After much vacillation and indecision, I just want to say what our personal decision was concerning seasonal flu vaccination and the H1N1 shot/mist.
Why have I decided to have the vaccinations? I'll present the evidence.
We had AMLOST decided to have our son take the vaccinations. I had decided not to take them myself. Then a close friend about my age (I am 67) wrote:
From my perspective, there are a few conditions involving H1N1 that others need to know:
1.) That its assault is very fast and sudden. One feels fine, then suddenly intestines, joints, muscles commence to ache. In my case, I could not lie on right, left, or any side of my body, which precluded my sleeping at all, first night of the affliction.
2.) That likely, around second day of the virus, one suddenly feels as if all symptoms are fading away. Then, within several hours of feeling fine, original symptoms of the virus surge back like an incoming tide.
Symptoms that I experienced: Temps averaging 103, often as high as 106. Mountains of blankets (5 to 10) may take an entire day to break the shivers and fever. Then, profuse sweating brings relief only from chills, but not from joint and intestinal aches and discomfort. I was unable to eat anything for four straight days. I lost eight pounds, and likely more by now. That said, as of the very moment, my appetite has returned (fifth day of the virus), and I think I may survive okay.
Worth noting is that there is no H1N1 vaccine available here not even at the Vets Facility . So, I had no choice whether to obtain a vaccine. Had I a choice, I easily would have obtained the vaccine long ago. Frankly, I cannot comprehend why anyone would refuse taking H1N1 vaccine.
This made me reconsider my prior opinions. I thought (from the handful of reports) that for those over age 60, from the 1918 and WWII outbreaks, anyone in this age group should be immune. Not so, the writer above is older than I am and was surprised that he became ill.
I made a call to someone, an immunologist, and I trust his opinion and judgment. He feels that the CDC can indeed be trusted completely to post correct and scientific information. But first, some general remarks, then to the specifics:
The 1918 outbreak's 1st wave did not produce the high mortality rates that were seen in the 2nd and 3rd waves. Currently, the East coast may have now sustained the Fall 1st wave, but Winter and Spring waves are coming. He feels the H1N1 is truly a pandemic. As per my previous blogs, and as you know, the H1N1 has been hitting the younger age group the hardest. The FluMist live intranasal vaccine can be given to children and adults up to age 49. Beyond that, the mist has not been effective, at least, this is my understanding. However, the dead-virus shots can be offered. In a child under age 9, the H1N1 mist (or shot) must be given the vaccination twice, the second given 4 to 6 weeks later.
I guess it was this second direct "tug" hearing the agony of a close friend, then speaking with a physician who is well informed, were two things that caused me to finalize my choice.
So, there you have it. As I have mentioned before, in addition to a fine edge of very rare side-effects of flu vaccinations, there are two sides of this H1N1 coin.
From the Mercola.com web site, the opinions of Dr. Mercola and Dr. Blaylock are diagrammatically opposite those of the CDC. Were you study only one side of the issue, your decision would be clear. Study the other side only, and your decision would be clear.
But what do you do when you have looked at both sides?
Ah, that makes it tough, but like in court, the evidence is presented and as so eloquently stated in A Murder of Crows, the jury votes on which side has the better lawyer.
I can only presents both sides for you and you will have to decide which evidence is for you, "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt."
What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it." G.W.F. Hegel
I have been following the evolving "pandemic" of H1N1 influenza beginning with the original discovery of the infection in Mexico in March of this year. In the course of this study I have tried to utilize as my sources high-quality, peer-reviewed journals, data from the CDC and accepted textbooks of virology.
As with all such studies one has to integrate and correlate previous experiences with epidemics and pandemics. As you will see, a great deal of my material comes from official sources, such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the New England Journal of Medicine. Thus my distracters cannot claim that I am using material that is not within the mainstream.
Pregnant Women NOT at Special Risk from Swine Flu
In the beginning, even before it was declared a level 6 pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), a group of "scientists" were sounding the alarm that this might indeed be the terrifying, deadly pandemic they had been expecting for over half a century.
Naturally, the vaccine manufacturers were doing all they could to fuel this fear and they were quietly making deals with WHO to be among the companies selected to manufacture the "pandemic" vaccine for the world. Being anointed by WHO would guarantee tens of billions in profits.
As the infection began to spread into the United States and then the rest of the world, its peculiar nature became obvious. Those born before 1950 seem to have a high degree of resistance to the infection and the disease seems slightly more pathogenic (disease causing) among those aged 25 to 49. Early on the official sources declared that pregnant women were at a special risk as compared to the seasonal flu.1 As we shall see later, this was a grand lie.
Initial Studies Show H1N1 NOT Dangerous or Highly Contagious
Once the pandemic had been declared, virologists tested the potency of this virus using a conventional method, that is, infecting ferrets with the virus.2 What they found was that the H1N1 virus was no more pathogenic than the ordinary seasonal flu, even though it did penetrate slightly deeper into the lungs. It in no way matched the pathogenecity of the 1917-1918 H1N1 virus. It also did not infect other tissues, and especially important, it did not infect the brain.
Next, they wanted to test the ability of the virus to spread among the population. The results of their tests were conflicting, but the best evidence indicated that the virus did not spread to others very well. In fact, an unpublished study by the CDC found that when one member of a family contracted the H1N1 virus, other members of the family were infected only 10% of the time -- a very low communicability.
This was later confirmed in a study of the experience of New York State, in which only 6.9% of the population contracted the virus, far below the 50% predicted by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.3 It is instructive to note that during the 1917-18 Swine flu epidemic the world infection rate was only 20%.4
They also predicted that 1.8 million people would need hospitalization and 300,000 would end up in the intensive care units (ICU). Further, they predicted that hospitals would be overwhelmed and that ICU units would not have enough beds to care for the sick and dying. Incredibly, they predicted that 90,000 people would die.
Much Fear Mongering
Not satisfied, they up the ante on fear mongering by peddling the idea that pregnant women were especially in danger as were small children. We were told daily that young, healthy people were dying, not just those with underlying medical conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other immune suppressive diseases. The Minister of Fear (the CDC) was working overtime peddling doom and gloom, knowing that frightened people do not make rational decisions -- nothing sells vaccines like panic.
These same dire predictions were extended to Australia and New Zealand, which began to show an increase in their reported cases of H1N1 and associated hospitalizations as they entered their fall and winter. Recently, two major articles were released in the New England Journal of Medicine, which analyzed the American hospitalization experience5 and the Australian/New Zealand ICU experience6. I will analyze these very interesting studies.
There is a dramatic disconnect between what the science is discovering about this flu virus and what is being broadcast over the media outlets. As you will see, this is a very mild flu virus infection for 99.9% of the population.
Australian and New Zealand Experience Prove U.S. is Wrong
As I stated, the countries in the southern hemisphere have already gone through their fall and winter, that is the seasons of peak flu infections. Epidemiologists and virologists have been surprised at how mild this flu pandemic has been in the Southern Hemisphere, with relatively few deaths and few hospitalizations in most areas.
The study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine on October 8, 2009, called the AZIC study, analyzed all ICU admissions in New Zealand and Australia, looking at a number of factors.6 Here is what they found.
ICU Hospitalizations
Out of a population of 25 million people, 722 were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with a confirmed diagnosis of H1N1 influenza. Overall, 856 people were admitted with a flu virus, but 11.3% were a type A flu that was not subtyped and 4.3% were seasonal flu.
They also analyzed the number of people admitted with viral pneumonia and found the following:
Number of People Admitted to the Hospital each Year with Viral Pneumonia5
• 57 people in 2005
• 33 people in 2006
• 69 people in 2007
• 69 people in 2008
• 37 people in 2009
So we see that in 2009 they had 32 fewer people admitted with actual viral pneumonia. The CDC and other public health agents of fear like to imply that mass numbers of people are dying from "flu", that is, actual influenza viral pneumonia, when in fact, most are dying from other complications secondary to underlying health problems -- either diagnosed or undiagnosed.
They also found that the average person's risk of ending up in the ICU was one in 35,714 or about three thousandths of one percent (0.00285%), an incredibly low risk. When they looked at actual admission to the ICU, they found that it was people aged 25 to 49 who made up the largest number admitted. Infants from birth to age 1 year had the higher admission per population, and had a high mortality rate.
Majority of Children Respond POORLY to Flu Vaccine
It is interesting to note that babies this age respond poorly to either the seasonal flu vaccine or the H1N1 vaccine. One of the largest studies ever done, found that children below the age of 2 years received no protection at all from the seasonal flu vaccine.7
The recently completed study on the effectiveness of the new H1N1 vaccine reported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease found that 75% of small children below age 35 months received no protection from the H1N1 vaccine and that 65% of children between the ages of 3 years and 9 years received no protection from the vaccine.
Flu Vaccine DOUBLES Risk of Getting H1N1
It is also important to view this in the face of the new unpublished Canadian study of 12 million people that found getting the seasonal flu vaccine, as recommended by the CDC and NIH, doubles one's risk of developing the H1N1 infection. It would also make the infection much more serious. So much for expert advice from the government.
Obese at Six Times Higher Risk from H1N1 Complications
As stated, most authorities agree that the H1N1 variant virus is quite mild as far as flu viruses go. The vast majority of people (99.99%) are having very brief and mild illnesses from this virus.
Keep in mind that when I am discussing numbers and risk, this does not intend to understate the devastation experienced by the people who are experiencing serious illness or even death.
Any death is a tragedy.
What we are discussing here is -- is the risk from this virus significant enough to justify draconian measures by the government and medical community? Should we implement mass vaccinations with a vaccine that is essentially an experimental vaccine, poorly tested and of questionable benefit?
The study also looked at the health risk of the people admitted to the ICU, but unfortunately did not look at the underlying health problems of those who died. We get a hint, since the American study did note that it was those over age 65 who were most likely to die, and that 100% of these individual had underlying health problems before they were infected.
One of the real surprises from this study, and the American study, was that one of the more powerful risk factors for being admitted to the ICU and of dying was obesity. Obese people are admitted 6x more often than those of normal weight. As we shall see, obesity played a significant role in the risk to children and pregnant women as well, something that has never been discussed by the media, the CDC or the public health officials.
This study found that 32.7% of those admitted to the ICU had asthma or other chronic pulmonary disease, far higher than the general population. The Australian and New Zealand study also had a large number of aboriginal patients and those from the Torres Strait. It is known that nutrient deficiencies are common in both populations, which means an impaired immune system.
Obesity is associated with a high incidence of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, both of which would increase one's risk of having a serious infection, even to viruses that are mildly pathogenic. (mild viruses).
H1N1 Vaccine is NOT Made the Same as Regular Flu Vaccine!!
I am really upset at the insistence by the CDC, medical doctors and the media that all pregnant women should be vaccinated by this experimental vaccine. The media repeats the manufacturers' mantra that this vaccine is produced exactly like the seasonal flu, when in fact it is not. Yes, they use chicken eggs, but the rest has been fast tracked and many shortcuts on safety procedures have been allowed.
There are 250,000 pregnant women in Australia and New Zealand combined. Only 66 pregnant women were admitted to the ICU, an incidence of 1 pregnant woman per 3,800 pregnant women or a risk of .03%.6 Put another way, a pregnant woman in these two countries can feel comfortable to know that there is a 99.97% chance that she will not get sick enough to end up in the ICU.
Pregnant Women NOT at Increased Risk, Obese Women Are!!
So, why did even 66 pregnant women end up in the ICU? As we shall see in the American study5, a significant number of these pregnant women were either obese or morbidly obese and most had underlying medical problems. The Australian/New Zealand study6 found that one of the major risk factors for pregnant women was indeed being obese and that obesity was associated with a high risk of underlying medical disorders.
They also found that death from H1N1 infection correlated best with increasing age, contrary to what the media says. They concluded the study with the following statement:
" The proportion of patients who died in the hospital in our study is no higher than that previously reported among patients with seasonal influenza A who were admitted to the ICU." 6
In fact, they report that of those infected with the H1N1 variant virus who were sick enough to be admitted to the ICU, 84.5 % went home and 14.3% died and that of those admitted with seasonal flu 72.9% were discharged and 16.2% died. That is, more died from the seasonal flu.
Recent NEJM Study of the American Experience
In the same Oct, 8th issue of the New England Journal of Medicine they reported on the American experience with the H1N1 variant virus.5 The study looked at data from 24 states with widespread influenza infection from April through June 2009. Remember, unlike most flu epidemics in the United States, this epidemic began early and by the end of September it was beginning to peak, with late October being the date it may begin to decline.
The study examined 13,217 cases of infection involving 1082 people who were hospitalized. Here is what they found:
Underlying Medical Conditions
Of the total hospitalized patients:
• 60% of children had underlying medical conditions
• 83% of adults had underlying medical conditions
They also found that 32% of patients had at least 2 medical conditions that would put them at risk. We are constantly told that it is the young adult aged 25 to 49 who is at the greatest risk. Note that 83% of these people had underlying medical conditions. This means that in truth only 292 "healthy" people out of 1082 in 24 states were sick enough to enter the hospital -- that is 292 healthy people out of tens of millions of people, not much of a risk if you do not have an underlying chronic medical problem.
