FLULAVAL Vaccine 'Package Insert' Warning
Admitted: Not Demonstrated to Decrease Influenza,
Highly Poisonous, Associated with Serious Diseases
by Jim West
The Glaxo vaccine "package insert" is Glaxo's disclaimer (see images below). 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 show the package insert, and perhaps are also unaware of the insert text.
Competent doctors and journalists should read the insert, as it clearly admits that Flulaval doesn't function as advertised, to decrease influenza. Their 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 assume it means to decrease the chance of acquiring flu in the individual or to decrease the incidence of flu in the population.
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.
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. Just this last year, November 2011, 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 (Merck, etc) 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, there are the goody and smarty gambits. Vaccines are sold to people that need to exercise their sense of community and care and status, so they can feel good and smart.
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
Glaxo writes, "[No] 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.
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
Glaxo writes that Flulaval may cause serious diseases:
The damage from Flulaval is from 51ppm mercury, 25,000x the concentration allowed in water by the EPA. Flulaval is an extraordinary poison hazard because it is injected. Its hazards are unlikely due to "virus contamination". See metrics from NaturalNews laboratory.
See Lori Jacob's eloquent and humorous commentary, essential reading on Flulaval ("Flu-Love-All").
Generally, the entire flu paradigm (initial construction of, and clinical diagnostics) seems corrupt, as it appears to be a means to avoid environmental toxicology, such as, stove and boiler exhaust, vehicle exhaust, poisoned earth, building construction, painting, etc.
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 present it for public discussion. This topic has been around since at least 2009.
All Rights Reserved, 2011