The year was 1976, my wife and I had been married a little over a year, and our first child was a few days away from coming into this world. Looking back, 1976 was a strange year. Our president was the unelected Gerald Ford, two little known entrepreneurs by the name of Steve Jobs  and Steve Wozniak  were about to announce the formation of a little computer named Apple, and Ronald Reagan was laying the ground work for his future presidency. Fifteen days before our son was born, a 19-year-old Army recruit at Ft. Dix fell ill and was dead within 24 hours. Two weeks later the Army announced Pvt. David Lewis of Ashley Falls, Mass had died from influenza and four of his fellow-soldiers were very ill.
As the year progressed, the nation was gripped with fear of influenza with the ominous name, Swine Flu. While some have labeled the government and the nation’s medical community’s response as heroic many serious questions remain as to the need for the Swine Flu vaccine and the indisputable side-effects of the mercury laden “wonder-drug.” Some critics like Arthur M. Silverstein (Pure Politics and Impure Science) are adamant the push by President Ford to implement a national vaccine campaign was motivated by his desire to win the office in the fall on his own. Silverstein and others also have offered compelling evidence the rush to vaccinate all 220 million Americans was heavily influenced by America’s big drug manufacturers.
One thing is certain – the vaccination of 1976 was a failure. Many refused the vaccination and in fact, only 46 million of the 220 million Americans encouraged to take the vaccine did. Today, 34 years later, there are still thousands of lawsuits totaling over $300 billion pending from people who are claiming various illnesses due to the vaccine. I was one of those whose employer insisted I take the vaccine. As I write this article, I now wonder if there could possibly be a connection between that vaccine my wife and I took and the statistically odd occurrence of my son and I both having multiple sclerosis.
Over the last couple of years, the influenza scare has arisen again. Now with a more innocuous name (H1N1), the flu strain has once again been declared a pandemic. Driven by the World Health Organization, a massive effort has once again been raised to “save the world” from the effects of this strain of influenza. Recently the WHO has apologized for using the term pandemic without explaining its technical meaning. The correct definition is that “pandemic” indicates outbreaks in at least two of the regions into which WHO divides the world, but has nothing to do with the severity of the illnesses or the number of deaths. Officials have now revised their estimates of effects on industrialized countries by saying “influenza may cause mild disease in affluent countries, but more severe disease, with higher mortality, in developing countries.”
So if H1N1 is likely to have mild effects on countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, why is so much effort being put into getting people to get the vaccination? Some physicians and other voices are beginning to question the real motive behind pushing the H1N1 vaccine here in the United States and in the United Kingdom. NaturalNews.com recently postulated a theory of why vaccines are sometimes pushed and other times not:
“Now, what we really know about the vaccine industry is that the marketing motto goes something like this: When vaccines are in short supply, only sell them to people who need them. When vaccines are in abundant supply, sell them to people who don’t need them.”
There does seem to be a good bit of validity to that maxim. In the United Kingdom, the government was first pushing everyone to be vaccinated, then reversed itself and blamed healthy people for causing a vaccine shortage by needlessly being vaccinated. So what gives? It seems pharmaceutical companies don’t want you to know how ineffective most influenza vaccines really are. Instead, when an outbreak occurs, they push the drug as fast as possible and then back off as the number of cases cease to accelerate. One almost has to wonder if some accountant is directing the whole thing based on supplies in the warehouse and the bottom line.
One other thing needs to be considered. There is mounting evidence that over-vaccination is actually counter-productive. People with no exposure to H1N1 are being exposed through the vaccine itself. The truth is selective vaccination in areas of outbreak, combined with an understanding of how viruses burn themselves out naturally, is far more effective than country-wide campaigns that expose people far from the outbreak with a diluted version of the virus.
It’s true that the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 was a terrible event, killing millions. But the roots of that outbreak and the general medical health of the American population at that time were far different than now. Neither of the two outbreaks in the century since then has come anywhere close to the scope or deadliness of 1918. As general health and nutrition has improved, the impact of such outbreaks has lessened. Yet the World Health Organization and our own government paint the new outbreak as potentially “the worst ever.” Some have suggested there is whispered knowledge in that community that continued use of such vaccines may actually decrease the world population.
I’m not one to go so far in seeing such nefarious agendas, but I do have to wonder – why is the medical community and our government so adamant in pushing a blanket procedure that has an unproven success rate and has left so many with varying degrees of horrible side effects?