Health
Thinking of taking a flu shot? Read this first…
From the World Council For Health
It’s not just that they’re ineffective, they also cause harm. Learn about safe alternatives such as Vitamin D, quercetin and zinc.
If you’re of a certain age or demographic and in the northern hemisphere, chances are you’re being invited or encouraged to get a flu vaccine. The claim is that flu vaccines protect you and others from coming down with flu – and that if you do get it, the symptoms will be mild. So, is this true?
Many scientists see the flu shot as an unnecessary measure. For one thing, there’s a big question over whether the flu vaccine even works, particularly for older people, for whom it is recommended. Studies show that the vaccines often do not match the circulating viruses and no significant effects on serious complications or hospitalizations have been demonstrated.
You’d think that vaccinating people against flu would lead to a reduction in deaths from flu. But figures show that this isn’t the case. In fact, even though the number of flu shots given has increased more than eightfold, the number of flu-associated deaths has remained more or less unchanged.
There’s a logical explanation, and it goes like this:
Antibodies are not enough
Flu vaccines, like any other vaccine, primarily rely on the so-called Th2 antibody response. This generates antibodies to help the body fight off the influenza virus once it enters the bloodstream. What vaccines don’t do is impact the first line of defence in the nasal mucosa. This part of the innate immune system does not use antibodies, and it is here where respiratory viruses replicate.
This is why vaccines for respiratory viruses will never prevent infection or the transmission of the disease.
The immune response to vaccinations also decreases with age, which further reduces the already weak effect of vaccination in older people. Studies bear this out. In particular, a 2012 article in the British Medical Journal quoted an independent study that looked at data from 1967 to 2012 and concluded there isn’t strong evidence showing that the flu vaccine consistently protects people. While it does offer some protection for young, healthy adults who usually don’t face serious flu complications, the researchers noted that there is not enough evidence to support its effectiveness for older adults (65 and older), who account for more than 90% of flu-related deaths.
Recent research into the efficacy of flu shots also reveals their limitations
- In 2020, Anderson et al. showed that influenza vaccination of 60 to 70 year olds in England and Wales had no discernible positive impact on hospitalization or deaths:
- Another study in Japan reported on 83,146 individuals aged 65 years and followed them up over six years. In 2023, the incidence of hospitalization for influenza did not differ significantly by vaccination and the claimed protective effectiveness against incidence waned quickly after four or five months.
- Another 2020 study from Anderson and team analysed data covering 170 million episodes of care and 7.6 million deaths. Turning 65 was associated with a statistically and clinically significant increase in rate of seasonal influenza vaccination. However, no evidence indicated that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or mortality among elderly persons. The study points out that estimates were precise enough to rule out results from many previous studies.
This is not just a concern for the elderly but for all those with weakened immune systems, including those undergoing immunosuppressive treatments, or individuals with chronic health conditions. In such cases, the Th2 response may not produce enough protective antibodies to effectively combat the virus, leading to a higher risk of severe illness.
Here’s another reason to exercise caution of the flu vaccine:
Flu vaccines actually SPREAD the virus
Controlled studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) find that people who receive flu shots emit 630% more flu virus particles into the air compared to non-vaccinated people. In other words, flu vaccines spread the flu!
Physicians for Informed Consent has produced this concise summary of facts that you, your loved ones and your doctor should consider before a potential injection.
 |
All this leads to an important next question:
If the flu shot isn’t a good idea, what is?
The flu shots’ limitations make the prevention and treatment of flu with nutritional supplements like Vitamin D, Quercetin, and Zinc more appealing and safe. These supplements not only enhance the immune response but also offer additional antiviral and anti-inflammatory benefits:
Vitamin D protects the lungs and airways – and much more besides
Studies have shown that Vitamin D supplementation can significantly reduce the risk of influenza infections by enhancing the body’s immune response. It works by modulating the expression of inflammatory cytokines and increasing macrophage function, which are essential for fighting off infections.
