“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

How to get sick. Have the flu vaccine.

Hilary Butler - Monday, May 27, 2013

It would seem that tentative toes have entered medical debate over flu vaccines. Ever so tentative.  Almost apologetic actually, which is bizarre, if you look closely at 60 years of very clear medical evidence that the flu vaccine has always performed exceptionally poorly.  But there is another issue here, and it's the "myth" which the medical profession tries to dispel - which everyone knows, which is, "Get the flu vaccine and get sick.

That comment is like a stuck record, which comes out of the lips of so many people. Yet, the doctor always says, "Oh, it's coincidental!" and never bothers to do a throat swab to back that presumption up with fact.



The other thing that is interesting, is that people say the same after ALL vaccines, but again, the medical system's answer is the same. "Coincidental...."

Somewhere in this house is an article from years ago, where Dr Ellis-Peglar’s daughter was vaccinated, got sick in the week after, and he laughed, stating the "sick after vaccination" was a common myth, and oh yes, ... just a "coincidence".  Everything with vaccines, is a "coincidence". When I find it, I'll scan it so you can see for yourself...

Why does the blog title just mention just the flu vaccine then?

Because at the moment, it’s the only vaccine for which there is now proof that the vaccination itself, leads to an increased risk of infection from other respiratory viruses.

And the “proof” was only solid last year.

Of course, with the SHIVERS project now underway, we know that the majority of what is diagnosed as the flu is not the flu.

Here is the graph, from the latest Shiver's report.  All the red is the REAL influenza, and the blue is what is called influenza .... but isn't influenza - even though it's classified as "influenza-like illnesses" and the non flu respiratory viruses, are used by the medical system to justify the need for an influenza vaccine!.  And that's called valid science???



I’ve always believed the "myth" of "get the flu vaccine, get the 'flu'...", because… it’s true. In 1993, on a trip to USA, I was booked into a medical conference. Three days before it started, it was cancelled, because all the key note speakers had got flu shots two weeks before the conference, and all of them were too sick 'with the flu' to be key-note speakers. I laughed and laughed, and spent that week messing around with Ruth and Anthony Morris instead.

Much nicer than going to a silly medical conference with people who can’t see what is right in front of their eyes.

In 2011, I laughed and laughed again, when an article (Kelly) came over my desk which commented that children vaccinated with the flu had much higher rates of other respiratory viruses than the unvaccinated. The author dismissed the phenomenon saying:




It appears any old coincidental implausible explanation will do, to explain away what is right there in front of the eyes.

Kelly tempered this with another article which found no evidence of either BENEFIT or HARM in children vaccinated with the seasonal flu vaccine. No doubt this was on the basis that he still believed that the flu vaccine causing non-flu respiratory illnesses, was .... “implausible”.

He’s wrong. And if being wrong, means the flu vaccine causes unnecessary respiratory infections, then that is a demonstrable “harm”, unless you want to argue that influenza like illnesses never harmed anyone.

Any such “implausibility” went out the window last year, when the 2012 Cowling study (+ supplemental data) – the first one since the 1980 WHO India BCG trial using a REAL SALINE PLACEBO - found that while the influenza vaccine conferred “antibodies” against the flu, there was no “real life” difference in influenza infections between the vaccinated and unvaccinated!  Which is pretty much what the Cochrane Collaboration has always said. Yet the Influenza vaccine is now part of the "mandated" child schedule?  And this is where that fact is important: 

In the Cowling study….. there was a HUGE increase in clinical non-flu respiratory infections in those who were vaccinated with the flu vaccine, compared to those who got the saline placebo.  AND....  I'd also like to know, on the basis of the Cowling study, how much of the blue in the SHIVERS graph above, was respiratory infections provoked by having the flu vaccine in the first place.

Why is the saline placebo so important in this study?

Normally, any vaccine trial, uses another vaccine as a “control”.  They don't use the word placebo with another vaccine, because they know it's not inert.  The current thinking is that it’s “important” that all participants “benefit” from being part of the study, because ipso facto, even before "proven".... everything offered - tested or not - is automatically assumed to confer "benefit".

If the Cowling study had used another vaccine as a placebo (sorry "control" ) there might not have been any difference in the rate of clinical non-flu respiratory infections in either group – if I go by my 30 years of non-scientific anecdotal observation that ALL vaccines can result in the recipients getting sick!!!

An inert saline placebo does not provoke the immune system… so for the first time in decades, Cowling et al eliminated the immune system provocation of “another vaccine”, which would have masked the effect of the flu vaccine.


So let me ask a question. If one of the most important things to pro vaccine people, is the integrity of medical truth and evidence based science, why are flu vaccines being made mandatory to all medical people?

Why don't medical people stand up, just like Doshi did recently in the BMJ, and say straight out, that the flu vaccine are a marketed disease using a flunked bread and butter vaccine, which provides dosh hand over fist for no good reason to the recipient?  Why not ask the question Doshi asked in JAMA Intern Med, whether it's time for a rethink?

Perhaps one reason is that if the medical people admitted that a vaccine used in the USA for over 75 years, has been repeatedly found scientifically flawed all that time, they would have to ask why that information was put to one side.  If they dared to rethink the 75 years of unsound use of the flu vaccine, the next logical question asked of them by an informed public, might be, "What solid research have you done looking at the pertussis vaccines which are also failing spectacularly - and which in New Zealand, have never done a thing to reduce deaths or the burden of the disease in this country?"

And if you don't believe me, read the pertussis resource on this website. 

Suspend for a moment, the belief that the medical system would have you repeat like a thoughtless mantra... that all those nasty "anti-vaxxers only perpetrate conspiracy", and check out all my graphs and references for yourself.  Every word of it, is published medical literature.  The question is, have you bothered to read it yourself? 

Look at all the science involved, and in particular, go through the NZ ESR pertussis statistical archives, up to today.  Look at the many articles written by Dr Cameron Grant, (Like this, and this ) and ask yourself why it is that on the one hand he admits that vaccine has done little here, but all we need is "more of it". 

If having done that, you still have anything good to say about the bigger picture being created by the flu vaccines AND the whooping cough vaccine, then perhaps an urgent appointment with an optometrist, and buying a dictionary, would facilitate accurate word analysis.

Bookmark and Share