Consumer products, particularly branded products, need 'refreshing' from time to time to make sure that the client base doesn't forget them or get bored with them. As we all know, a salesman's nightmare is not having any new story to tell those he needs to sell to, to convince them to stock his product. Pharmaceutical drugs are no exception, many of them having the added problem that when their patent period expires generic competitor manufacturers will pile in with a cheaper "me too" version. Sometimes the efficacy of the old product therefore has to be downplayed, or even trashed, to tell a convincing story which will pump up the attractiveness of the new refreshed product. Remember the pronouncement of Dr Allen Roses of GlaxoSmithKline, in Dec 2003 the worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline, who noted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them - "The vast majority of drugs – more than 90 per cent – only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people"? This was the scene setting for the new story which was that in future drugs would be designed to target just those patients who can benefit most from each medication (called pharmacogenomics)(The Independent. UK. 8 December 2003). And would there be any accountability for all the years the public purse had shelled out for 'useless' drugs, or for the side effects of drugs given to those they would never have worked on? You can bet your bottom dollar not.
So, when we hear the 'new story' for a 'universal flu jab' in place of the old annual flu jab (see NaturalNews below), why should we not yawn?
First, because the researchers in question seem to have decided to try to steal a message which historically has legitimately been the unique preserve of the natural, 'holistic' healthcare community viz. natural remedies are ultimately better for you because they support the body's immune system, not suppress or fight against it, with natural, not artificial substances. For any vaccine to make the same claim, if, as has been the case to date, it contains a laundry list of primary substances and adjuvants which are basically toxic to the body's immune system, and which will be injected in a place which bypasses much of the body's front-line IgA immune system (nose and mouth through to the gastrointestinal tract), would be hogwash - quite apart from the points that NaturalNews feature story by Ethan Huff makes below.
Secondly, because we have heard something like this before. Remember how the adjuvant squalene was added into swine flu vaccine in Europe to boost the immune response/creation of antibodies and how previously it had been in jabs given to Gulf War soldiers? Squalene as an oil molecule consumed normally would have been no problem for the immune system. But injected it had devastating effects on Gulf War veterans and contributed to the cascade of documented reactions called "Gulf War Syndrome".
The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud's phenomenon, Sjorgren's syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.
So, when we hear of another compound which has been found to "stimulate our own (immune) response ...and boost it to fight and infection", what's the betting that it will turn out to be "hogwash with side effects" for the human guinea pigs who participate in this annual experiment?
---------------------------
(NaturalNews) The medical community is in the process of unveiling a "universal" influenza vaccine that it claims will prevent all flu strains with a single jab. The only problem is that, in the process, the system has inadvertently admitted that current flu shots are medically useless because they fail to target the correct flu strain in many cases, and they do not stimulate a natural flu-fighting immune response even when the strain is a match.
A recent report by CBS 11 News in Dallas / Fort Worth explains that researchers from the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas have identified a compound they say spurs the growth of a key protein known as REDD-1, which prevents cells from becoming infected. By injecting this compound into patients, REDD-1 will increase, say the researchers, and thus effectively prevent any strain of flu from taking hold.
But what about current flu vaccines? Dr. Beatrice Fontoura, one of the head researchers involved with the new universal flu shot, explained to CBS 11 that it works differently than current flu shots because it "stimulates our own (immune) response which is already there and boost[s] it to fight an infection."
In other words, flu shots being sold today at pharmacies across the country do not actually promote natural immunity at all, which begs an important question. If current flu shots do not boost the immune response, then what, exactly, are they good for?
Not much, according to a recent study published in The Lancet. Though the mainstream media widely reported that the study's findings showed an effectiveness rate of 60 percent for flu shots, actual data in the study reveal that flu shots help about 1.5 out of every 100 adults. This, of course, translates into a measly 1.5 percent effectiveness rate (http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_i...).
And yet, for years, medical professionals everywhere have been hounding the public to get their flu shots or else face horrific sickness and even death. And those who continue to avoid the flu shot based on concerns about its safety and effectiveness have been routinely dubbed "anti-science," or worse.
Ironically, the CBS 11 piece about the universal flu shot also contains an interview with a woman who admits that she stopped getting the flu shot because it made her sick every single year. Once she stopped getting flu shots, she stopped getting the flu. So why, again, do we even need a universal flu shot?
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034092_universal_flu_shot_vaccines.html#ixzz1d8oAaOqC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment