Originally published September 1 2009
Why swine flu vaccines just don't add up: Doing the (fuzzy) math
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) Here's a seventh grade word problem for you: If swine flu has infected one million people and killed 500, how many people might be expected to die if it infects 150 million people (assuming no major changes in the virus)? The correct answer, of course, is 75,000 people, and that's within the range of the number of swine flu deaths now being publicly predicted by the White House.
But there's another part to this word problem: How many vaccine shots and hand washings does it take to boost vitamin D levels in the average person?
The question, of course, makes no sense. Vaccine shots don't boost vitamin D levels any more than eating pork infects you with swine flu. So why is the official advice on swine flu protection essentially limited to "wash your hands, get your vaccine shot and cough into your elbow?" (Seriously. I'm not making this up.)
The Associated Press has distilled swine flu advice to "10 things you need to know." None of those ten things include boosting your nutrition, getting more vitamin D or taking anti-viral medicinal herbs. They do, however, include hilarious explanations like "If you develop breathing problems, pain in your chest, constant vomiting or a fever that keeps rising, go to an emergency room."
Emergency room in a pandemic?Whatever for? They don't bother to mention that in a pandemic scenario that strikes you with constant vomiting, the entire emergency room is likely to be overrun with other people joining you in a hospital room vomit fest.
Nor do they mention some other important math: The very limited number of anti-viral medication courses available in the U.S. The last time I checked, that was roughly 50 million courses. If the U.S. population is roughly 300 million people, and there are 50 million courses of anti-viral meds available, how many Americans will have no access to those meds? (Ahem... 250 million people...)
Here's an even more interesting brain buster for you: If each vaccine shot generates $25 in revenue for drug companies, and the U.S. government orders the production of 160 million vaccines, how much money is Big Pharma making off the pandemic? That answer is roughly $4 billion in net revenues.
But even that doesn't count all the repeat business from the future victims who suffer neurological side effects from the vaccines and have to be institutionalized and subjected to high-dollar medical care for years on end. In all, a mass vaccination program could end up generating over ten billion dollars in revenues for drug companies.
These numbers just don't add upNow let's look at some serious statistics: If one million people have already been infected with swine flu, and 500 have died, that's a fatality rate of 1 out of 2000 people. Depending on which research you believe, vaccines might at most be credited with preventing 1% of flu deaths during any given flu season (and that's being very generous to the vaccine). So here's the question:
How many people have to be vaccinated with the new swine flu vaccine to save ONE life from a swine flu fatality?
(Notice, carefully, this question has never been asked in the mainstream media. That's because the answer isn't exactly what most people want to hear...)
This question is easy to answer, actually. If the vaccine were 100% effective (that is, they prevented every death that would have otherwise occurred), they could be credited with saving 1 life out of 2000, right? Because that's the normal death rate for this particular virus (these figures are widely quoted by AP, Reuters and the White House, by the way).
But no vaccine is 100% effective. As I mentioned above, seasonal flu vaccines might -- at a stretch -- be credited with preventing 1% of the deaths that might otherwise have occurred. With this 1% effectiveness factor calculated back into the formula for swine flu (assuming the same 1% effectiveness factor), it turns out that you would have to vaccinate 200,000 people to save ONE life from swine flu.
That puts a whole new perspective on the vaccine push, doesn't it? 200,000 vaccines costs taxpayers roughly $5,000,000, and it subjects 200,000 people to the potential side effects of these vaccines which have never been subjected to any long-term testing whatsoever.
It all begs the question: Is it really worth it?
Is it worth spending $5 million and exposing 200,000 people to potentially dangerous vaccine side effects in order to prevent ONE death from swine flu? And why isn't anybody breaking down the numbers on this issue and providing a serious cost / benefit analysis as I'm doing here?
Let's be generous to the vaccine...Vaccine pushers might argue that the vaccine is far more than 1% effective at preventing swine flu deaths. In their wildest dreams, they might imagine a death reduction rate of, say, a wildly optimistic 10%. But even considering that, is it worth it? If the vaccine stops 10% of deaths that would have otherwise occurred, that still means you'd have to vaccinate 200,000 people to prevent the deaths of ten people.
