“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

Swine flu vaccine produces non-functional antibodies in most people.

Hilary Butler - Saturday, April 24, 2010

You read that right. It comes right at the end of an astonishing article talking about how the 1976 Swine flu vaccine, (which never needed to be used in the first place, and was stopped because it caused serious neurological damage in recipients) produced really good levels of functional antibodies... However, the 2009 H1N1 vaccine did not. But here's the irony of it all... Point out one "good" thing about a needless vaccine, and accidentally admit that the current, also needless, swine flu vaccine  ---  is rubbish.

The implications of this story go way beyond that though.  It raises questions about the natural immunity to N1H1 worldwide.  What is the basis of really broad, fully functioning influenza immunity (other than good levels of vitamin D)?  Only USA used the unnecessary 1976 swine flu vaccine, yet 'protection' in elderly, worldwide, has also been seen.  Where did they get their protection from?

Take these interesting bolded thought-bites from the article:

Tests of blood from medical staff and their spouses showed those who had been vaccinated in 1976 had evidence of extra immune protection against both the 2009 H1N1 swine flu and the seasonal strain of H1N1 that circulated the year before.

In other words, some of the people might also have got natural immunity from an H1N1 strain previously circulating in the country, but which was not in any vaccine.

,,,"Our research shows that while immunity among those vaccinated in 1976 has waned somewhat, they mounted a much stronger immune response against the current pandemic H1N1 strain than others who did not receive the 1976 vaccine," McCullers said.

Was it the 1976 vaccine, or the H1N1 from the previous year?  Did the H1N1 from the previous year, contribute to the mildness of the swine flu the next year?  They don't address that issue.  But they do say:

... But 97 percent of the St. Jude medical staff produced antibodies against the 2009 H1N1 virus, McCullers said. For most, "these antibodies were not terribly functional," he said.

Only the people who had received the 1976 vaccine had antibodies that actually neutralized the 2009 virus, he said.

So, in trying to redeem themselves about a vaccine fiasco in 1976, which left most people stunned, they revealed the truth that the 2009 Swine flu vaccine produced antibodies which didn't neutralise the virus in most of the people who had the vaccine...

Well done.


Someone didn't think particularly hard about the implications of leaking that little bit of truth, did they?

I guess they thought that no-one would be particularly interested in an article with the title of: "Recipients of Vaccine against the 1976 “Swine Flu” Have Enhanced Neutralization Responses to the 2009 Novel H1N1 Influenza Virus" to tell them whether or not the current vaccine worked.

This discussion, so interesting to me, is moot to today's vaccine defenders whose monotonal mantra is: "The vaccine is there, so use it. - any protection is better than zero."

They don't want to look at the question Bodewes raised, in a recent article in the Lancet called "Yearly influenza vaccination: a double-edged sword?" where he asks the question as to whether or not regular vaccination to specific strains might also result in prevention of a much broader induction of immune responses which occur when immunity if gained naturally.

Bodewes, a very provaccine person (as they all are) said in the article:

"However, there is a potential downside to yearly seasonal influenza vaccination that has not been given much thought.  In theory, effective vaccination of children against seasonal influenza A viruses might prevent the induction of heterosubtypic immunity otherwise induced after productive, in most cases, self-limiting infection of the upper respiratory tract.  This intereference with the induction of heterosubtypic immunity might not be important under normal circumstances, but in context of the pandemic thread caused by HPAI A H5N1 and the pandemic outbreak of new influenza A H1N1 viruses, the present or absence of heterosubtypic immunity might affect the clinical outcome of infection with the new pandemic strain."

Has this been seen in practice?

Actually, yes.  In Canada.

Last year, the use of the seasonal vaccine, which included an H1N1 strain different to the pandemic strain, resulted in more swine flu amongst the vaccine recipients than in the unvaccinated.

No wonder Dr. Skowronski (BC) was apparently unable to publish her findings anywhere, and was then criticized by the CDC for "jumping the gun". She'll probably be denied any further promotions as well!

But here's my prediction on this. 


No-one will connect the dots.


One mustn't let facts get in the way of the regular, guaranteed, annual, money earner.



Bookmark and Share

Hilary's Desk

These are some of Hilary's latest blogs:

  1. Polio: Behind the curtain. Hilary Butler 20-Sep-2021
  2. Are you thinking? Hilary Butler 18-Sep-2021
  3. No mumps jab? Stay home: school Hilary Butler 22-Nov-2017
  4. Chickenpox: A new, dreaded disease? Hilary Butler 30-Jun-2017
  5. Fake bait on a plate. Hilary Butler 18-Jun-2017
  6. Why so much hot air, Dr Lush?. Hilary Butler 17-Jun-2017