Do you wonder why are flu shots at church?
Recently I found out that our church is offering flu shots again this year, offered by a local pharmacy, so I thought I'd share an email with you that I sent to our Pastor…
First I want you to know that I love our Pastor, he's a great priest (they're not all bad, there are bad apples in any group of people!) and he's a friend too. But just like so many, he must not know the real story here.
(Beginning of the email to our Pastor…)
I'm sorry that you're allowing flu shots to be given at church again this year. After we talked about this recently, I had hoped you'd decide not to go ahead with it.
Please at least watch this video about abortions, fetal cell lines, and vaccines:
Looks like that's been censored off of Youtube… 🙁
You'll be shocked when you hear how they used 80 different aborted babies to make the Rubella vaccine. Up to 16-18 week gestational babies were delivered alive to get the fetal cell lines how they wanted them, they were then dissected without any anesthesia. “Dead tissue is of no use to vaccine makers.” It's not 2 abortions that were done a long time ago as we're led to believe. Also in the video the evidence is discussed that strongly links vaccines to the increase in childhood cancers, as well as gender identity disorder, which is the #1 cause of suicide.
The other vaccines, including the flu shot, are also very immoral. The evil here is just as dark as the evil of kids abused by priests. 🙁
Also see this: Flu shot linked to miscarriages by a retired pediatrician. (Readers, see below where I've copied the entire article, since these things tend to disappear…)
Since flu shots/vaccines are so controversial — some docs say they are important, but others realize there is so much evidence that, at best, they don’t work much, if at all, and at worst they’re actually harmful (and immoral) — I hope you’ll just allow us to stay right out of it as a parish and let parishioners work that out with their doctors and their own research.
Thankfully aborted fetal cell lines aren’t used in this year’s flu vaccine but allowing vaccines at church at all gives the impression that vaccines can be trusted across the board to be safe (which isn’t true) and to not have these fetal cells (which also isn’t true, many vaccines still use them).
Our church is here for our parishioners’ spiritual health, and I feel it’s best if we let doctors help them with their physical health.
I’m happy to send you more info on this if you’d like. (Even the CDC admits they’re not very effective.)
I know you're super busy, but could you cancel it?
(End of the email to my Pastor.)
One thing I should've asked was, how much does that pharmacy get for each flu shot given?! You know they're not just doing it to be helpful!!!
Here's the article I linked to above, I've bolded some highlights in case you're in a hurry:
Official double-talk hides serious problems with flu shot safety and effectiveness
After weeks of brooding about the Donahue article linking flu shots to miscarriages (Vaccine 2017;35:5314) it was with a sense of relief that I read Rob Wipond’s narrative of media attempts to sweep a serious vaccine safety issue under the rug…. He points out the hypocrisy (his words were “double standard”) of authorities who dismissed the Donahue paper because it was an “observational study.” Year after year they have quoted observational studies to announce, “…80% vaccine effectiveness…60% effectiveness…40% effectiveness…” They do not mention that these studies make no effort to look for adverse vaccine effects (e.g. narcolepsy, seizures, high fever, oculorespiratory syndrome). They do not mention “negative vaccine effectiveness”, the increase in risk of illness from influenza and non-influenza viruses associated with (or caused by) the vaccines. (Cowling, Clin Inf Dis 2012;54:1778) They do not mention that a vaccine “effective” in one season may increase influenza risk in a subsequent season. (Read about “antibody-dependent enhancement” to understand one explanatory mechanism). They do not mention that the observational studies they refer to are likely to exaggerate vaccine effectiveness in the first place because of the “healthy user effect” well known to epidemiologists.
Some history: 1960 Nobel Laureate and a primary developer of today’s influenza vaccine, Macfarlane Burnet, didn’t think it was worth much. (Br J Path 1936:17:282. Natural History of Infectious Disease 1972, page212)….In 2000 Kenneth McIntosh warned that we should not routinely give influenza vaccine to healthy children until multi center randomized trials were done over several seasons to be sure that it was safe and effective. (Editorial, NEJM 2000;342:225) His advice was ignored….
