massive weasel word machinations, to deflect that, and move forward saying, but we still need to do it!   All they wanted to do was jab more, jab more, and why bother about actual data?  Opinion - which Phillips calls FACTS - - - is all that matters.... After all, "we don't have anything else to offer!!"

In the meantime, while all this was going on, three studies in Europe (KisslingPebody and Castilla) were even more ground breaking, not only showing how ineffective flu vaccines are, but that after 100 days, most flu vaccines have less than zero protectivity.

So CIDRAP came out with another press release in January 2013 discussing this, and admitting that belief in the flu vaccine was an article of faith:

 

Wow.  An ... ARTICLE OF FAITH.... which Professor Paddy Phillips calls scientific FACTS?  

 

Commendable?

Never easy to publish something that doesn't fit with what we say?

All these years, they've ignored the previous messengers blasting the same trumpet so what is different this time?

Is it just about "scientific integrity and a passion for the best data"?

I don't think so.

These SAME findings have been repeatedly put in front of the old Division of Biological Services, which then became the , and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) from the early 1960's onwards, yet were ignored as "isolated aberrations" and the messengers labelled as "outliers" and marginalised.  There now exists a mountain of these "isolated aberrations".  It's also remarkable how CIDRAP looked at over 5,000 studies and found only 31 which provided reliable information.  The question has to be asked... "How did the other 4,769+ unreliable studies even get into the medical literature?"

So what has changed now, that enables previously discarded findings to be re-visited under a completely new guise? Perhaps there is a "new idea"?  Yes,... hidden in an extract from the October Cidrap report, stemming from the fact that the vaccine manufactures can't be bothered doing anything about their flu vaccine, because it provides them with a "reasonably stable source" of annual income:


So what?    Skip forward again to the January CIDRAP document where we see - oh lookee here. The solution. That everyone should have a SECOND influenza shot 100 days after the first.


A second dose!  Voila!  ....A doubly stable source of income by the stroke of another opinion?  another idea? another ACIP stroke of a pen?... AND look.... more  exciting things for the future as well..... .....:



Who would have thought? (Smacks forehead).  Of course.  Hand the bill for new vaccine development to the mug-public, who for the last few decades blindly believed Professor Phillip saying that the flu vaccine was wonderful.  Public taxes can not only provide the money to build new research and development facilities for vaccine manufacturers, employ MORE scientists to develop "better" vaccines" on the gravy train for a couple of decades  - - -  but also generously double the income for the current vaccines .... 

I understand why Professor Paddy Phillips doesn't present a  balanced argument on flu vaccines.  

If Paddy Phillips told the truth about the flu vaccine, parents wouldn't vaccinate their children with the flu vaccine. Paddy Phillips would have to admit that he's lied for decades, and that everything else that he's said just might be similarly tainted.  To tell the truth about the flu vaccine, might reveal the whole house of cards.  The public might not like that.  The fall out might be worse than an atomic bomb.

That cannot happen, so Paddy Phillips has to retreat behind medical model pontifical doctrine.  Winston Churchill once said words to this effect: "Truth is so important it has to be protected by a fog of lies."  That's all Phillips is doing, because his career depends on the public having no fog detectors.

Even worse, if Professor Paddy Phillips admitted that his own information to the public was "fog", and the public woke up to just how much other fog shrouds their head, about other vaccines and medical procedures, the reputation of the medical profession would never recover. 

That  is why the charade - as Phillip says, ....  that vaccines are "one of the greatest public health initiatives that has improved the health of humans over the last hundred years." must go on.

One day the public will wake up, and then Paddy, I wouldn't want to be in your head when you hear the roar.

Bookmark and Share