http://www.naturalnews.com/039422_flu_vaccines_elderly_failure.html

 

NaturalNews) Even with all its number-fudging and statistic-twisting, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was unable to make the  case this year that flu shots are legitimately effective at preventing the flu.  Finally admitting what we have been saying for years here at Natural  News, the CDC appears to be slowly coming to terms with the fact that flu  shots are nothing more than medical quackery and snake oil, particularly among  the elderly to whom they are most recommended.

As reported by Reuters, the flu shot was only marginally effective, and the numbers were  admittedly far worse for the elderly. Protection was so bad with the elderly  that Reuters saw fit to declare the flu shot "largely failed" to protect  the elderly during this past flu season.

According to the CDC data  itself, the efficacy of seasonal influenza vaccines among those 65 years of age  and older during the 2012-2013 flu season was a mere nine percent. What  this means is that 91 percent of elderly individuals given a flu shot derived  absolutely no benefit from the vaccine, as they developed the flu anyway.  Many of these same individuals also likely suffered negative side effects in the  form of lowered immunity and increased heavy metal toxicity.

"We simply  need a better vaccine against influenza," argued CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden  in a desperate attempt to salvage his agency's misguided endorsement of the flu  shot following the release of the official figures. "One that works better and  lasts longer."

In reality, fewer than two percent of people who get flu shots derive any  protection

Interestingly, even the measly 50 percent efficacy rate touted in  the CDC study is inaccurate. Just because roughly 50 percent of those vaccinated  for the flu did not end up  developing the flu does not mean that the flu shot was responsible for this  reduction. As explained in the CDC study (but not necessarily by the mainstream  media), a large percentage of those who did not get the  flu shot also did not get the flu.

According to the data, fewer than  40 percent of all participants, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, contracted the  flu, while the other 60-plus percent remained healthy. Of this 60 percent,  roughly half were vaccinated, while the other half were not vaccinated. This  means that among all those who did not contract the flu, there was  virtually no difference in the infection rate between the vaccinated and  unvaccinated.

At the same time, the alleged 50 percent success rate  figure being thrown around by the CDC does not actually prove that the vaccine  had anything to do with any sort of reduction in flu infections. Since half of  all those who did not get the flu were not even vaccinated, there is no  substantial evidence in the CDC study to prove that the flu shot in any way  conferred protection.

You can view the actual and telling results of the  study here:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6207a2.htm

This  would not be the first time, of course, that the CDC artificially inflated its  flu statistics. As we reported back in 2011, shocking figures published as part  of a scientific review in The Lancet revealed that flu shots are  effective in a mere 1.5 percent of people, at most. And earlier that same year,  the CDC actually admitted, inadvertently, that flu shots do not work as claimed.  (http://www.naturalnews.com/032558_flu_shots_wear_off.html)

To  learn more about how to protect yourself from the flu naturally, visit:
http://www.naturalnews.com/report_anti-viral_remedies_influenza_0.html


Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/039422_flu_vaccines_elderly_failure.html#ixzz2NAmMCZUL