Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a recent article highlighting a review of 50 years’ worth of data, Dr. Tom Jefferson explained why flu cases are rare, complications from flu are very rare and there have been no deaths from influenza. “Vaccines do not stand a chance against a relatively rare moving target like influenza,” he said.
Dr. Jefferson has been publishing ‘The Dot Series’ of articles on the Substack page ‘Trust the Evidence’. The Dot Series started as a project to publish “downloads” of work Dr. Jefferson and his colleagues on influenza vaccines. It received substantial feedback. Consequentially, the series morphed into summarising the back story of four Cochrane reviews which show poor performance of influenza vaccines.
At first, decision-makers brushed aside Cochrane and its systematic reviews to summarise and interpret the results of medical research. However, by the 2000s, Cochrane became too prestigious to ignore.
In 2008 and 2009, Dr. Jefferson and his colleagues conducted reviews on the evidence the World Health Organisation, US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and “the all-powerful” used for their flu vaccine recommendations. It is the review of this evidence that has become the focus of The Dot Series.
The first article of this particular exposé is titled ‘Connecting the Dots’. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall and a subscription is needed to be able to read it.
In the second article, ‘Connecting More Dots’, Trust the Evidence noted: “US investigators at the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) recently published private email correspondence, which lays bare the extent of the deception. The emails have been made available.”
“The emails show that you cannot trust even very big and famous institutions as they are part of the pandemic industry, but this is not a new story and we will show why this had become clear to us as early as 2008,” Dr. Jefferson wrote.
The following is the third part revealing the “evidence” used to recommend annual flu vaccinations. “I beg all of you who were or will be offered an influenza vaccination to consider the content of this post when deciding whether to accept,” Dr. Jefferson began his article.
And concluded, “Influenza is rare … population interventions such as inactivated vaccines do not stand a chance against a relatively rare moving target like influenza.”
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Exaggerating the Influenza Threat; Reflections of a long-time Cochrane reviewer
I beg all of you who were or will be offered an influenza vaccination to consider the content of this post when deciding whether to accept.
We have published posts presenting evidence that the influenza threat has been inflated, see: Revisiting the F Word, Trust the Evidence, 1 February 2023 (behind a paywall).
The US authorities knew that fraud was essentially taking place, and they bent over backwards to defend each other and cover up the scam, see: Connecting more Dots, Trust the Evidence, 23 October 2024.
Here’s the first part of the story of why I have suspected and then known about this for at least 25 years
In the mid-1990s, as the Cochrane Collaboration was starting, some of us in its Acute Respiratory Infection Group started writing protocols for Cochrane reviews on the topics that interested us (Cochrane being then a volunteer bottom-up organisation).
In my case, it was influenza and other respiratory agents. So, we wrote protocols and published reviews on the effects (effectiveness and harms) of influenza vaccines (all types of inactivated and live attenuated) on children, adults, asthmatics, the elderly and those who care for the elderly.
We initially looked only at randomised controlled trials and then bowed to pressure to include observational data. The latter were quickly ditched to preserve our sanity. That’s because observational data, in this case, told you everything and it’s opposite – not a new story.
I was eventually kicked out of the asthmatics review, but the other four were updated continually until we realised there was no point in going on, and 3 of the reviews were stabilised (no more updates). The three stabilised reviews are:
1. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. 2018
2. Jefferson T, Rivetti et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. 2018
3. Demicheli V, Jefferson T et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. 2018
The fourth review is currently being updated:
4. Thomas RE, Jefferson T, et al. Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long-term care institutions.
The reviews have been cited several thousand times and read many more times. They include data from 105 (real) placebo-controlled trials involving over 100,000 individuals.
So that’s the background. By this stage, you will be asking: So what?
The “so what” is that randomised (real) placebo-controlled trials give you a good idea of the incidence of influenza (in the older trials, by a rise in antibody titres and or a viral positive culture isolate). When you pool the data together, you are not looking at one trial or dataset; you are looking at several data sets observed and recorded at the height of the “winter crisis” season. In the healthy adult’s review, the placebo arm picked up 465 cases out of 18,593 participants. So, of the folks with symptoms, 97.5% were not caused by influenza. No trials were able to detect deaths, hospitalisations were relatively rare. The trials spanned 50 years of data, so we had all the highs, the lows and the maybes and even 2 influenza pandemics.
Trials are studies where researchers can control things, verify and follow up on cases. The placebo arm incidence is essential for an accurate view of what is happening. Models are not required. Once we started looking at the verified influenza deaths in the placebo arm, we saw that the number of cases was in the hundreds. Complications were very rare; for deaths, we found zilch – certainly not the figures put forward by the CDC, which not even Anthony Fauci believed. And this fits with the data we showed in the article ‘Connecting more Dots’ and ‘Revisiting the F Word’.
