Do Yearly Flu Shots Increase Mortality Risk From Swine Flu?

By Byron Richards, CCN Tuesday, November 10, 2009 -- A rather startling article published in the prestigious Lancet calls into question the wisdom of a yearly flu vaccine and points out that it could very easily cause more severe H1N1 swine flu. It is one thing when the critics of Western medicine point out all the flaws in vaccine theory. It is another matter entirely when the Lancet does so. It is important to understand the context of this issue. The latest wobbly pillar of Western medicine is its antiquated vaccine theory. Public health officials will swear to its ultimate truth no matter what the evidence says, as failure to get the herd to move in unison spells doom for the monopoly of the sickness industry (and their demise as the ruling elite of healthcare can't come soon enough. A new article in the Lancet points out that immunization campaigns in high-risk groups may prevent them from getting a milder influenza A flu in any given season. However, actually getting the flu also provides a type of generalized natural protection against all influenza A viruses, a type of immune training called heterosubtypic immunity. While such protection is not 100%, it is clear that it reduces the severity of other flu types such as the H1N1 swine flu or any other pandemic strain. The authors argue this type of immune training "can limit virus replication and reduce morbidity and mortality of the host. This type of immunity might be relevant to human beings when a new subtype of influenza A virus is introduced into the population, such as the new influenza A H1N1 virus responsible for the present influenza pandemic and the highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 viruses that are causing an ever increasing number of human infections with high mortality rates. Preventing infection with seasonal influenza viruses by vaccination might prevent the induction of heterosubtypic immunity to pandemic strains, which might be a disadvantage to immunologically naïve people - eg, infants." It appears that vitamin C and vitamin D adequacy would be a far more relevant public health policy than flu shots. GEORGE'S THOUGHTS Those who have been following this editor's writings know that for many years I have been discouraging the acceptance of an annual flu shot because of the mercury and other toxic substances contained in the vaccine. Dr. Blaylock has warned that if a senior citizen receives an annual flu shot for five consecutive years, the mercury in the vaccine increases their risk for Alzheimer's by 1,000%. Now the prestigious journal Lancet tells us of another danger from taking a flu shot, the potential of a more serious reaction to the H1N1 virus because previous flu shots had prevented the body from building up a natural immunity. Why does the medical community have to constantly try to improve on the natural immunity our immune system provides when left alone. The Bible says in Leviticus 17:11 that: "The life of the flesh is in the blood" and I believe that toxic substances like mercury, formaldehyde, detergents, and similar toxins that enter the blood system with every vaccination, place the body at far greater risk than experiencing the flu. The Bible says also that: "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." (I Corinthians 3:19) Why does man continue in his feeble attempt to improve on God?