what is really in the 2009 Swine Flu Vaccines?

Swine Flu Vax Of 2009 -
Unlicensed And Untested
By Dr. Tim O'Shea DC
TheDoctorWithin.com
9-25-9

With the money machine in full swing to get the untested unlicensed swine flu vaccine out to the public ASAP, it's hard to keep up with the level of deception in mainstream media. But let's give it a try.

On 22 Sep 09, Associated Press ran the story

"Govt: 1 swine flu shot enough for older kids" wherein they buried the lead: National Institutes of Health now wants to give four separate flu shots to kids younger than 9 years old. Two of the shots will be the brand new untested swine flu vaccines, and the other two will be the 'regular' flu shot.

Before we look at the direct misstatements of fact in that AP article, let's read it at face value. Here is some of the new 'information':

From National Institutes of Health director Fauci and CDC's Dr Schuchat:

- children 9 and younger will need 2 flu shots and 2 swine flu shots

- everybody else will need 1 of each

- swine flu vaccine will be ready in October

- we'll have 251 million doses

- swine flu targets young children, which is why they need 2 shots

- they can get both shots the same day, one in each arm

- NIH has studies involving 600 children

- children 10 and older showed protection from the new vaccine

- younger children didn't show protection, since they don't have a mature immune system

- a second dose is necessary to 'rev up' the immune system


For a study in modern propaganda techniques, the reader is directed to the entire AP article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_he_me/us_med_swine_flu

This article epitomizes a modern fact of media: the days of investigative reporting are long gone. The article is nothing more but a dressed up, watered down version of the NIH's article which came out the same day "Early Results: In Children, 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine" Associated Press offers not one bit of independent research, commentary, criticism, or analysis. Except for deliberately omitting some of the glaring lack of science in the NIH article, all that AP does is to try and give a junior-high parroting of the high points from their master's voice.

The AP article obediently adopts the NIH's new pet word "protection" across the board:
"Protection kicks in for older children within eight to 10 days of the shot..." Only a tested and proven vaccine could even hope to provide protection. These studies are less than a month old, and won't be completed until April 2010. The only thing these shots are protecting now is an experiment on the live population.

Trying to feign that giving a 6 month old infant 4 flu shots would be 'normal' Fauci: .. "the very young often need 2 doses of vaccine against regular winter flu." Really? Why has he never shared that secret with anyone before now?

Flu shots were added to the vaccine Schedule in 2006, beginning at 6 months of age, and yearly thereafter. One shot. What is Fauci trying to pretend? He then bumbles on..."this is very good news for the vaccination program." Why would we care what is or isn't good news for the vaccination program? At $1 billion per shot approved, I guess it would be good news for the vaccination program. What does that have to do with the health of our kids? Another graduate of the Josef Goebbels school of social graces: always be upbeat...

CDC's Schuchat, another towering medical genius, obviously off her meds, then pipes in "it will be OK for kids to get one shot in each arm on the same visit." Excuse me,
Dr Mengele? Did you remember in first quarter med school when you learned that both arms were attached to the same body, sharing the same systemic circulation? This is the representative of our CDC? Exactly what clinical trials confirm this personal hallucination of yours?

The AP article plods bravely on: ..The new swine flu seems no more deadly than regular winter flu, which every year kills 36,000 Americans and hospitalizes 200,000. But there's an important difference: This H1N1 strain sickens younger people more frequently...

There are no quotes in the AP article - it is attempting to be summarizing NIH's article that came out the same day. What new swine flu are they talking about? What disease? See the original Swine Flu chapter at www.thedoctorwithin.com for that discussion.

Secondly, the figure of 36,000 deaths from flu is an old CDC sales technique that has been employed unchanged for the past 20 years. Actual figures, according to CDC's own documents put the true figure at closer to 500 per year: www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwki10.htm As we thoroughly explore in the full day vaccine seminar, there is no way that 36,000 people die from flu every year in this country, not by any stretch, although this figure is rampantly misquoted in every media. The sales job here is that the new chimera we call swine flu will be no greater threat than regular flu has been all these years, so it will be easy for the vaccine to control it, the same way as flu is controlled by flu shots. That's the perception they're going for here. But even if their own figures were accurate, there has been no change in annual flu deaths in the past 20 years, yet we only started mandating flu shots in 2005. So what good have they done? And this is supposed to be an endorsement for the new swine flu shots?

Sorry, but let's continue with the AP article: To determine the right child dose, the NIH set up studies involving 600 children, from babies to teenagers.

That is actually true. At present there are 5 separate trials being done on samples sizes of about 600 children. But AP's next statement is a total misrepresentation: About 76 percent of 10- to 17-year-olds showed strong protection after one H1N1 shot.

Looking at the actual studies themselves we learn that they won't be finished until Apr 2010! So what is Fauci talking about here? Answer: preliminary findings based on a select group of 25 children !! But you can't find that fact out in the irresponsible AP whitewash promo. No, for that fact you have to go to the NIH site, and actually read the article that AP is supposed to be reporting on: Early Results: In Children, 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Works Like Seasonal Flu Vaccine -- 21 Sep 09.

Actually in the group of kids under 10 the sample size was only 20!

The point here is that these high numbers of "protection" are preliminary findings only. The formal studies, which are the only ones being done in the whole world to test the safety and efficacy of the new swine flu vaccines, these studies have just begun last month. Preliminary findings are meaningless in formal science. That's why they design the entire study, and await the final outcome before making conclusions.

Here we see one of the most disconcerting and insidious characteristics of the new swine flu sales program: enlisting mainstream media to deliberately disguise preliminary findings as definitive, conclusive scientific results. This only happens in the world of marketing. Real scientists are embarrassed by it.