Moreover, Vitamin D has been found to protect the lungs and airways through the antimicrobial peptide cathelicidin, which has both antibacterial and antiviral properties. Vitamin D supplementation shows promise in reducing the risk and severity of respiratory infections, including influenza. The evidence suggests that consistent Vitamin D intake can lower the incidence of acute respiratory infections, shorten the duration of symptoms, and enhance immune response, particularly in the elderly. These benefits can translate into reduced hospitalizations and deaths due to flu, making Vitamin D a valuable component in flu prevention and management strategies.
Quercetin: a powerful antiviral and zinc’s vital wingman
Quercetin is a flavonoid found in many fruits and vegetables, known for its antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties. It has been shown to inhibit the entry and replication of viruses in lung cells, making it a potent candidate for managing respiratory infections like the flu. Quercetin also acts as a zinc ionophore, facilitating the transport of zinc into cells, which enhances its antiviral effects. Studies suggest that the co-administration of Quercetin and Vitamin C can exert a synergistic antiviral action, further boosting immune response and reducing viral replication
Zinc: helps prevent and reduce infection severity and duration
Zinc is an essential mineral that supports various cellular functions of both the innate and adaptive immune systems. It interferes with the process that certain cold viruses use to multiply, thereby reducing the severity and duration of infections. Zinc is particularly important for the recruitment and activity of neutrophil granulocytes, natural killer cells, and T cells, all of which play critical roles in the immune response. Supplementation with zinc has been supported by evidence showing its effectiveness in preventing viral infections and reducing their severity.
In summary…
The questionable efficiency and safety of the flu vaccine raises important concerns that cannot be overlooked. Alternative approaches such as supplementing vitamin D, quercetin and zinc, are one way to enhance immunity without the risks associated with traditional vaccinations.
Moreover, the potential for the production of IgG4 antibodies as a response to the vaccine illustrates a complex interaction between immunization and immune system dynamics, where the very act of repeated vaccination may inadvertently lead to a weakened response against certain influenza strains. This effect can also result in the weakening of the immune system in general to fight infections and cancer. This highlights the need for continued research and dialogue about the benefits and risks of flu vaccination versus alternative preventive strategies.
As we navigate through flu seasons, it is crucial to remain informed and consider individualized approaches to immune health. Ultimately, a well-rounded strategy that includes lifestyle choices, nutritional support, and an understanding of the science behind flu immunization could empower individuals to make informed decisions that best suit their health needs. The World Council for Health stands for a better way.
Please subscribe to World Council for Health.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
References:
1. Berndt, Christina: ‘Experten mit den falschen Freunden’, http://www.sueddeutsche.de/
2. http://influenza.rki.de/
3. http://www.gpk.de/
4. Committee concerning Influenza Pandemic (H1N1), 2009, http://www.who.int/ihr/emerg_
5. Di Pietrantonj, C.; Rivetti, A.; Bawazeer, G.A.; Al-Ansary, L.A.; Ferroni, E.: ‘Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults’, in: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2010, 7., Art. No.: CD001269, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001269.
6. Wittig, Frank. Die weiße Mafia: Wie Ärzte und die Pharmaindustrie unsere Gesundheit aufs Spiel setzen, 2012Yan J, Grantham M, Pantelic J, Bueno de Mesquita PJ, Albert B, Liu F, Ehrman S, Milton DK; EMIT Consortium. Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jan 30;115(5):1081-1086. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1716561115. Epub 2018 Jan 18. PMID: 29348203; PMCID: PMC5798362.
The World Council for Health (WCH) is a grassroots, people-powered, non-profit initiative based in Bath, United Kingdom that seeks to broaden public health knowledge and sense-making through science and shared wisdom.
WCH was founded by Dr Jennifer Hibberd, a pediatric dental surgeon, and Dr Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor and former consultant to the World Health Organization, in September 2021 in response to growing distrust in local, national, and global public health authorities leaving people in fear and confused regarding how to best care for themselves, their families, and their communities.
The World Council for Health has more than 200 Coalition Partners in over 50 countries around the world and is currently in the process of decentralization, having activated more than 25 WCH Country Councils.
By Alexandra Keeler
Canada has spent more than $100 million on safer supply programs, but has failed to research their long-term effects
Canada lacks long-term data on safer supply programs, despite funding these programs for years.
Safer supply programs dispense pharmaceutical opioids as a replacement for toxic street drugs.