Underlying Medical Conditions Risk Factor for H1N1 Deaths
When they looked at people over age 65 years of age, that is, the folks who are most likely to die in the hospital, 100% had underlying medical conditions -- all of them. So, there was not one healthy person over age 65 who has died out of 24 states combined.
What about the children, a special target of the fear mongering media and government agencies? This study found that 60% had underlying medical conditions and that 30% were either obese or morbidly obese.
A previous CDC study states that 2/3 of children who died had neurological disorders or respiratory diseases such as asthma.3 If we take the 60% figure, that means out of the 84 children reported to have died by October 24th, 2009, only 34 children considered healthy in a nation of 301 million people really died, not 84. It is also instructive to note that according to CDC figures, the seasonal flu last year killed 116 children.9
Remember, that is, 34 so-called healthy children out of a nation of 40 million children. In 2003 it was reported by the CDC that 90 children died from seasonal flu complications. Ironically, as shown by Neil Z. Miller in his excellent book -- Vaccine Safety Manuel -- once the flu vaccine was given to small children the death rate from flu increased 7-fold.10 Not surprising, since the mercury in the vaccine suppresses immunity.
Pediatric Flu Deaths by Year Made WORSE by Flu Vaccine
• 1999 -- - 29 deaths
• 2000 -- - 19 deaths
• 2001 -- - 13 deaths
• 2002 -- - 12 deaths
• 2003 -- - 90 deaths (Year of mass vaccinations of children under age 5 years)
• 2006 -- 78 deaths
• 2007 -- - 88 deaths
• 2008 - 116 deaths (40.9% vaccinated at age 6 months to 23 months)11
Parents should also keep in mind that this study, as well as the Australian/New Zealand Study found that childhood obesity played a major role in a child's risk of being admitted to the ICU or dying. This is another dramatic demonstration as to the danger of obesity in children and that all parents should avoid MSG (all food-based excitotoxin additives), excess sugar and excess high glycemic carbohydrates in their children's diets. This goes for pregnant moms as well.
Every Parent Needs to Know Other Vaccines INCREASE Risk of H1N1
One major factor being left out of all discussion of these vaccines, especially those for small children and babies, is the effect of other vaccinations on presently circulating viral infections such as the H1N1 variant virus. It is known that several of the vaccines are powerfully immune suppressing. For example, the measles, mumps and rubella virus are all immune suppressing, as seen with the MMR vaccine, a live virus vaccine.12, 13
This means that when a child receives the MMR vaccine, for about two to five weeks afterwards their immune system is suppressed, making them highly susceptible to catching viruses and bacterial infections circulating through the population. Very few mothers are ever told this, even though it is well accepted in the medical literature.
In fact, it is known that the Hib vaccine for haemophilus influenzae is an immune suppressing vaccine and that vaccinated children are at a higher risk of developing haemophilus influenzae meningitis for at least one week after receiving the vaccine.10,14 These small children receive both of these vaccines.
According to the vaccine schedule recommended by the CDC and used by most states, a child will receive their MMR vaccine and Hib vaccine at one year of age and both are immune suppressing.
At age 2 to 4 months, they will receive a Hib vaccine. Therefore at age 2 to 4 months, and again at age one year, they are at an extreme risk of serious infectious complications caused by vaccine-induced immune suppression. The New Zealand/Australian study found that the highest death in the young was from birth to age 12 months, the very time they were getting these immune-suppressing vaccines.6
The so-called healthy children and babies that have ended up in the hospital and have died may in fact be the victims of immune suppression caused by their routine childhood vaccines. We may never know because the medical elite will never record such data or conduct the necessary studies. Recall also that the seasonal flu vaccine, which is recommended for all children over the age of 6 months, each year, is also immune suppressing because of the mercury-containing thimerosal in the vaccine.15
Infants under the age of 3 receive mercury-free seasonal flu vaccines, but any child over the age of 3 will receive the mercury-containing flu vaccine year after year. (Each dose of seasonal flu vaccine typically containing 25 mcg of mercury.)