Apologies, but one final important revelation about the AP article, and the character of Herr Direktor of the NIH: Younger children simply "don't have as mature an immune system," Fauci explained. So a first dose of vaccine against a flu strain they've never experienced acts as an introduction for their immune system, and a booster shortly thereafter revs up that immune response

Wow. Let's take a breath here, or maybe a cocktail. For the first time in history we have the director of the National Institutes of Health enunciating in a public worldwide forum one of the principal reasons why young children should not be vaccinated at all: they don't have a mature immune system. Absolutely true. No child is born with an intact immune system. That very complex biological symphony of interrelated allergic responses, antibodies, antigens, self-recognition, cell response, etc -- about which we still have only the most fragmented and vaguest knowledge -- struggles its way into existence during the early years of the child's life. It needs no help, no interference, no enormous experimental toxic load, especially one that is politically contrived, in its fight to survive.

But reacting to his training, Fauci expertly sidetracks us from that fact of nature to a landmark illusion of American pseudo-science: pretending that a flu shot in a 6 month old is a gentle natural gradual normal immune-building stimulus that will coax the infant immune system into being. Fauci then absurdly follows that falsehood with a sublimely idiotic non-sequitur: the subsequent booster shot 'revs up the immune system'. Revs up the immune system. Jesus wept. This is not the president of Harley Davidson talking here, my friends. This is the director of the Institute that is in charge of providing funding for all the medical research done in this country, controlling an industry that is in excess of $1.2 trillion annually. And this is his perception of the normal development of an infant's immune system: an engine that needs to be 'revved up'. This is the individual who controls policies and input and decisions on what substances will be mandated into your child's bloodstream.

Revs up the immune system.

Now let's take a look at the actual NIH document of 21 Sep 09 that the Associated Press 'reporter' was supposed to be summarizing: Early Results: In Children, 2009 H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Works Like Seasonal Flu Vaccine.

The very first sentence tells us that we're talking about preliminary analysis of a very small group within the study, showing these promising 76% findings. Easy to see misrepresentation right here-- the AP article led us to believe these high numbers were conclusive final evidence from complete studies. 76% favorable response would be a gratifying long term result in any major study, but we find out that is only after 10 days, looking at 25 children within the entire sample of 600 subjects.

The NIH report is further compromised in its own second paragraph when it quotes Fauci prematurely ejaculating these minor preliminary findings into an overblown sales pitch for a completely untested experimental vaccine, immediately making policy statements based on this tiny amount of skewed information: It seems likely that the H1N1 flu vaccine will require just one 15-microgram dose for children 10 to 17 years of age.

Oh, does it really seem likely, Tony? Does it indeed? Well we're certainly grateful to have someone like you at the helm, someone whose instincts and feelings we can trust without actually carrying out the complete scientific experiments.

We then learn that there are actually five similar clinical trials on the new swine flu vaccine being carried out in various locations, all having just begun, all scheduled to be complete in about 6 months: spring of 2010. And yet the AP article has just informed us that the swine flu vaccine will be available in less than one month! Untested and unlicensed.

Going now to the recent published report (17 Sep 09) of one of the five swine flu vaccine clinical trials, the one by Sanofi Pasteur ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00944073 )
we learn the trial began in July 2009 and will go until April 2010. The sample size is 650 children. These children are all receiving doses of an H1N1 vaccine, although whether it's all the same strain is never addressed. They just refer to is as the 2009 H1N1 virus, whatever that may be. As we learned in the swine flu chapter at www.thedoctorwithin.com there are dozens of strains of H1N1 virus, none of which has ever been proven to be the cause of any disease in humans. Including swine flu. So even though this fact is uncontested, what is certain is that the swine flu vaccines will all contain derivatives of the H1N1 virus. And that's what all of America will be getting.

Now let's ruminate on that fact for one second here and not gloss over it. Swine flu as a disease has never been proven to exist. Caught up in the media-driven hysteria of global pandemic, thousands of cases of something in several countries have been counted as swine flu for the past 5 months without any testing whatsoever. Three months ago the specter of H1N1 was raised, with no conclusive proof of being anything all the cases had in common. But if we have to make a vaccine, we need a pathogen, and this was the best theory they had: H1N1.

After a month, with no conclusive testing of the dozens of strains of H1N1 that exist, the claim was suddenly made that swine flu was being caused by a "novel" H1N1 virus, now called the 2009 H1N1 virus. No proof of testing on how they supposedly discovered that one novel strain was ever offered or brought forth, or even asked for, from any scientific quarter. At the same time the CDC continued to maintain on their website that a positive test for swine flu was merely the presence of any Influenza A virus, of which there are hundreds of strains.

It was almost as though we were watching the birth of a religion here -- unsubstantiated claims, vacillating science, relentless hype from irresponsible media trying to stay ahead of the curve, government bureaucrat officials falling all over themselves to magnify the potential of the global threat, lest anyone accuse them of playing it down, followed by hundreds of millions in contracts being awarded to several vaccine manufacturers to create 250 million doses.

All this internet noise about mandatory swine flu vaccination evoking Third Reich policies of quarantining the objectors in stadiums or mass detention centers ( which actually is law in this country at present, part of the Homeland Security Act) all this will be completely unnecessary. There's no need to make swine flu vaccine mandatory. Most people can't wait to get it.

In the midst of everything we do not know, one fact is certain: without hyperbole or sensationalism, the new swine flu vaccine coming next month, untested and unlicensed, will be the most dangerous immunological experiment on this country's children in the past 30 years.