RFK Jr. & Children’s Health Defense Sue University of California For Making Flu Shot Mandatory
Children's Health Defense and Robert F.Kennedy Jr.will sue the University of California for mandating the flu shot for all students, faculty and staff.
Why are vaccine mandates moving forward when there is adequate evidence showing that they are not a one size fits all product, they cause injury, they've never provided herd-immunity and they are not effective all the time against the target disease? What Happened: The University of California is one of many in the United States that have made the flu shot mandatory for all students, staff and faculty. Prior to now, it remained a choice for people. Flu shots must be taken by November 1st of this year, according to UC, it’s a “proactive measure to help protect members of the UC community – and the public at large – and to ameliorate the severe burdens on health care systems anticipated during the coming fall and winter from influenza and COVID-19.” Due to the growing amount of evidence that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, let alone completely safe, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, renowned attorney and Chair of Children’s Health Defense, is now suing the University of California.
Kennedy Explains, Dr. Janet Napolitano says mandatory flu shots will “lessen the chance of being infected with COVID.” However, prevailing research suggests that flu vaccines actually raise the risk from coronavirus infection. A January 2020 US Pentagon study (Wolff 2020) found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36%. “Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as “virus interference...’vaccine derived’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus...” Many other studies suggest the increased risk of viral respiratory infections, including coronavirus, following vaccination for influenza. A 2018 CDC study (Rikin et al 2018) found that flu shots increase the risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), including coronavirus, in children. A 2011 Australian study (Kelly et al 2011) found that flu shots doubled the risk for non-flu viral lung infections. A 2012 Hong Kong study (Cowling et al 2012) found that flu shots increase the risk for non-flu respiratory infections by 4.4 times. A 2017 study (Mawson et al 2017) found vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to suffer pneumonia than their unvaccinated peers. Children’s Health Defense is aware of a contrary study published last month by Gunther Fink et. al. That report appears to conclude that flu vaccines may be prophylactic against coronavirus.
The study, of Brazilian populations, has many dubious unexplained outcomes including a 47% death rate among study subjects, raising numerous unanswered questions about the methodology and validity of this research. UC campuses should not be encouraging flu shots until we have unambiguous science supporting efficacy against COVID. It’s important to mention that the coronavirus study listed above from Wolff does not include COVID-19, but the coronaviruses already in circulation prior to the novel coronavirus outbreak. Why This Is Important: This is important because all of these mandates are being enacted under the belief that they will prevent flu cases, COVID-19 cases, and also help protect other people as well, which is the backbone argument of the vaccine industry. Mandates are also moving forward based on the assumption that vaccines are completely safe and effective for everyone.
The problem is, these assumptions do not match a lot of the science that’s been published over the years regarding the flu shot. Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.” In it, he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.” He goes on to state: But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same.
The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that 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. (fig 2).⇓ All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t. Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video: The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country.
The vaccine injury compensation program, 40 percent of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60 percent of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of vaccine related injuries are the flu shot. I think many of you it’s been recommended to you that you get the flu shot, I don’t know if you’re aware of the fact, the CDC statistics are, that every year they look at vaccine effectiveness, for this particular year the vaccine effectiveness is 48 percent, so that means it’s not highly effective. It’s not even all that effective, if you look at the scientific literature...the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine is moderate to weak. It is not strong evidence.
They say the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine to people over the age of 65 is not there, it’s inconclusive. So a lot of the things we’ve been told as Americans about vaccinations are not really based on the science. (source) The National Childhood Vaccine Injury (NCVIA) has already paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). If the numbers from VAERS and HHS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported. Preliminary data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. (source) This completely contradicts the CDC’s claim that 1/1,000,000 people are injured from vaccines.
Why are so many concerns being raised with regards to vaccinations being completely ignored and unacknowledged?
Why are those who raise these concerns labelled as “anti-vaccination?” Why does the mainstream use these labels, as well as ridicule, instead of actually addressing the points made and countering them? Why are vaccines marketed to be gods gift to humanity when there are so many safety concerns? Would more rigorous safety testing not be in the best interest of everybody? Wouldn’t everybody agree that any concerns with vaccinations should be addressed openly, publicly and transparently? Vaccine mandates, and others, are simply going to force people to exit various parts of the ‘system’ they will no longer be allowed to participate in. This begs the question, do we want to continue to be dependent on an entity, like the government, for our basic needs, like food and shelter, etc, or is there another way to do it? With so many conflicts of interests and examples of corruption within our federal health regulatory agencies, as well as clear evidence of concern, why do we continue to live the way we do, why do we keep voting when that only upholds a system we no longer want to play with? Why are we letting powerful entities make our decisions and do our thinking for us? What’s really going on here?
Read the full article at the original website