If parents allow their children to be vaccinated according to the CDC recommendations, that is 2 seasonal flu vaccines and 2 swine flu vaccines as well as a pneumococcal vaccine, that will increase the number of vaccines a child will have by age 6 years to 41. This amounts to an enormous amount of aluminum and mercury as well as intense brain inflammation triggered by vaccine-induced microglial activation.16
Risk of Serious Illness from the H1N1 Mutant Virus
Their survey of 24 states found that a total of 67 patients out of tens of millions of people ended up in the ICU. That is, only 6% of the people admitted to the hospital were so sick as to need intensive treatments. Of these 67 patients, 19 died (25%) and of these 67% had obvious underlying long-term medical illnesses. This means that only 6 patients out of tens of millions of people in 24 states that were considered "healthy" before their infection, had died. Is this justification for a mass vaccination campaign?
Of the 1082 hospitalized patients, 93% were eventually discharged recovered and only 7% died, a very low death rate. Their analysis of these cases concluded that those who died fell in three categories:
• They were older patients
• Antiviral medications were started 48 hours after the onset of the illness
• There was no correlation to having had seasonal vaccines
The last item is especially interesting because they assume that having had seasonal flu vaccine would have offered some protection -- it offered none.
What they did find was that none who died had been given antiviral medications (Tamiflu or Relenza) within 48 hours of getting sick. Those given the antiviral medications within the golden 48-hour period rarely died. Relenza is far safer than Tamiflu. This was the only factor found to correlate with survival of severely ill ICU patients.
What about the Danger to Pregnant Women? The American Experience
Our media is inundating the public with scare stories of the danger this virus poses to pregnant women. Most of us visualize the pregnant woman as being healthy, young and without underlying medical diseases. The study is quite revealing, but omits some very important factors.
We are told that pregnant women are 6x more likely to end up in the hospital than the general population. This figure is derived from the fact that it was estimated that pregnant women had a 7% greater chance of requiring hospital admission than did the general public at 1% (Even this is a far higher number than their own studies indicate -- actually it is a very small fraction of 1%).
Dr. Michael Bronze, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, writing for emedicine medscape.com (WebMD), states that the risk of a pregnant women being hospitalized with the H1N1 infection is 0.32 per 100,000 pregnant women (which is 1 in 300,000 pregnant women).17 One can safely say, based on the Australian/New Zealand experience (at the peak of their flu season) and the American data somewhere in the middle of their flu season, that pregnant women have about a 99.97% chance they will not become so sick as to require hospital care at any level.
The death rate of pregnant women who were admitted to the ICU was 7.7%, a fairly low figure for infectious ICU patients. Remember, most patients admitted to the hospital are admitted for hydration and are not that ill in terms of the infection itself.
Smoking and Obesity Increase Risk of H1N!
Now, most of us assume that these pregnant women are perfectly healthy as mentioned above, but the data shows something quite different. They found that greater than 30% of the pregnant women were either obese or morbidly obese, as did the Australian/New Zealand study. Of these, 60% had underlying medical conditions that put them at greater risk of overwhelming infections -- both viral and bacterial.
It is unfortunate that they did not enter any information on smoking, either by the mother or by anyone living in the household. It is known that smoking greatly increases ones risk of severe complications from any flu virus.18,19 This is for several reasons. One, smokers eat a much poorer diet than non-smokers.
Second, smoking destroys the cilia in the bronchial passageways that are essential for clearing mucus and debris -- thus increasing the risk of developing pneumonia.20 Finally, nicotine is a very powerful immune suppressant.21 The combined effect of all three is enough to land anyone in the ICU during even a mild flu season. Likewise, chronic smokers have low magnesium levels, which increase their risk of developing bronchiospasm that is resistant to normal drug treatments.22-24
They also failed to record possible illegal drug use, how many were living at poverty levels and how many were on prescription drugs known to suppress immunity or deplete nutrients essential for immune function. And, one must keep in mind, at this age, (age range of 15 to 39 years) many would have had numerous childhood vaccines and booster vaccines.
This was also not considered for obvious reasons. So, some critical information we all need to evaluate this "pandemic" is being excluded or purposely kept from us.
Bacterial Pneumonia and Swine Flu
The American study found that of the people admitted to the hospital, 40% were found to have X-ray evidence of pneumonia. Of these, 66% had pre-existing medical conditions, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), immunosuppression for transplants or cancer or neurologic disorder.
