Warning: Not Demonstrated to Decrease Influenza,
Not Safety Tested in Pregnant Women and Children,
Associated with Serious Diseases
by Jim West
The Glaxo vaccine “package insert” is Glaxo’s disclaimer. It is the “fine print” in each vaccine box, that protects Glaxo from the justice system, should it ever decide to bring justice, in case Glaxo doesn’t funnel some of its profits to the government, such as, fines administered during investigations. Glaxo’s drugs are promoted by those who have less liability, i.e., the non-experts, the journalists, salesmen, news-entertainment media, and doctors following protocol, etc. These people, who promote and dispense vaccines to the public, rarely mention the package insert.
Doctors, journalists and patients should read the insert, as it clearly admits that Flulaval doesn’t function as advertised to decrease influenza. Its phrase, “not adequately demonstrated to decrease influenza”, means exactly that, yet, the phrase as spun, implies some success, rather than failure. Their use of the phrase “decrease influenza” is oddly vague.
We can only presume it means to decrease the chance of acquiring flu in the individual or to decrease the incidence of flu in the population. Bottom line: It is not actually a vaccine.
Can a potentially deadly drug be sold as a vaccine while claiming it hasn’t been demonstrated to be a vaccine? Of course! Two explanatory parallels bring vaccines down to earth.
Car Sales Parallel: A car salesman could say that a poisoned lump of feces he is selling (called a “car”) has not been adequately demonstrated to be a car, though laboratory tests (in test tubes) have shown a crucial similarity, i.e., both are mobile. Then with the influence of billions of dollars paid to lobbyists-journalists-advertisers, and by concealing the facts (the manufacturer’s package insert) — he sells you the lump-o-feces at the price of a car, despite this ‘car’ known to be associated with serious diseases. He sells this “car” blessed by society, car experts, law, and government agencies. Though the manufacturer of the car claims it may be spontaneously deadly or disabling, many government agencies even enforce ownership, saying the car is mandatory.
House Sales Parallel: Would you buy a so-called house for your family when the sales agent tells you he doubts the house is actually a house? That it might disable or kill you? Would you buy the house without any documentation? On merely the word of a stranger with an apparently valid certificate hanging on his wall, who has conflicts of interest with the product he is selling?
Yes — “you” probably would! If there were enough propaganda surrounding the sale to make you feel wise or intimidated.
Most people buy vaccines for themselves and their children with no knowledge beyond superficial advertising, thinking they are protecting themselves and their community from an invisible “virus” of which they have no knowledge. This is all one more tragic human joke. Over 1.8 billion dollars have been paid out for vaccine damage through the VICP program, and those payments go only to those a) whose doctor is willing to rat out on himself rather than sweep it under the rug or pass the problem off, b) who have survived the medical and judicial gauntlet, c) who know that vaccine damage is possible, and d) who have even heard of VICP or VAERS. Corruption is serious among vaccine manufacturers. Example: Merck Pharmaceuticals paid 4 billion dollars to the US government to bring a halt to ongoing investigations.
And you trust them to inject you with something even they claim is a hazard!? Bafflement.
Vaccines are sold by hyping a fear, that disease epidemics are supposedly so dangerous we should risk ourselves with hazardous vaccines via their corrupt manufacturer-distribution system. However, infectious disease paradigms are easily deflated. See critiques of the most studied viruses, poliovirus and HIV. In addition to the fear gambit, advertisers appeal to people’s sense of community responsibility with the guilt gambit, if they refrain from buying medical products.
The Glaxo Insert, UCM112909_NEWPI(FluLaval)2.pdf, 6/2013, is no longer online. I have download it, however, and pages 1 and 6 are presented here with highlights and commentary.
Insert Page 1
Glaxo writes, “[N]o controlled trials demonstrate a decrease in influenza”. The only evidence that this product provides immunity are laboratory studies that elicit a technical “immune response” for a limited time in a filtered clear blood component (“sera”) in a test tube. Sera cannot represent the human immune system. The vaccine is potentially dangerous to pregnant women, nursing women, and children, as “safety has not been established”. This is confirmed later in the document with the admission that the so-called vaccine has not been tested for carcinogenicity and causation of birth defects.
This insert advises that your doctor report adverse reactions, first, to the manufacturer. Yet both the doctor and the manufacturer are biased, i.e., have an interest in protecting themselves, their reputations and assets, from the liabilities Glaxo describes in its insert. In effect, the doctor is motivated to send you home with more hazardous and diversionary placations and treatments.
Insert Page 6
Glaxo writes that Flulaval may cause serious diseases:
Flu vaccines continue to have toxic mercury (“Thimerosal”) in them as a “preservative”.
The damage from Flulaval comes from included poisons such as 50ppm mercury, at 25,000x the concentration allowed in water by the EPA. Ref: Natural News Laboratory.
Flulaval is an hazard because it is injected. Its hazards are unlikely due to “virus contamination”. Normally, mercury contamination of drinking water can only poison the body by passing through protective intestinal membranes. However, injected vaccines bypass the membranes, placing mercury directly into the blood stream. This circumvents a primary immune system function, i.e., this membrane filtering.
The insert states: “Thimerosal, a mercury derivative, is added as a preservative… Antibiotics are not used in the manufacture of this vaccine.”
However, a preservative is an antibiotic in the sense that they both are designed to kill microbial life. The difference in the names is their intended use. Both are antimicrobials. Under either name, these poisons can have potential unintended consequences to hormonal systems, immune systems, DNA, and cell structures. The insert warns of these unintended consequences. The prevailing law protects vaccine manufacturers against litigation over these unintended consequences.
Doctors and medical scientists usually avoid the the possibility of toxicological causation, likely because of their conflict of interest with the polluting industries and the profit gained from pollution disease.
Therefore, the entire flu paradigm (initial construction of virus causation paradigm and related clinical diagnostics) is arguably yet obviously corrupt. It is a distraction, a means to avoid environmental causation, such as, stove, boiler, vehicle exhaust, industrial toxic earth plumes and construction solvents, all of which can readily cause “flu-like” symptoms.
Just ask your doctor.
Note: As of 6/2018, the original Glaxo document is gone from the web. Now published is an “insert” for “Flulaval Quadravalent”. The phrase “no controlled trials” is not in this new document, though no controlled trials exist that prove efficacy in a human population or even a mouse population, in terms of a decrease in influenza incidence without excessive long-term negative consequences.
See Lori Jacob’s humorous commentary on Flulaval (“Flu-Love-All”).
Thanks to Tedd Koren (chiropractor/author) for his article on this topic.
Legal Disclaimer: This is a view intended for discussion. It is not medical advice.
For medical advice see a doctor without delay.
All Rights Reserved, 2011