![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/Sanjay_Gupta-768x400.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Dear Sanjay,<\/span><\/p>\n Last week, your CNN producer, Matthew Reynard, notified me that CNN is featuring me in a documentary about \u201cvaccine misinformation\u201d. As usual, Mr. Reynard did not point out a single factual assertion by me that was incorrect (I carefully source all of my statements about vaccines to government databases or peer-reviewed publications). CNN uses the term \u201cvaccine misinformation\u201d as a euphemism for any statement that departs from the Government \/ Pharma orthodoxy that all vaccines are safe, necessary, and effective for all people.<\/span><\/p>\n I have always admired you, Sanjay. Your obvious talents aside, you seem to be genuinely compassionate and to value integrity. Earlier in your career, you showed a courageous willingness to challenge Big Pharma\u2019s vaccine orthodoxies. However, I respectfully point out that CNN and particularly you, Sanjay, are today among the most prolific broadcasters of \u201cvaccine misinformation\u201d. Over the last several years, I cannot recall seeing a single substantial CNN segment on vaccines that did not include easily verified factual misstatements. CNN\u2019s recent special, \u201cPandemic\u201d, was a showcase of erroneous assertions about the flu vaccine. Since I don\u2019t like to think that you deliberately mislead the public\u2014particularly about critical public health choices\u2014I have taken the time to point out some of your most frequent errors.<\/span><\/p>\n I hope you will take time to read this. This critique has special relevance during the current coronavirus crisis, not to mention its important implications for the roles of government and press in a democracy. CNN and other media outlets treat CDC, NIH, and WHO pronouncements as infallible truths. In fact, regulatory capture has made these agencies subsidiaries of Big Pharma, and the lies that CDC has been telling us about flu are now muddying the debate over coronavirus<\/span><\/p>\n Fact:<\/u><\/strong> The HHS\u2019s mortality and morbidity data\u2014available on the National Center for Health Statistics<\/span><\/a> (NCHS) website\u2014show that CDC\u2019s (and CNN\u2019s) annual estimates are off by orders of magnitude.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n NCHS data report the average number of mortalities attributable to influenza on death certificates is little more than 1,000<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. CDC devises its inflated estimate by deliberately conflating flu deaths with pneumonia deaths. This device is deceitful since most of these fatalities are unrelated to the flu (and therefore, impervious to flu vaccines). In 2005, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Editor, Dr. Peter Doshi, published a comprehensive rebuke<\/strong><\/span><\/a> of CDC\u2019s annual ritual of exaggerating flu mortalities entitled \u201cDissecting CDC\u2019s Deception: Are US Flu Death Figures More PR Than Science?\u201d Doshi accuses the CDC of purposefully inflating flu deaths to frighten the public into purchasing vaccines. To illustrate CDC\u2019s chicanery, Doshi observed that CDC\u2019s announced number of reported pneumonia and influenza deaths in 2001 at 62,034. Yet\u00a0less than half of one percent of those were actually attributed to influenza.<\/em>\u00a0Furthermore, of the mere 257 cases that could reasonably be blamed on the flu in CDC\u2019s mortality data, only 7 percent were laboratory confirmed cases of influenza. That\u2019s 18 lab confirmed influenza cases out of 62,034 \u201cpneumonia and influenza\u201d deaths\u2014or just 0.03 percent, according to HHS\u2019s own National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).<\/span><\/p>\n Subtracting pneumonia, the true number of influenza-associated deaths from 1979 to 2002 averaged 1,348, according to the NCHS data. CNN routinely reports figures forty times this number.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Doshi charges the CDC with deliberately lying about annual flu deaths to \u201c[work] in manufacturers\u2019 interest by conducting campaigns to increase flu vaccination\u201d. He warns that \u201cby arbitrarily linking flu with pneumonia, current data are statistically biased.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n By faithfully parroting CDC inflated numbers\u2014with no due diligence\u2014CNN has made itself complicit in this annual charade, making it difficult now to accurately assess the relative risk of COVID-19 as compared to flu and, therefore, rationally measure an appropriate response.