Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Fuzzy Math: Why Swine Flu Vaccines Don’t Add Up

Mike Adams
Natural News
September 1, 2009

Here’s a seventh grade word problem for you: If swine flu has infected
one million people and killed 500, how many people might be expected
to die if it infects 150 million people (assuming no major changes in
the virus)? The correct answer, of course, is 75,000 people, and
that’s within the range of the number of swine flu deaths now being
publicly predicted by the White House.

But there’s another part to this word problem: How many vaccine shots
and hand washings does it take to boost vitamin D levels in the
average person

You have a 40 times greater chance of being struck by lightning at
some point in your life than having your life saved by the swine flu

The question, of course, makes no sense. Vaccine shots don’t boost
vitamin D levels any more than eating pork infects you with swine flu.
So why is the official advice on swine flu protection essentially
limited to “wash your hands, get your vaccine shot and cough into your
elbow?” (Seriously. I’m not making this up.)

The Associated Press has distilled swine flu advice to “10 things you
need to know.” None of those ten things include boosting your
nutrition, getting more vitamin D or taking anti-viral medicinal
herbs. They do, however, include hilarious explanations like “If you
develop breathing problems, pain in your chest, constant vomiting or a
fever that keeps rising, go to an emergency room.”

Emergency room in a pandemic?

Whatever for? They don’t bother to mention that in a pandemic scenario
that strikes you with constant vomiting, the entire emergency room is
likely to be overrun with other people joining you in a hospital room
vomit fest.

Nor do they mention some other important math: The very limited number
of anti-viral medication courses available in the U.S. The last time I
checked, that was roughly 50 million courses. If the U.S. population
is roughly 300 million people, and there are 50 million courses of
anti-viral meds available, how many Americans will have no access to
those meds? (Ahem… 250 million people…)

Here’s an even more interesting brain buster for you: If each vaccine
shot generates $25 in revenue for drug companies, and the U.S.
government orders the production of 160 million vaccines, how much
money is Big Pharma making off the pandemic? That answer is roughly $4
billion in net revenues.

But even that doesn’t count all the repeat business from the future
victims who suffer neurological side effects from the vaccines and
have to be institutionalized and subjected to high-dollar medical care
for years on end. In all, a mass vaccination program could end up
generating over ten billion dollars in revenues for drug companies.

These numbers just don’t add up

Now let’s look at some serious statistics: If one million people have
already been infected with swine flu, and 500 have died, that’s a
fatality rate of 1 out of 2000 people. Depending on which research you
believe, vaccines might at most be credited with preventing 1% of flu
deaths during any given flu season (and that’s being very generous to
the vaccine). So here’s the question:

How many people have to be vaccinated with the new swine flu vaccine
to save ONE life from a swine flu fatality?
(Notice, carefully, this question has never been asked in the
mainstream media. That’s because the answer isn’t exactly what most
people want to hear…)

This question is easy to answer, actually. If the vaccine were 100%
effective (that is, they prevented every death that would have
otherwise occurred), they could be credited with saving 1 life out of
2000, right? Because that’s the normal death rate for this particular
virus (these figures are widely quoted by AP, Reuters and the White
House, by the way).

But no vaccine is 100% effective. As I mentioned above, seasonal flu
vaccines might — at a stretch — be credited with preventing 1% of the
deaths that might otherwise have occurred. With this 1% effectiveness
factor calculated back into the formula for swine flu (assuming the
same 1% effectiveness factor), it turns out that you would have to
vaccinate 200,000 people to save ONE life from swine flu.

That puts a whole new perspective on the vaccine push, doesn’t it?
200,000 vaccines costs taxpayers roughly $5,000,000, and it subjects
200,000 people to the potential side effects of these vaccines which
have never been subjected to any long-term testing whatsoever.

It all begs the question: Is it really worth it?

Is it worth spending $5 million and exposing 200,000 people to
potentially dangerous vaccine side effects in order to prevent ONE
death from swine flu? And why isn’t anybody breaking down the numbers
on this issue and providing a serious cost / benefit analysis as I’m
doing here?

Let’s be generous to the vaccine…

Vaccine pushers might argue that the vaccine is far more than 1%
effective at preventing swine flu deaths. In their wildest dreams,
they might imagine a death reduction rate of, say, a wildly optimistic
10%. But even considering that, is it worth it? If the vaccine stops
10% of deaths that would have otherwise occurred, that still means
you’d have to vaccinate 200,000 people to prevent the deaths of ten

I’m going to throw out a wild guess here and suggest that far more
than 10 people will be killed by the vaccine itself, completely
nullifying any net reduction in total deaths. Mathematically, you see,
mass swine flu vaccinations make absolutely no sense given the very
low rate of fatalities being observed right now.