In 2004 a “Seven-Step Recipe” for using the media to boost demand for the vaccine was presented to the National Influenza Vaccine Summit, sponsored by the CDC and the AMA. The recipe included, “…statements of alarm by public health authorities…prediction of dire outcomes from influenza…continued reports that influenza is causing severe illness affecting lots of people…repeated urging of influenza vaccination…” (Doshi, BMJ 2005;331:1419) Sound familiar?
Peter Collignon and his colleagues have said this: “We need much larger, independent, and better-reported prospective studies that clearly demonstrate that the benefits of influenza vaccines in children far outweigh harms…If, overall, the increased number of cases of ARI plus vaccine side effects are much larger (in vaccine recipients) than those on placebo, given the low efficacy of the vaccine, then this is a strong argument against current policies advocating routine influenza vaccination of children.” (Collignon, Clin Inf Dis 2015:60:489)
In any discussion of influenza epidemiology we should acknowledge the careful and steady (one could even say fearless) work of Danuta Skowronski and her Canadian public health colleagues. It was they who found that the 2008-9 flu shot doubled the risk of illness from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic flu. Their observations were considered important enough to alter Canadian vaccine recommendations for the 2009-10 season. However, for some reason, they had a good deal of difficulty getting their study finally published. (Skowronski, PLoS Med 2010;7(4):e1000258) This observational study was a revelation, even a shock, to many public health experts. US officials never publicly acknowledged the findings…..This is just one of a number of important papers published over the years by Skowronski and her colleagues, who have a reputation for high scientific and ethical standards.
Wipond does not mention another technique used to dismiss legitimate vaccine safety concerns, having to do with “statistical significance.” Recently, a large cohort study found that flu shots given during the first trimester of pregnancy were associated with a 20% increase in autism spectrum disorder in the offspring. P for the association was 0.01, and the authors acknowledged that, if it was causal, would mean four(4) additional autism cases for every 1000 mothers vaccinated. However, they incorrectly used a statistical manipulation to adjust the finding into “non-significance.” (Hooker, Donzelli, Zerbo. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:600) One typical media headline about the study was, “Flu vaccine during pregnancy not linked to autism.” (Shute, NPR, 11/28/16)….This kind of thing goes on all the time with news releases for vaccine research.
The flu season in North America officially began 5 weeks ago, and the vaccine publicity juggernaut is still picking up steam. Manufacturers are hoping to sell 166 million doses in the US this season. One business group predicts an $8 billion US influenza vaccine market by 2025. (Coherent Market Insights, 1/5/18) The 2016-17 vaccine increased the risk of H3N2 illness among UK elderly by 68%, and officials are calling for better vaccines. (Osterholm, NY Times, 1/8/18) Meanwhile, in the absence of any evidence that it would help, officials and ordinary citizens in the US and UK wrangle about flu shot mandates for healthcare workers.
Wipond’s article provided new insight for an old baby doctor who, at one time, was a wholehearted vaccine advocate, but lately has been exasperated by bullying and doubletalk from vaccine authorities. Let us hope that his article helps to sustain an honest discussion about the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines.
(End of article.)
Note that I asked our Pastor if the church is paid for offering flu shots and he said they are not, thankfully, but I let him know that the pharmacy is definitely getting paid for each shot. Most likely the person from the pharmacy who offered to give them at church is too, but I don't know that for sure. I'd bet the pharmacy gives incentives to employees to get their church on board…
Are there flu shots at church where you attend?
More you might like:
- Get the book, The Man Behind the Mask, by David Boman here.
- More on mandatory vaccines here: Mandatory Flu Shots for Healthcare Workers
photo by Steven Depolo edited to add this blog post title on top
How would you handle a conversation with a doctor about why I’m not getting the vaccine? I’m a nanny and the child’s mother is a doctor. She thinks I’m putting her and a child at risk by not getting the shot
I think having a healthy lifestyle, getting fit, eating nutritious food to make your immune system stronger is still the best prevention for flu. I’m not against the flu shots, but i prefer natural remedies.
Good for you to stand up again this. I’m shocked that it was allowed in a house of worship! I hope what you told him will resonate and cause him to rethink vaccines. Thank you for doing what you do!
Thank you so much for your bold honesty. I appreciate your research and knowledge so that I can educate myself to care for myself and my family.