Flu vaccine racket  Package Inserts

FLULAVAL Vaccine 'Package Insert' Warning:
Vaccine Not Demonstrated To Decrease Influenza,
Associated With Many Serious Diseases

by Jim West  http://harpub.co.cc/sflu/glaxo-ins.htm

The Glaxo package insert appears to reveal that Glaxo fears a lawsuit that could completely ruin it and each of its board directors.  This insert, the manufacturer's "fine print", is a disclaimer that protects Glaxo from liability, if for instance, the justice system ever decides to bring justice.  The drugs are promoted by those who cannot be held liable, the non-experts, e.g., journalists, salesmen, news-entertainment media, and doctors following protocol, etc.  Yet those who do dispense vaccines to the public, keep the package insert information to themselves, to say it nicely.

The Glaxo package insert (see images below) is a description of Flulaval vaccine, inserted inside each vaccine box.  Competent doctors and journalists are supposed to read the insert, which clearly admits that Flulaval doesn't work as advertised, i.e., to decrease influenza.  Their phrase, "not adequately demonstrated to decrease influenza", gives the spin that it hasn't been adequately proved to be a success, rather than it is simply a failure.  Their use of the phrase "decrease influenza" is oddly vague.  Apparently it means to decrease the chance of acquiring flu in the individual, or it means to decrease the incidence of flu in the population. 

Can something 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.  Let's assume that buying a vaccine (that could kill or maim you) is as important as buying a car or house.

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 concealing the facts (the manufacturer's package insert) -- he sells you the lump-o-feces at the price of a car, despite the car known to be associated with serious diseases, he sells a car imposed with the blessings of society, car experts, law, and government agencies.

House Sales Parallel:  Would you buy a so-called house for your family when the sales agent tells you he is not sure the house is actually a house?  Though he does know 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. 

Most people buy vaccines for themselves and their children with no actual knowledge beyond false advertising, thinking they are protecting themselves and their community from an invisible "virus" of which they have no knowledge.  This is one more tragic human "joke".  Over 1.8 billion dollars have been paid out for vaccine damage through the VICP program, and that money only goes to those a) whose doctor is willing to rat out on himself rather than sweep it under the rug or pass the problem off to a specialist, b) who have survived the medical and judicial gauntlet, c) who know that vaccine damage is possible, and d) to those fewer, who have even heard of VICP or VAERS.  Corruption is serious among vaccine manufacturers.  Just this last year, Merck Pharmaceuticals paid 4 billion dollars to the US government to settle ongoing investigations.

Vaccines are sold by hyping a fear, that because disease epidemics are so dangerous, we should risk ourselves with hazardous vaccines via their corrupt manufacturer-distribution system.  However, the fundamentals of infectious disease paradigms are easily deflated.  For example, see critiques of the most studied viruses, poliovirus and HIV.

I downloaded Glaxo's 06/2011 edition at their website and extracted pages 1 and 6, presented below with my commentary.  I added boxes and lines to page 1.

Page 1 Of Insert

The vaccine manufacturer writes, "[No] controlled trials demonstrate a decrease in influenza".  The only evidence that this product provides immunity are laboratory studies that elicit an 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.

The insert advises the the doctor who promoted the vaccine to you, to report adverse reactions by phone to the manufacturer, who is listed first.  Though to avoid having his day ruined, your doctor is motivated to send you home with an additional supply of diversionary placations and drugs.

Despite these warnings, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a yearly flu (influenza) vaccine for all children ages 6 months through 18 years..."  Ref:  Ray L. Hoecker, M.D., Mayo Clinic

Page 6 Of Insert

Here are some of the diseases that Glaxo warns, Flulaval may cause:


See Lori Jacob's eloquent and humorous commentary, essential reading, where more scandalous dirt is dug up on Flulaval ("Flu-Love-All").

Generally, the entire flu paradigm (initial construction of, and clinical diagnostics) seems corrupt, having omitted environmental toxicology

Thanks to Gary Krasner (Coalition For Informed Choice) who forwarded a clear critique of the insert by Tedd Koren (chiropractor/author).  This is my critique version, to digest the topic and presented as a vehicle for public discussion.  This insert topic has been around since at least 2009.