Richard Gale, Progressive Radio Network

October 5, 2010

Researchers at the University of Utah Medical School have published a retrospective study in the most recent issue of the Annals of Neurology that attempt to prove that infection by the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus leads to a higher risk of neurological complications than other seasonal flues.  The study compared rates of neurological complications between people 19 years and younger who contracted H1N1 in 2009 with a control group of patients hospitalized between 2004 and 2008. One of the cofounding caveats in the study was that all flu-infected patients had a prior neurological condition. In short, the study supports the position that people should therefore receive flu vaccination to protect themselves.

There are some serious problems and uncertainties in the study that makes its conclusions invalid.

The paper’s head researcher, Dr. Joshua Bonkowsky graciously returned my phone call to discuss some of the particulars I found questionable. The most important question was whether or not any of the H1N1 positive patients vaccinated with the swine flu vaccine.

This is a critical issue because the list of neurological disorders cited in the paper due to wild swine flu infection—seizures, epilepticus, encephalopathy and encephalitis, myositis, mylagia, neuropathology, Gullain Barre Syndrome and others—are the very same that are found in the scientific literature as adverse effects following administration of flu vaccines. For example, last August, Australian health authorities banned flu vaccination because of the high rate of seizures observed following the flu shot

After hesitating in his response, Dr. Bonkowsky acknowledged that some of the study’s subjects had indeed been vaccinated. But he tried to convince me their number was small, although he was not sure how small.  “Perhaps 80 to 90 percent,” he told me. The study itself is marred by enrolling a very small study group: only 18 H1N1 positive patients confirmed by PCR screening to determine the exact flu strain.

First, one would expect the head researcher to know the exact number of vaccinated subjects enrolled in the study. Second, a 20 percent vaccination rate, if accurate, for such a tiny study group is statistically significant and therefore it is impossible to determine whether neurological complications were due to a flu infection, the viral component in the vaccine, or any one of the chemicals classified as neurotoxins and endocrine destroyers by the EPA that are found in the vaccine.

To the authors’ credit, the report states, “The absence of proven treatments for influenza-related neurological complications underlines the importance of vaccination, although neurological complications can result from vaccination as well.”

Our conclusions are that both wild flu virus infection and flu vaccines pose a significant neurological risk. There is a single urgent question parents need to ask themselves before stepping on the vaccine roulette wheel: If both infection by a wild virus and influenza vaccination places your child at risk for neurological complications, is it better to protect and strengthen  your child’s immune system with proven natural remedies to lessen the likelihood of infection or submit to the known uncertainties of a flu shot that immediately infects your child with a flu virus or a genetic component thereof. There is a growing body of scientific literature now showing that natural immune builders to ward off colds and flues are more effective than vaccination, including Vitamin D, Zinc, and the medicinal plant astragalus.

It seems clear that deciding to avoid flu vaccination at any cost and protecting your child with nutrients is a no brainer.

Uncategorized