So, influenza is rare, loads more agents causing the same signs and symptoms are lumped under the appalling term “flu,” and population interventions such as inactivated vaccines do not stand a chance against a relatively rare moving target like influenza. So, you see my mummy was right when she used to say to me: “Tommy darling, never use the F word.”
In the next posts, Trust the Evidence will explain how and why inflating the threat is essential to keeping unethical bodies like the CDC and the UK Health Security Agency (“UKHSA”) going (I mention these two, but they are all at it) and analyse some misleading statements and policies based on deceptive and inflated data.
This post was written by an old geezer who’s been working on this for three decades and hopes that the content of posts like these will be his legacy.
Other relevant work
- Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Debalini M G, Rivetti A, Demicheli V. Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic review BMJ 2009; 338 :b354 doi:10.1136/bmj.b354
- Jefferson T. Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence BMJ 2006; 333 :912 doi:10.1136/bmj.38995.531701.80
- Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Debalini MG, Rivetti A, Demicheli V. Inactivated influenza vaccines: methods, policies, and politics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Jul;62(7):677-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.07.001. Epub 2009 Jan 4. PMID: 19124222.
- Doshi P. Are US flu death figures more PR than science? BMJ. 2005 Dec 10;331(7529):1412.
- Doshi P. Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease BMJ 2013; 346 :f3037 doi:10.1136/bmj.f3037
About the Author
Tom Jefferson is a clinical epidemiologist and a Senior Associate Tutor at the University of Oxford. Together with Professor Carl Heneghan, he publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘Trust the Evidence’.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
its the vaccines again. the vaccines kill.
https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=247818
Graphene Oxide is main killer in C19 fluid.
https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=178291
These Doctors tried to get the truth out, and died for us.
The so called “annual flu” is probably our own bodies natural detox process being kick started by the combination of toxicity and low levels of vitamin D. Since I started to manage my vitamin D level all year around I have not had the common cold in ten years and definitely no annual flu AKA Convid-19.
fully agree
I would welcome so called influenza as my body detoxes and heals itself . NOT a virus or something “you catch” , but a self healing mechanism . Yes its unpleasant , but very necessary
Hi David, if you’ve experienced both flu and detox, you will know the difference.
I’ve only had flu twice in my life, as far as I can recall (although the one instance I would say was not flu but a tummy bug which was labelled and treated under the umbrella of the generic term “gastric flu”). The only time I believe I had flu was in 2009 – at the time I had no idea there was a falsified swine flu pandemic declared, but I heard about the swine flu “pandemic” years later and, in retrospect, have wondered if it was somehow related.
I have also undertaken, by choice, detox regimes a few times.
From personal experience, I can assure you, the flu is not the body detoxing. Symptoms of detoxing are more similar to, but still not necessarily the same as, a mild one to three day seasonal cold.
I tilt to the thinking that most non-pathogenic seasonal colds and flus are due to a lack of something – e.g. natural sunlight, vitamin D etc, just as a lack of vitamin C causes scurvy. I also think some coughs, sneezing and colds are confused with our bodies reacting to a substance in our environment (e.g. chemicals, including those being sprayed into our skies). This is not detoxing, this is our bodies’ defences working to stop potentially harmful contaminants entering into our bodies and causing harm, e.g. coughing so the chemicals don’t stay in our lungs and cause damage.
From your personal experience what can you assure us does cause the flu? From my personal experience as a biomedical scientist with over 30 years experience i can assure you that “a rise in antibody titres and or a viral positive culture isolate” in no way proves the existence of a virus.
Hi Sam, Did I say anything about “a rise in antibody titres and or a viral positive culture isolate”?
I have asked you in the past (years ago) to provide a link to support who you say you are. You have claimed to have written science papers (I believe you claimed at one stage to be a “published scientist” which indicates these papers were published in a science journal) so this should have been a relatively simple request to satisfy. But you didn’t respond. And as far as I’m aware, to this day you have offered no proof of your claims, except for a mention on a newly formed political group.
A quick search on the internet only returns one Simon Lee in the UK, a lecturer at the University of Hull (although by implication there is another Simon Lee who owns an art gallery). I have dismissed this as you but as no other Simon Lee is returned in search results I have to at least ask: Is this you?
https://www.hull.ac.uk/staff-directory/simon-lee
Another interesting thing is, if I recall correctly, you were also claiming to be a former NHS nurse (for 20 or 30 years if my memory serves me correctly). This was at least a year before you started to claim you were a biomedical scientist (and not too long after you commented something along the lines of I “deserve what I’m getting” in support of a profile which was threatening my life in a particularly vile way under one of my articles). Although being a NHS nurse and a biomedical scientist are not mutually exclusive, it seems it should really be one or the other and is the reason why I asked you to provide a link that showed who you were. I also don’t consider several of your comments to be normal behaviour for either a nurse or scientist, but then I guess these titles include people of all shapes and sizes. There are good nurses and scientists and there are bad nurses and scientists, and everything in between.