There is a growing body of research on safer supply’s short-term health effects. But there are no Canadian studies that evaluate program participants’ health impacts beyond 18 months.
The absence of research into long-term data on safer supply means policymakers do not understand how safer supply affects participants’ health, substance use or social outcomes over time.
“Long-term data is important because it helps us understand not just short-term health outcomes like reduced overdoses, but also broader impacts on quality of life, stability and health care use,” said Farihah Ali, scientific lead at the Institute for Mental Health Policy Research at CAMH. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is one of Canada’s leading centres for addiction research and clinical care.
Pilot projects
Canada’s first safer supply programs were introduced in Ontario in 2016. Those programs were initially small in scope, intended for a small group of high-risk individuals.
In 2020, the federal government began funding safer supply pilot programs across the country. Provinces are responsible for the delivery and regulation of these programs.
B.C. introduced provincewide programs in 2021. Other provinces, such as Alberta, have restricted safer supply access to a very small number of clinics, and have generally shifted away from harm reduction models in favour of recovery-oriented approaches.
According to the Canadian Public Health Association, an advocacy organization, the original goal for safer supply was to reduce deaths and harms associated with the unregulated toxic drug supply. It was not meant to replace addiction treatment, but to rather act as a bridge to further care.
However, a 2023 report by researchers at McMaster University and Simon Fraser University noted safer supply “does not principally operate toward goals of treatment or recovery.” The report describes safer supply instead as an emergency intervention focused on stabilization and survival.
Evidence gaps
There is a small but growing body of short-term studies on the health effects of Canada’s safer supply programs. Most only track participants’ outcomes for up to 12 months.
Some of those studies suggest safer supply may reduce the immediate harms associated with drug use.
A 2024 study found a 91 per cent reduction in the risk of death among high-risk individuals receiving safer supply in B.C. Critics have raised concerns about the study’s methodology, sample size and confounding variables.
In contrast, a March study suggested B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization policies may be associated with increased hospitalizations. These findings also sparked controversy, with experts debating how well the data isolate causal impacts.
And a comparative study released in April also showed some positive outcomes from safer supply. It too sparked significant expert debate.
‘Arms-length’
Of all the provinces, B.C. has implemented safer supply most broadly. The province’s health ministry did not directly respond when asked about the long-term goals of its safer supply program, or whether B.C. collects longitudinal data on program participants’ health outcomes.
“Evidence shows [safer supply] helps separate people from the unregulated drug supply, manage their substance use and withdrawal symptoms with regulated medications, and helps connect them to voluntary health and social supports,” a Ministry of Health spokesperson told Canadian Affairs in an email.
The ministry did not provide the evidence it referenced.
At the federal level, Health Canada confirmed that, to date, it has funded just two evaluations of safer supply programs, despite spending more than $100 million on safer supply since April 2023.
The first was a short-term study, funded by the federal government’s Substance Use and Addictions Program program. Conducted over four months, that study assessed 10 safer supply programs in Ontario, B.C., and New Brunswick. It documented initial impacts on participants’ lives and program delivery, primarily through qualitative methods such as interviews and surveys.
The second study is an ongoing, “arms-length evaluation” of 11 safer supply pilot programs funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canada’s federal health research agency.
When asked about long-term research on safer supply, Health Canada referred Canadian Affairs to a 2022 funding announcement about this multi-year evaluation. While the evaluation is being conducted over several years, it is unclear if it includes long-term tracking of patients’ outcomes.
Barriers and resistance
There are a number of factors that make it challenging to evaluate safer supply programs over long periods.
Ali, of CAMH, says unstable, short-term funding can disrupt long-term research.
“When programs are shut down or scaled back, we lose contact with participants and the ability to track outcomes over time,” she said.
Program participants can also be difficult to track over long periods, she says. Many struggle with housing insecurity, health instability and criminalization.
Frontline staff also face burnout and high turnover, she says, limiting support for such research activities.
Additionally, there are tradeoffs between the anonymity needed to encourage patients to access safer supply programs and the ability to collect detailed data.
“Ethical concerns — like not wanting to burden participants or risk their safety or confidentiality — require us to design studies that are trauma-informed and flexible, which adds complexity to long-term data collection,” Ali said.
