Science paper attempts to claim all flu shots work, even if it’s the wrong strain… but actually admits vaccine-induced immunization is a farce

02/14/2017 / By Ethan Huff / Comments

A credible-looking, journal-published study currently making the rounds in defense of seasonal influenza vaccines claims that these aggressively-pushed jabs are very effective and that people should keep on getting them every year no matter what — even when the viral strain being immunized for is not actually the viral strain that a person has, or that is predominantly circulating throughout the public.

According to the paper, getting the flu shot is still a good idea, regardless of whether or not the influenza strain is a direct match, because, by golly, we said so! Well, there is a touch more science to it than that, but the premise to the new study is basically this: no matter what influenza strain is being targeted by a particular flu vaccine, that vaccine will still somehow offer protective benefits.

If this all sounds like a bunch of illogical craziness, it is because that is exactly what it is. But St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, Canada, where the study originated, sure does not think so. Dr. Andrea Tricco, the study’s lead author and a physician at this respected facility, is insistent that flu shots work most of the time, and that people should never forego getting them for really any reason at all.

“We’ve found that individuals will be protected regardless of whether the flu strain is a match or not,” Tricco is quoted as saying in a press release issued by the hospital, which seems to have some kind of bizarre vendetta against the idea that flu shots are in any way dangerous or ineffective. (RELATED: More on the hidden dangers of vaccines is available at Vaccines.news)

Who funded this bunk study? Drug giant GlaxoSmithKline

The study itself claims to have evaluated data covering more than 40 years, from 1971 to 2011, which apparently shows that flu vaccines work most of the time. Based on the analysis conducted by Tricco and her colleagues, flu shots range in effectiveness from between 52 and 83 percent — even when a viral strain is mismatched.

This is an incredible claim, especially when considering the fact that even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a prominent vaccine-pushing government agency, admits that flu shots are not always effective. Back in 2011, CDC data was uncovered showing that for every 100 people vaccinated for the flu, an astounding 99 of them will confer no protective benefits whatsoever.

This clearly counters the supposed findings of Tricco and her team at St. Michael’s Hospital, a disparity that naturally begs the question: how can there be this much of a mismatch when it comes to data on flu shots? The answer, it seems, lies in who actually funded Tricco’s study, and what this entity has to gain from such findings.

According to the press release, British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was the primary funding source for Tricco’s conflicting research. This is hardly surprising, as GSK operates a multi-billion dollar vaccine division that churns out flu vaccines like Fluarix Quadrivalent and Flulaval Quadrivalent, two multi-dose flu vaccines that contain multiple attenuated flu viruses.

Is it any wonder, then, that GSK would fund a study that aims to keep as many people as possible returning for flu vaccines every year? This is what you call bought-and-paid-for “science” … fake science … and nothing more. Flu shots have a questionable track record of safety and effectiveness, and this study out of St. Michael’s is merely deceptive marketing disguised as science that attempts to cover up this important fact. (RELATED: A safer alternative to flu shots is to naturally boost your immunity. Learn more at NaturalNews.com.)

Sources for this article include:

St.MichaelsHospital.com

BMCMedicine.BioMedCentral.com

NaturalNews.com

Submit a correction >>

fake science, Flu shots, influenza, medical propaganda, science, vaccines

This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author