We are not told how many were smokers or lived with smokers, again, something that puts people at great risk of having severe reactions to any infection. Smokers have much higher bacterial pneumonia rates every year. The CDC estimates that smokers have a 200% increased risk of flu virus complications as compared to nonsmokers.
The CDC released in the September 29 issue of the MMWR an analysis of the lung tissue from 77 fatal cases of H1N1 infection.25 Of these, 29% had a secondary bacterial infection -- pneumonia. This is an important study because the media and the CDC are telling adults they need to get a pneumococcal vaccine and that parents need to have their children vaccinated with the pneumococcal vaccine as well.
This adult study found that only half of the pneumonias were due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, the organism used in the vaccine. Half of the cases were due to other strains of streptococcus, staphlococcus or H. Influenza. Some 18% of the people had multiple organism cultured from their lungs.
It is important to note that they found that all of these autopsied patients had previous, serious medical problems prior to becoming infected with H1N1 variant and that not all bacteria were examined, meaning that even those with Strep pneumoniae could have had multiple infections, for which the vaccines would have offered no protection.
Parents should also know that the vast majority of pneumonias found in these infected children were not due to Strep pneumoniae, but rather Staph aureus. Again, the pneumococcal vaccine would have offered these children no protection.
Pregnant Women Given Vaccine Have Babies with More Health Problems
It has always been a principle of medicine that one should not vaccinate pregnant women, except in extreme cases, because the risk to the baby is too high. Recently, we have seen two examples of violation of this policy. When the HPV vaccine Gardasil was first released the CDC and the manufacturer (Merck Pharmaceutical Company) recommended that it be given to pregnant women.
Shortly after beginning this dangerous practice it was ordered halted because a number of women were losing their babies and babies were being born with major malformations.26
It is known that stimulating a woman's immune system during midterm and later term pregnancy significantly increases the risk that her baby will develop autism during childhood and schizophrenia sometime during the teenage years and afterward.27
Compelling scientific evidence also shows an increased risk of seizures in the baby and later as an adult.28 In fact, a number of neurodevelopmental and behavioral problems can occur in babies born to women immunologically stimulated during pregnancy.29-32
It is true that serious flu infections or E. coli infections during pregnancy are a major risk for all these complications, but a woman's risk of becoming infected, as we have seen, is a very small fraction of 1 %, yet they are calling for all pregnant women to be vaccinated with at least three vaccines, two of which contain mercury. There is also evidence to show that a large number of these women will gain no protection from the vaccine.
Dr. Bronze, quoted above, notes that animal studies have shown that vaccines harm unborn babies and that no safety studies have been done in humans. A recent study done by Dr. Laura Hewitson, a professor of obstetrics at the University of Pittsburg Medical Center, found that a single vaccine used in human babies, when used in newborn monkeys, caused significant abnormalities in brainstem development.33 This mass vaccination program for H1N1 variant virus will be the largest experiment on pregnant women in history and could end as a monumental disaster.
How Many Cases are Really Swine Flu?
CBS, to their credit, conducted a three-month long investigation that indicates that we have all been hoodwinked by the governmental "protection" agency called euphemistically, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.34
What they tried to learn from the CDC was just what percentage of the "flu cases" were in fact H1N1. The CDC did all they could to protect this information and only after filing a Freedom of Information request and waiting 2 months did they finally release the data. Now we know why they wanted it protected and why they stopped testing for the H1N1 virus in late July.
The data revealed that in fact very few cases reported as swine flu were in fact H1N1 variant virus. CBS examined the data in all 50 states. What they found, for example, was that in Georgia only 2% of reported cases were H1N1 (97% negative for H1N1); in Alaska only 1% of reported cases were H1N1 (93% negative for flu and 5% seasonal flu) and in California only 2% of reported cases were H1N1 with 12% being other flu viruses and 86% negative for flu.
A recent release from the CDC found that their survey reported that of 12,943 specimens tested from around the country, only 26.3% of cases tested positive for H1N1 variant virus, but that 99.8% of the specimens tested positive for some type of other flu virus, most of which were regular seasonal flu.
The CDC has now changed all data reporting on the flu effects. They did this by stopping viral typing and subtyping and rolled back all previous numbers based on prior data. The new system for collecting data now started on August 30th, 2009.