I am still waiting, and would appreciate you providing a link to a website (obviously not a political party website) or published science papers so I can assess who you are for myself.
The author of the article you posted did refer to “a rise in antibody titres and or a viral positive culture isolate” as proof of a flu virus. You are always careful to only share the work of people who do not understand virology whilst ignoring all of the well qualified people who have refuted virology. This is because you have adopted the ridiculous belief that those of us exposing the pseudoscience of virology are part of a psy-op.
When you asked me in the past to provide a link to confirm my identity i did supply a link to my ResearchGate profile which you just ignored. My ResearchGate profile will confirm my publications in high impact factor peer reviewed journals.
I am not the Simon Lee from Hull. I have never claimed to have been a former NHS nurse. I am a former NHS biomedical scientist who did diagnostic testing which included virology. Since that time i have conducted biomedical research at several universities in the UK.
I would never threaten violence against you nor would i ever support anyone else doing that. You are confusing me with someone else (several other people apparently).
Sam, you say “When you asked me in the past to provide a link to confirm my identity i did supply a link to my ResearchGate profile which you just ignored.”
I would be surprised if I did because I specifically looked out for it for months. Could you repost it under this comment?
Thank you
Are you the Simon Lee from the University of Hull? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is the response I’m looking for.
PS, If you read my comment – you didn’t threaten violence towards me, you agreed with another profile that did. You effectively made it known that you are friends with those who wish me ill. This is not something that is easily forgotten especially as several comments over the years from you to me have shown little softening or better still, reversal, in your intent. Why do you think I keep deleting your comments which show signs of being verbally abusive towards me? I will warn you that I will continue to delete any of your comments that are making a personal attack on me or The Expose. I have said this to you before.
As for the political party you’re advising, I have warned everyone I know to steer well clear of it because of your online behaviour. If you are the typical attitude of the party, then it is a party that no one should support. It is a case of being guilty by association.
I most definitely did supply a link to my ResearchGate profile. I will supply it again at the end of this message but comments with links often get automatically blocked.
I have 21 publications in peer reviewed journals including Nature Genetics which is one of the highest impact factor journals in the world. These publications have been cited 4,905 times by other researchers in their peer reviewed publications. I have a research interest score that is “higher than 97% of ResearchGate members”.
“I am not the Simon Lee from Hull” seems like a simple no to me. I am from Nottingham.
I am not friends with anybody who wishes you ill nor do i wish you ill. I strongly disagree with your stance on viruses and your propensity to censor people who disagree with you. I have never been verbally abusive or personally attacked you. I have been critical of you and The Expose with regards to your editorial stance on viruses. This is in sharp contrast to Dr Vernon Coleman (who you clearly support) who is often verbally abusive about people who understand the pseudoscientific nature of virology.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon-Lee-11
Sam, this is the first time – I repeat the first time – you have provided a link. It has taken nearly two years but thank you. I will take a closer look when I can find the time.
Being critical is one thing – but on several occasions your comments have not been “critical,” and you know it. I will repeat, as I have had to do with you several times over the years, I will delete your comments if you make any threats, personal attacks or get abusive.
The simple way to avoid your comments being deleted is to do what any scientist (and reasonable mind) should be doing … debate or comment on the subject matter of the article you’re commenting under instead of making personal attacks to score points. If you have valid comments to make this should be easy enough for you to do.
This is the second time- I repeat the second time- I have provided a link. You often delete comments that do not contain any threats, personal attacks or abuse and you know it. I have no interest in scoring points but your indefensible belief in virology must be challenged because you are misleading people.
Sam, stay away form personal attacks. If you have valid comments you should find this easy to do. If you find you are having to resort going for me, or anyone else, personally, then you know you have already lost the debate based on the “facts” you bring to the table not being strong enough to stand on their own merits. If you can’t see that, then you are a scientist in name only as so many are these days.
https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=247818
https://www.cdc.gov/radiation-emergencies/signs-symptoms/index.html another perspective ..
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33064832/ radiation poisoning
[…] Partagé par Rhoda Wilson le 27 octobre 2024 : https://expose-news.com/2024/10/27/they-lied-about-flu/ […]
[…] Read more: They LIED about FLU: 50 years of data show cases are rare, 97.5% of symptoms are not caus… […]
[…] Read more: They LIED about FLU: 50 years of data show cases are rare, 97.5% of symptoms are not caus… […]
[…] https://expose-news.com/2024/10/27/they-lied-about-flu/ […]
[…] In my case, it was influenza and other respiratory agents. So, we wrote protocols and published reviews on the effects (effectiveness and harms) of influenza vaccines (all types of inactivated and live attenuated) on children, adults, asthmatics, the elderly and those who care for the elderly. Read more… […]
[…] Wilson on October 27, 2024 • ( 23 […]
[…] Fonte: https://expose-news.com/2024/10/27/they-lied-about-flu/ […]
[…] Original Article: The Exposé […]