Just do something!

Of course, public health policy is never based on sense. It’s based on
politics. And the politics demand that “they DO something!” That’s
what the public wants: Do something! It doesn’t matter if doing
something is worse than doing nothing… they just want to see some

It’s the same story with breast cancer screenings (almost completely
useless), prostate cancer screenings (now proven to be far more
harmful than helpful) and of course ADHD screening tests (which are
only designed to trick parents into drugging their kids). Much of
western medicine, it turns out, is complete hokum. We would all be
better off without the screenings and without the vaccinations

There’s a highly credible book on this subject by authors Gerald E.
Markle and Frances B. McCrea. It’s called What if Medicine
Disappeared? ( http://www.amazon.com/What-Medicine…)

This book argues quite persuasively (and with the citation of many
convincing studies) that western medicine offers virtually no net gain
in quality of life to the very people it claims to serve. Doctors,
hospitals, vaccines and cancer clinics could all disappear tomorrow
and most people would actually be far better off. Of course, no one
disputes the value of having emergency rooms to handle acute trauma
and accidents, but when it comes to preventive medicine and protecting
quality of life, western medicine is a near-total failure.

When it comes to swine flu vaccines, any honest look at the math
reveals that 200,000 people will have to be vaccinated with a largely
untested experimental vaccine in order to prevent the death of one
person (or ten people, if you really believe in vaccines). Remembering
that more than one person in 200,000 will almost certainly be killed
by the vaccine itself, it really makes you wonder: What’s the point of
all this?

The point, of course, is to sell vaccines. It’s the one math problem
that everybody understands: To make money, you have to sell a product,
and there’s no better way to sell vaccines to 160 million people than
to scare them into begging for injections that are statistically
opposed their own self interests. But I suppose anything is possible
in a country where state governments can punitively tax the poor by
convincing them to play the lottery. People who play the lottery are
very likely to be the same people getting vaccine shots: It’s like a
lottery on your health, except that your odds of “winning” are far
worse than your odds of winning something in a state lotto.

Let’s see: You have a 1 in 1 chance of being injected with foreign
viral matter, and yet you only have a 1 in 200,000 chance of your life
being saved by it.

Allow me to put this into perspective: You have a 40 times greater
chance of being struck by lightning at some point in your life than
having your life saved by the swine flu vaccine. (Source: National
Weather Service statistics.)

Mathematically speaking, getting a swine flu injection and hoping it
will save your life is more foolish than buying a lotto ticket with
your last dollar and hoping you’ll scratch off a multi-million dollar
winning ticket.

And buying a lotto ticket doesn’t risk the health of your nervous
system, by the way. You can always earn back a buck, but restoring
your nervous system after it’s attacked by a rogue vaccine can take
years or decades. Some never recover. (Thousands died from the 1976

Pop quiz: What’s the actual cost of vaccinating 160 million Americans
with an unproven, experimental swine flu vaccine?
Answer: $1.6 billion plus countless victims with strange neurological
disorders, comas and sudden death — all of which will be written off
as “coincidence” by the vaccine pushers.

Free flu shots for the unemployed

As this article was about to go to press, I couldn’t help but notice a
new announcement by CVS and Walgreens pharmacies. The powers that be
are so desperate to get all Americans injected with this experimental
vaccine that CVS and Walgreens are now offering free swine flu vaccine
injections to anyone who doesn’t have a job!

That’s right: Just show up, prove you’re unemployed, and you get
jabbed at no charge. (Who said losing your job didn’t have some
benefits, huh?) Conspiracy theorists might suggest this is a clever
way to clear the streets of “useless eaters.” Just lure the jobless
into some experimental vaccine program, inject them and send them on
their way. Next, will retailers start handing out free Soylent Green

Additional sources for this story include:

National Weather Service:

Associated Press:


About the author: Mike Adams is a consumer health advocate with a
strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of
nature to help us all heal He has authored and published thousands of
articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like
health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with
information that is saving lives and improving personal health around
the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who
does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In
2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of energy efficient LED lights
that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He also launched an online retailer
of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a
portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also
the founder and CEO of a well known email mail merge software
developer whose software, 'Email Marketing Director,' currently runs
the NaturalNews email subscriptions. Adams also serves as the
executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit
consumer protection group, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature
photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics.

Get articles like this delivered to you FREE in our popular email newsletter

1 comment:

  1. I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.