I'm going to throw out a wild guess here and suggest that far more than 10 people will be killed by the vaccine itself, completely nullifying any net reduction in total deaths. Mathematically, you see, mass swine flu vaccinations make absolutely no sense given the very low rate of fatalities being observed right now.
Just do something!Of course, public health policy is never based on sense. It's based on politics. And the politics demand that "they DO something!" That's what the public wants: Do something! It doesn't matter if doing something is worse than doing nothing... they just want to see some action.
It's the same story with breast cancer screenings (almost completely useless), prostate cancer screenings (now proven to be far more harmful than helpful) and of course ADHD screening tests (which are only designed to trick parents into drugging their kids). Much of western medicine, it turns out, is complete hokum. We would all be better off without the screenings and without the vaccinations altogether.
There's a highly credible book on this subject by authors Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea. It's called What if Medicine Disappeared? (http://www.amazon.com/What-Medicine-Disappea...)
This book argues quite persuasively (and with the citation of many convincing studies) that western medicine offers virtually no net gain in quality of life to the very people it claims to serve. Doctors, hospitals, vaccines and cancer clinics could all disappear tomorrow and most people would actually be far better off. Of course, no one disputes the value of having emergency rooms to handle acute trauma and accidents, but when it comes to preventive medicine and protecting quality of life, western medicine is a near-total failure.
When it comes to swine flu vaccines, any honest look at the math reveals that 200,000 people will have to be vaccinated with a largely untested experimental vaccine in order to prevent the death of one person (or ten people, if you really believe in vaccines). Remembering that more than one person in 200,000 will almost certainly be killed by the vaccine itself, it really makes you wonder: What's the point of all this?
The point, of course, is to sell vaccines. It's the one math problem that everybody understands: To make money, you have to sell a product, and there's no better way to sell vaccines to 160 million people than to scare them into begging for injections that are statistically opposed their own self interests. But I suppose anything is possible in a country where state governments can punitively tax the poor by convincing them to play the lottery. People who play the lottery are very likely to be the same people getting vaccine shots: It's like a lottery on your health, except that your odds of "winning" are far worse than your odds of winning something in a state lotto.
Let's see: You have a 1 in 1 chance of being injected with foreign viral matter, and yet you only have a 1 in 200,000 chance of your life being saved by it.
Allow me to put this into perspective: You have a 40 times greater chance of being struck by lightning at some point in your life than having your life saved by the swine flu vaccine. (Source: National Weather Service statistics.)
Mathematically speaking, getting a swine flu injection and hoping it will save your life is more foolish than buying a lotto ticket with your last dollar and hoping you'll scratch off a multi-million dollar winning ticket.
And buying a lotto ticket doesn't risk the health of your nervous system, by the way. You can always earn back a buck, but restoring your nervous system after it's attacked by a rogue vaccine can take years or decades. Some never recover. (Thousands died from the 1976 vaccines.)
Pop quiz: What's the actual cost of vaccinating 160 million Americans with an unproven, experimental swine flu vaccine?
Answer: $1.6 billion plus countless victims with strange neurological disorders, comas and sudden death -- all of which will be written off as "coincidence" by the vaccine pushers.
Free flu shots for the unemployedAs this article was about to go to press, I couldn't help but notice a new announcement by CVS and Walgreens pharmacies. The powers that be are so desperate to get all Americans injected with this experimental vaccine that CVS and Walgreens are now offering free swine flu vaccine injections to anyone who doesn't have a job!
That's right: Just show up, prove you're unemployed, and you get jabbed at no charge. (Who said losing your job didn't have some benefits, huh?) Conspiracy theorists might suggest this is a clever way to clear the streets of "useless eaters." Just lure the jobless into some experimental vaccine program, inject them and send them on their way. Next, will retailers start handing out free Soylent Green too?
Additional sources for this story include:
National Weather Service:
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml