Tag Archives: Flu Shots

NYT Blames Flu Shot Drop on Trump’s Latino “Hostility”

Couldn’t it just be that flu shots are crap?

Here is the Media Research Center synopsis of NYT’s flu shot debacle:

During Monday’s edition of At this Hour, guest host Brianna Keilar brought on New York Times Health and Science reporter Donald McNeil Jr to discuss the flu epidemic sweeping the nation. McNeil suggested that the President has a racial prejudice against Hispanics that has caused an 8 percent drop in the number of Hispanics who have received flu shots.

Tucker Carlson has also weighed in.

Donald McNeil is not new to vaccine controversies, nor is the comic gold he has produced in showing his idiocy about them. That includes the below 10-year-old email that scrupulously reminded an autism parent of what he called credential-fabricating vaccine doc Paul Offit.

—–Original Message—–
From: Donald G. McNeil Jr. mcneil@nytimes.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3:34 PM
To: J.B. Handley
Subject: Age of Autism
Mr. Handley:
Someone at Age of Autism was nice enough to send me a reference to your post.
I don’t mind being called completely and utterly clueless, a kool-aid drinker, and so on.   Freedom of speech, “sticks and stones…” and all that.
But I did learn something about your own abilities as a journalist.  If you’ll trust my notes and want to correct these statements, you are welcome to:
1. I did not tell you I was writing a review.  I told you I was writing an article about the book [Autism False Prophets, by Paul Offit], and its effect on the debate.
2. What you said about the death threats and Offit was: “I’ve received, not death threats, but emails threatening my physical safety on numerous occasions.  I just don’t complain about them to all the world like a giant pussy.”   And you condemned them, as you say.
3. I did not say that “Looking at unvaccinated kids would be immoral.” I said: “Leaving kids unvaccinated (ie, in order to study them) would be immoral.”  Sounds similar, but there’s a huge difference.  In an email to me, you accused me of saying the first.  I cleared up the misunderstanding in my reply email.  In your subsequent Age of Autism piece, you simply repeated the misquotation, because it made me look stupider than the truth would have.
Donald McNeil

Read this Age of Autism post by JB Handley for details, and get ready for more laughs!

BREAKING: AI Demands Daily Beast Retract Paul Offit Post on Vaccine-Miscarriage Study

Paul Offit has written a post for The Daily Beast arguing that a CDC study of miscarriage and influenza vaccination should have never been published. He bases his argument on his own misrepresentations of the study’s results. Read Autism Investigated’s below letter to The Daily Beast’s editorial team demanding they retract Offit’s post.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Paul Offit’s Article Misrepresents Study Findings, Should be
From: <info@autisminvestigated.com>
Date: Sun, September 24, 2017 3:33 pm
To: editorial@thedailybeast.com

Dear Daily Beast,

Your contributor Paul Offit’s latest article “The Pregnancy Vaccine Scare That Should Have Never Been” makes multiple misrepresentations of a recent CDC study on influenza vaccination and miscarriage. Since these misrepresentations form the basis of his central argument that the study should never have been published, Offit’s article is fatally flawed and should be retracted by your publication.

Offit states about a recent study of miscarriage and flu vaccination that the study authors found no overall association with miscarriage and flu vaccination when they had:

“The CDC’s question prior to this study was “Does influenza vaccine cause spontaneous abortions?” The answer to that question was no. It was only after investigators sub-stratified their data to include those who had or hadn’t received a vaccine the previous year that they could find statistical significance.”

This is directly from the study, contradicting Offit’s claim:

“The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.6)”


As someone who holds a degree in epidemiology (unlike Offit) and has analyzed the database used in this study (also unlike Offit), I can assure you that that is a significant association. The “95% CI” (confidence interval) excludes the number 1.0. Therefore, the answer to their study question would point in the “yes” direction.

This also demolishes his next point about the study, that the association was based on small numbers:

“After the CDC researchers had finished sub-stratifying their data, the numbers were small”, concluding the results due to “the curse of small numbers gleaned from a large database.” But even before the authors had computed their next association from a smaller sample, the association from their full study sample was already significant. But because Offit misrepresented the association as being insignificant, his point about the study’s findings being based solely on small numbers is also wrong.

His very first point was also wrong, too:

“Researchers had studied two influenza-vaccine seasons: 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The problem of first-trimester spontaneous abortions occurred during the first season but not the second.”

The study itself makes clear this happened in both seasons: “This effect modification was observed in each season”

Because the majority of Offit’s points are based on his own misrepresentations – including all those that discussed the study findings directly – simple corrections are too mild. The entire post should be retracted by The Daily Beast, especially since the purpose of the post was to make the case for why the study should have never been published. In reality, The Daily Beast should have never posted this fatally flawed article by Paul Offit and should now retract it.


Jake Crosby, MPH

Dr. David Gorski Falsely Denies Vaccine-Miscarriage Finding

Crooked cancer doc David Gorski‘s verbose posts can be completely demolished if you can find and refute the one sentence in his posts that attempts to make a real point. That is exactly what was done when Autism Investigated refuted his denying the significance of an association between miscarriage and flu vaccination that was published in a recent study. He falsely described the finding on his blog thusly:

an aOR [adjusted odds ratio] of 2.0 for the 1-28 day window of exposure to the influenza vaccine before miscarriage that was not statistically significant

However, the study itself directly contradicts Gorski’s assertion of insignificance. So AI’s editor took to Twitter to call him out.

And Gorski was also called out on his own blog. Gorski replied with an excuse:

When one writes blog posts in one’s spare time late at night, such things occasionally happen; one occasionally makes mistakes.

Yet none of his supporters caught the error either, including both a doctoral epidemiology student at Johns Hopkins and a Ph.D. epidemiologist. Despite correcting the error in one sentence, Gorski still has yet to correct it in another sentence in that same blog post:

Basically, the study found zero (that’s right: zero, nada, zilch) association between miscarriage and flu vaccination—with one exception: if the woman had consecutively received a flu vaccine containing the 2009 H1N1 virus. 

Never mind the overall adjusted odds ratio that Gorski now acknowledges as being significant. From there, Gorski’s case against the study falls apart: it was not a fishing expedition for statistical association. It found an association per study protocol and attempted to assess that association further.

Further study yielded an association in a subgroup of women who would already have a body burden of mercury from a prior vaccine, making them more susceptible than other women. But Gorski says this is evidence against the association being real!

For years, Gorski has openly supported government officials crookedly hiding scientific results and barring more research of mercury exposure from vaccines. He also claimed he would acknowledge that mercury in vaccines may cause autism if presented with certain evidence, only to refuse when confronted with that evidence years later.

Why Gorski lies about vaccination risks to children may be explained by his own ties to the pharmaceutical industry. But another factor could be much more personal – possible bitterness over his lack of children despite being in a heterosexual marriage. Perhaps the reason for this is biological and not by choice. If so, what better way for him to get back at society for his or his wife’s infertility than to spread lies that can lead to more miscarriages and brain-damaged children?


Why wasn’t this a gigantic story in the press? Why hasn’t the government investigated?

Q: Yes. That’s what I’ve been taught.

A: But you see, there is one vaccine (Hepatitis B) that is given to a baby the day it is born. The baby has no immune system of its own. In fact, some researchers say a child doesn’t fully develop his own immune system until age 12-14.

Q: Yes? So?

A: A vaccine can’t cause the desired “rehearsal” unless the recipient has his own immune system. That’s obvious.

Q: But that would mean the vaccine can’t work during those years when a child doesn’t have his own fully developed immune system.

A: Correct.

Q: But then all the experts would be wrong.

A: That’s right.

Q: What about the elderly? We constantly hear they must get vaccines because they have weak immune systems.

A: That’s another piece of fake information. Vaccines can’t make a weak immune system stronger. According to conventional wisdom, vaccines merely prepare a functioning immune system for a disease that will come along later. Actually, a vaccination given to people whose immune systems are weak can have a decidedly negative effect. The vaccination can overwhelm the weak immune system.

Q: But we have a great deal of information stating that vaccines have wiped out traditional diseases. The success rate has been remarkable.

A: Two points here. As Ivan Illich states in his book, Medical Nemesis: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” (Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977)

Q: What’s the other point?

A: When the experts claim vaccines have wiped out traditional diseases, what are they really saying? They’re saying that the visible symptoms of those diseases are seen rarely now, compared with earlier decades. But why have those visible symptoms receded into the background?

Q: Yes, why?

A: It could be because those symptoms have been wiped out. But it could be because those symptoms have been suppressed.

Q: I don’t understand.

A: Consider the basic symptoms of measles. Rashes, fever. Conventionally speaking, are they simply the result of infection by the measles virus? No. The symptoms are a combination of infection AND the body’s immune system reacting to the germ. That reaction—the inflammatory response—is the body’s attempt to throw off the effects of the germ. THAT’S WHY WE SEE THE SYMPTOMS.

Q: Yes? So?

A: Vaccines contain toxic elements. Germs, chemicals like aluminum, formaldehyde. If these toxic substances weaken the immune system, then there will NOT be a full inflammatory response. The immune system won’t be capable of mounting that response. Therefore, the visible symptoms of the disease won’t appear, when the real disease comes along. Do you understand?

Q: Yes. The immune system is too weak to fight back.

A: The vaccination weakens the immune system. So when the measles disease actually comes along later, the person who received the vaccine won’t be able to fight it off easily. Therefore, you won’t see rashes and fever. The rashes and fever occur when the immune system is capable of mounting a full response.

Q: Therefore?

A: Therefore, after mass vaccination campaigns against measles, it will seem as if measles has been wiped out because, by and large, we don’t see the traditional symptoms anymore. But that’s an illusion. Measles hasn’t really been wiped out. Instead, people are now suffering from a weakened immune system, and symptoms of THAT will be different.

Q: That’s a disturbing idea.

A: Yes it is. Because now you’re talking about chronic illness, not acute measles which burns out quickly in the presence of a fully functioning immune system.

Q: Wait a minute. For a long time, millions of cases of measles have been reported in the Third World, where children’s immune systems are very weak. So the symptoms of measles WERE visible.

A: Yes. Let’s say those children’s immune systems were, at one time, barely strong enough to mount an inflammatory response. That’s why the rashes and fever appeared. But then, after vaccination with toxic elements, that wasn’t the case anymore. All those children were now “below the line.” When the measles came along, you could no longer see the symptoms. After vaccination, their immune systems were too weak to mount the inflammatory response. This isn’t “we wiped out measles.” This is “we replaced measles with chronic disease.”

Q: You seem to be saying we need to make people’s immune systems stronger. That’s the real answer. Then children will get the real diseases and overcome them—and then they’ll be immune for life.

A: Yes, absolutely.

Q: What medical “fix” will do that?

A: There isn’t any. Making a person’s immune system stronger is a non-medical situation. It involves better nutrition, better local sanitation, and other factors, none of which have to do with medical treatment.

Q: You’re also saying that a weak immune system opens the door to all sorts of disease conditions.

A: Correct. Vaccination can’t cure a weak immune system. The solution has to be non-medical.

Q: I don’t imagine medical experts like that idea.

A: That would be a vast, vast understatement.

Q: But there must be a medical solution to weak immune systems.

A: Why?

Q: Because if there isn’t, everything we’ve been taught is wrong.

A: And you can’t accept that?

Q: If I did accept that, it would mean the medical system has a large stake in keeping people’s immune systems weak.

A: And miles of propaganda tell you that couldn’t be true.

Q: Right.

A: Whose problem is that?


Q: I don’t want to think about this. I’d rather bury my head in the sand. Let me shift the conversation to something you wrote about—the flu vaccine. This troubles me, too. You quoted author Peter Doshi, who published an article in the BMJ Journal. Can I quote you?

A: Feel free. Go ahead.

Q: “Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals one monstrosity.”

“As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.”

“This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.”

“So they don’t have the flu.”

“Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those ‘flu cases’ that aren’t flu cases.”

“The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.”

“The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.”

“Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037)”:

“’…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive’.”

“…’It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t’.” (end of Doshi quote)

“Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.”

“So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.”

A: You have a question about this?

Q: More like a…it’s shocking. Deeply shocking.

A: It’s supposed to be shocking. Facts sometimes are.

Q: But how could this escape mainstream journalism? Why wasn’t this a gigantic story in the press? Why hasn’t the government investigated?

A: Why don’t you answer your own question?

Q: Because I’m afraid my answer would shock me.

A: And whose problem is that?


This article first appeared at NoMoreFakeNews.com.