<\/span><\/p>\n Fact:<\/u> In reality, <\/strong>there is absolutely no scientific basis for the CDC\u2019s assertion that the influenza vaccine is the most effective way to prevent the flu<\/strong><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Cochrane Collaboration\u2019s comprehensive 2010 meta-analysis of published influenza vaccine studies found that the influenza vaccination has \u201cno effect\u201d <\/em>on hospitalization, and that there is \u201cno evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The Cochrane Researchers concluded<\/strong><\/span><\/a> in 2010 that the scientific evidence \u201cseem[s] to discourage the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Four years later, Cochrane published a follow-up meta-review<\/a><\/strong><\/span> including dozens of more recent scientific studies and again concluded bluntly that the body of scientific data\u00a0provides \u201cno evidence for the utilization of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n In other words, despite CNN\u2019s relentless hectoring, there is no scientific evidence that all the billions of dollars America spends on influenza vaccination<\/strong><\/span><\/a> each year actually provides any health benefit, much less a net economic benefit\u2014apart from the financial windfall to the four pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these vaccines\u2014and who happen to be among CNN\u2019s top advertisers.<\/span><\/p>\n Fact:<\/u>\u00a0However, in their 2010 systematic meta review<\/span><\/a> of the literature, the Cochrane researchers found <\/strong>\u201cno evidence that vaccines prevent viral transmission or complications\u201d.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Even more worrisome, a study from January 18, 2018<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, in the Journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America<\/em>,\u00a0PNAS<\/em>, found that influenza vaccination actually\u00a0increased\u00a0<\/em>transmission of the virus, with\u00a0vaccinated individuals shedding more than six times as much aerosolized virus in their breath than unvaccinated individuals.<\/span><\/p>\n Those scientists were not altogether surprised by this finding explaining that \u201ccertain types of prior immunity<\/em>\u201d\u2014in this case, the kind of immunity conferred by the vaccine as opposed to\u00a0naturally\u00a0<\/em>acquired immunity\u2014 \u201cpromote lung inflammation, airway closure, and aerosol generation.<\/em>\u201d They conclude that, \u201cIf confirmed,\u00a0this observation,\u00a0together with recent literature suggesting reduced protection with annual vaccination,\u00a0would have\u00a0implications for influenza vaccination recommendations and policies.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Fact<\/u>: A 2012 Cochrane review<\/span><\/a> looking at studies of influenza vaccination in healthy children found no <\/strong>safety studies in children under age two<\/strong><\/em>, and declared that safety studies were \u201c<\/strong>urgently required<\/strong><\/em>\u201d.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Robert Kennedy Junior. Click to enlarge<\/p><\/div>\n Fact<\/u>: CDC recommends the flu shot for pregnant women<\/a><\/span> despite the fact that FDA\u2014the agency charged with assessing vaccine safety\u2014has refused to license the flu shot during pregnancy<\/span><\/a> due to grave safety concerns. <\/strong>(Sanjay; I encourage you to confront FDA and make inquiries about this inter-agency conflict.) Every influenza vaccine package insert contains warnings about the lack of safety studies in pregnant women<\/strong><\/span><\/a> and nursing mothers.<\/span><\/p>\n A 2014 Cochrane review<\/strong><\/span><\/a> found that\u00a0the number of randomized, placebo-controlled trials examining the safety and effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women was\u00a0zero. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n A 2019 article by Alberto Donzelli in Human Vaccination & Immunotheraputics<\/u>, <\/em>asks the question, <\/em>\u201c<\/em>Influenza vaccination for all pregnant women?\u201d and argues, \u201cSo far the less biased evidence does not favour it<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a>. Donelli found that public health recommendations on flu shots during pregnancy had systematically overestimated \u201cthe vaccine effectiveness and safety\u201d\u2014and that the published science showed \u201can excess of local adverse effects and a tendency for serious adverse events with uncertain or very limited protection against influenza\u201d. Donzelli observes that flu vaccine trials in Africa and Asia have shown excessive infection and deaths in infants associated with flu shots during pregnancy.