Julian Somers, a clinical psychologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, says B.C.’s failure to conduct long-term evaluations of its safer supply programs is not just an oversight, but an act of negligence.
“B.C. has some of the best pharmaceutical data systems in the world,” Somers said, referring to PharmaCare and PharmaNet — databases that capture every prescription drug transaction in the province.
Somers says his team previously used PharmaNet data to examine prescribed opioids’ effects on health and social outcomes. In 2017, he proposed a long-term safer supply evaluation using these tools.
In 2017, he proposed a long-term evaluation of B.C.’s safer supply programs.
The province declined.
According to Ali, “Future research should explore how safer supply impacts people’s long-term health, stability and connection to care.”
“We also need to listen to people’s experiences, how safer supply affects their daily lives, their sense of dignity, and their relationships with care providers through qualitative mechanisms.”
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Photo by Acceptable at English Wikipedia, ‘Two 1 mg pills of Hydromorphone, prescribed to me after surgery.’ [Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
By Alexandra Keeler
B.C. released new witnessed dosing guidelines for safer supply opioids. Experts say they are vague, loose and toothless
This February, B.C pledged to reintroduce witnessed dosing to its controversial safer supply program.
Safer supply programs provide prescription opioids to people who use drugs. Witnessed dosing requires patients to consume those prescribed opioids under the supervision of a health-care professional, rather than taking their drugs offsite.
The province said it was reintroducing witnessed dosing to “prevent the diversion of prescribed opioids and hold bad actors accountable.”
But experts are saying the government’s interim guidelines, released April 29, are fundamentally flawed.
“These guidelines — just as any guidelines for safer supply — do not align with addiction medicine best practices, period,” said Dr. Leonara Regenstreif, a primary care physician specializing in substance use disorders. Regenstreif is a founding member of Addiction Medicine Canada, an advocacy group that represents 23 addiction specialists.
Addiction physician Dr. Michael Lester, who is also a founding member of the group, goes further.
“Tweaking a treatment protocol that should not have been implemented in the first place without prior adequate study is not much of an advancement,” he said.
Witnessed dosing
Initially, B.C.’s safer supply program was generally administered through witnessed dosing. But in 2020, to facilitate access amidst pandemic restrictions, the province moved to “take-home dosing,” allowing patients to take their prescription opioids offsite.
After pandemic restrictions were lifted, the province did not initially return to witnessed dosing. Rather, it did so only recently, after a bombshell government report alleged more than 60 B.C. pharmacies were boosting sales by encouraging patients to fill unnecessary opioid prescriptions. This incentivized patients to sell their medications on the black market.
B.C.’s interim guidelines, developed by the BC Centre on Substance Use at the government’s request, now require all new safer supply patients to begin with witnessed dosing.
But for existing patients, the guidelines say prescribers have discretion to determine whether to require witnessed dosing. The guidelines define an existing patient as someone who was dispensed prescription opioids within the past 30 days.
The guidelines say exemptions to witnessed dosing are permitted under “extraordinary circumstances,” where witnessed dosing could destabilize the patient or where a prescriber uses “best clinical judgment” and determines diversion risk is “very low.”
Holes
Clinicians say the guidelines are deliberately vague.
Regenstreif described them as “wordy, deliberately confusing.” They enable prescribers to carry on as before, she says.
Lester agrees. Prescribers would be in compliance with these guidelines even if “none of their patients are transferred to witnessed dosing,” he said.
In his view, the guidelines will fail to meet their goal of curbing diversion.
And without witnessed dosing, diversion is nearly impossible to detect. “A patient can take one dose a day and sell seven — and this would be impossible to detect through urine testing,” Lester said.
He also says the guidelines do not remove the incentive for patients to sell their drugs to others. He cites estimates from Addiction Medicine Canada that clients can earn up to $20,000 annually by selling part of their prescribed supply.
“[Prescribed safer supply] can function as a form of basic income — except that the community is being flooded with addictive and dangerous opioids,” Lester said.
Regenstreif warns that patients who had been diverting may now receive unnecessarily high doses. “Now you’re going to give people a high dose of opioids who don’t take opioids,” she said.
She also says the guidelines leave out important details on adjusting doses for patients who do shift from take-home to witnessed dosing.
“If a doctor followed [the guidelines] to the word, and the patient followed it to the word, the patient would go into withdrawal,” she said.
The guidelines assume patients will swallow their pills under supervision, but many crush and inject them instead, Regenstreif says. Because swallowing is less potent, a higher dose may be needed.
“None of that is accounted for in this document,” she said.
Survival strategy
Some harm reduction advocates oppose a return to witnessed dosing, saying it will deter people from accessing a regulated drug supply.
Some also view diversion as a life-saving practice.
Diversion is “a harm reduction practice rooted in mutual aid,” says a 2022 document developed by the National Safer Supply Community of Practice, a group of clinicians and harm reduction advocates.
The group supports take-home dosing as part of a broader strategy to improve access to safer supply medications. In their document, they say barriers to accessing safer supply programs necessitate diversion among people who use drugs — and that the benefits of diversion outweigh the risks.
However, the risks — and harms — of diversion are mounting.
People can quickly develop a tolerance to “safer” opioids and then transition to more dangerous substances. Some B.C. teenagers have said the prescription opioid Dilaudid was a stepping stone to them using fentanyl. In some cases, diversion of these drugs has led to fatal overdoses.
More recently, a Nanaimo man was sentenced to prison for running a highly organized drug operation that trafficked diverted safer supply opioids. He exchanged fentanyl and other illicit drugs for prescription pills obtained from participants in B.C.’s safer supply program.
Recovery
Lester, of Addiction Medicine Canada, believes clinical discretion has gone too far. He says take-home dosing should be eliminated.
“Best practices in addiction medicine assume physicians prescribing is based on sound and thorough research, and ensuring that their prescribing does not cause harm to the broader community, as well as the patient,” he said.
“[Safer supply] for opioids fails in both these regards.”
He also says safer supply should only be offered as a short-term bridge to patients being started on proven treatments like buprenorphine or methadone, which help reduce drug cravings and manage withdrawal symptoms.
B.C.’s witnessed dosing guidelines say prescribers can discuss such treatment options with patients. However, the guidelines remain neutral on whether safer supply is intended as a transitional step toward longer-term treatment.
Regenstreif says this neutrality undermines care.
“[M]ost patients I’ve seen with opioid use disorder don’t want to have [this disorder],” she said. “They would rather be able to set goals and do other things.”
Oversight gaps
Currently, about 3,900 people in B.C. participate in the safer supply program — down from 5,200 in March 2023.
The B.C. government has not provided data on how many have been transitioned to witnessed dosing. Investigative journalist Rob Shaw recently reported that these data do not exist.
“The government … confirmed recently they don’t have any mechanism to track which ‘safe supply’ participants are witnessed and which [are] not,” said Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, who has been a vocal critic of safer supply.
“Without a public report and accountability there can be no confidence.”
The BC Centre on Substance Use, which developed the interim guidelines, says it does not oversee policy decisions or data tracking. It referred Canadian Affairs’ questions to B.C.’s Ministry of Health, which has yet to clarify whether it will track and publish transition data. The ministry did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
B.C. has also not indicated when or whether it will release final guidelines.
Regenstreif says the flawed guidelines mean many people may be misinformed, discouraged or unsupported when trying to reduce their drug use and recover.
“We’re not listening to people with lived experience of recovery,” she said.
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Subscribe to Break The Needle
Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
Canada’s euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. It’s about to get worse
Blackouts Coming If America Continues With Biden-Era Green Frenzy, Trump Admin Warns
-
National2 days agoCanada’s immigration office admits it failed to check suspected terrorists’ background
-
Energy2 days agoActivists using the courts in attempt to hijack energy policy
-
Daily Caller2 days agoWhat Happened in Butler, PA?
-
Crime1 day agoDEA Busts Canadian Narco Whose Chinese Supplier Promised to Ship 100 Kilos of Fentanyl Precursors per Month From Vancouver to Los Angeles
-
Business1 day agoCanada must address its birth tourism problem
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta ban on men in women’s sports doesn’t apply to athletes from other provinces
-
Alberta1 day agoMedian workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan
-
International1 day agoBiden autopen scandal: Did unelected aides commit fraud during his final days in office?