<\/span><\/p>\n Fact:<\/u> The scientific community has thoroughly debunked CDC\u2019s claims that the flu shot reduces death among seniors.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ridicule CDC\u2019s mortality claims in a study published in April 2005 in Archives of Internal Medicine<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/em>(now\u00a0JAMA Internal Medicine<\/em>). Those NIH researchers pointed out that, despite a dramatic increase in vaccination coverage among people aged 65 or older\u2014from at most 20 percent before 1980 to 65 percent in 2001\u2014pneumonia and influenza mortality rates \u201crose substantially<\/em>\u00a0during this period\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n The lead author of the 2005 NIH study, Lone Simonsen, was also coauthor with W. Paul Glezen of a 2006 commentary<\/a><\/strong><\/span> in the\u00a0International Journal of Epidemiology<\/em> that reiterated the problems with the CDC\u2019s claims. \u201cAlthough the vaccination rate for elderly people had increased by as much as 67 percent from 1989 to 1997, there was no evidence that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or deaths. On the contrary, \u201cmortality and hospitalization rates continued to increase rather than decline\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n The 2005 NIH study authors commented that this result was \u201csurprising\u201d since vaccination was supposed to be \u201chighly effective at reducing influenza-related mortality\u201d\u2014an assumption underlying CDC policy that \u201chas never been studied in clinical trials\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Similarly, a 2008 review in\u00a0Virology Journal<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, observes that contrary to the CDC\u2019s claims of a great beneficial effect on mortality, \u201cinfluenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans\u00a0significantly increased\u00a0in the 80s and 90s,\u00a0during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n In a 2013\u00a0BMJ\u00a0<\/em>commentary<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, Dr. Doshi asked, \u201cwhat evidence is there that influenza vaccines reduce deaths of older people\u2014the reason the policy was originally created? Virtually none<\/em>\u2026\u201d This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people\u00a0despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes<\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cPerhaps most perplexing<\/em>,\u201d Doshi added, \u201cis officials\u2019 lack of interest in the absence of good quality evidence.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Fact: Actual injury rates are impossible to determine since flu shots are exempt from pre-and-post-marketing placebo studies required of other medicines, and because HHS\u2019s post-marketing surveillance system, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System [VAERS], captures\u00a0\u201c<\/strong>fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries<\/strong><\/em>\u201d according to a 2010 HHS-funded study<\/span><\/a>.<\/strong> Nevertheless, some alarming metrics ought to give you pause when you offer these assurances to millions of viewers; Flu vaccines account for nearly \u00bc of payouts for injuries by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund<\/strong><\/span><\/a> (VICA). The Vaccine Court has paid out nearly $1 billion for injuries and deaths caused by flu shots.<\/span><\/p>\n GSK\u2019s vaccine, Flulaval<\/a><\/strong><\/span> lists, on its manufacturing inserts, over 45 chronic diseases and adverse reactions that FDA believes may be linked to the vaccine. These include a long menu of immune system, allergic, musculoskeletal, psychiatric, respiratory, skin, vascular, and neurological disease including seizure, paralysis, and syncope.<\/span><\/p>\n Australian data link the influenza vaccine during the 2009 \u2013 2010 flu season to a 1-in-110 risk in children of having febrile convulsions<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. The pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine in Europe was associated with a 1-in-55,000 risk of developing narcolepsy. CDC acknowledges that the Pandemrix flu vaccine is associated with an \u201cincreased risk of narcolepsy<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n A 2015 meta-analysis<\/a> <\/strong><\/span>published in the journal\u00a0\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/rfk-jr.jpg\")
\n
\n