The only reason I can imagine they did this is that the prior data was clearly demonstrating that the H1N1 variant virus was causing a very mild illness in most people (99.99%) with fewer hospitalizations, fewer cases of pneumonia and fewer deaths for all ages and groups than the prior seasonal flu in past years. This was true for the United States and the Southern Hemisphere, which has gone though the worst of its flu season.
Now that they are no longer typing the virus, they can attribute all cases of pneumonia, hospitalizations and deaths to H1N1, even though the majority of cases appear to be from a long list of other causes. In fact, they can classify many cases of primary pneumonia as caused by H1N1.
Actually LESS Flu Deaths this Year
One must always keep in mind that the CDC has told us that 36,000 people die every year from influenza and influenza-related complications. Thus far, we have seen (accepting their data) about 900 deaths and 21,829 cases of pneumonia.
This is far below the 36,000 figure. In fact, perhaps we should be breathing a sigh of relief that 35,000 fewer people have died this year from flu-related disorders. This would go down on record as the fewest flu-related deaths in recorded history.
In fact, worldwide, according to CDC and WHO data, far fewer people have died form H1N1 than any seasonal flu in the past. This graph from the CDC showing the "Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality for 122 US Cities" also show that, so far, this year's flu mortality is far below that of 2008.
In fact, worldwide, according to CDC and WHO data, far fewer people have died form H1N1 than any seasonal flu in the past. So, one must ask, why is the government and their handmaidens, the media, fueling this panic mentality? Why are we once again talking about mandatory vaccination for every man woman and child in the nation?
And I can assure you that soon we will hear an announcement that the adjuvant MF-59 or ASO3 (squalene) will be needed to save lives.
Now, if the CBS data forced from the files of the CDC is correct, why are so many people dying from this flu? The answer is that no greater number are dying now, for any age group, sex or state of pregnancy than have died in any previous flu outbreak.
By statistical slight of hand they have created this pandemic and continue to do so. One cannot foretell the future, but based on the data now available from the United States, Canada, Europe and the Southern hemisphere, there is no justification for the fear mongering by the media and government agencies.
It is accepted that the cognitive portions of the human brain work less well under two conditions -- fear and anger. Those who have survived deadly situations or who make their living surviving such situations tell us that controlling our fear is the most important thing in survival. More people have died from making poor decisions while overwhelmed by fear than have died as a result of the situation itself.
I am reminded of the poor elderly person who died several years back waiting in a very long line for a flu vaccine in the sweltering heat. It seems she passed out and struck her head on the hard asphalt.
She was standing in that line for hours because the CDC announced that that year's flu was going to be especially deadly for the elderly and there was a shortage of vaccine. As it turned out, that year they picked the wrong virus to make the vaccine -- so it was not only a dangerous vaccine, it would have given her no protection. But then, the vaccine manufactures got their blood money.
What Do They Not Know About This Vaccine?
Insurance companies in Australia would not insure doctors who gave the vaccine because it was a fast tracked vaccine and therefore experimental. They felt that the danger of complications was far too high to risk insuring the doctors. Unlike doctors in America, they did not have a special law that Congress would pass to insulate them from liability should severe complications arise from the vaccine.
It is also of special interest to note that tens of millions of babies were vaccinated with the Hepatitis B vaccine (providing no protection to the babies) only to learn later that it is linked to a 310% increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis.36 One has to ask -- What else do they not know about this vaccine?
Well, it turns out a lot.
Years after it was added to the recommended vaccine schedule, it was linked to a terrifying disorder called macrophagic myofascitis, which in children is associated with a severe dementia-like illness.
Then we have the case of the Gardasil vaccine. Millions of young girls were vaccinated and within several months pregnant women were losing their babies, babies were being born deformed, several of these very young girls died and a growing number have had serious reactions to the vaccine. Once again we have to ask -- What else do they not know about this vaccine?
Vaccine Safety Testing Only Done for ONE Week
Now we are being told that this new fast tracked, poorly tested vaccine is very safe and effective. The results of the testing on this vaccine were reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.39 It is instructive to learn that the tests for safety and to assess complications lasted only 7 days after the vaccine, an incredibly short period of follow-up. Gullian Barre paralysis can occur even months after a vaccine as can seizures, behavioral problems and neurodevelopmental disorders in children.
It is interesting to note that the authors of the safety study for our swine flu vaccine were all employees of the maker of the vaccine CSL Biotherapeutics and eight held equity interest in the company.39 This admission is part of the disclosure policy of the New England Journal of Medicine.
It is always important to keep in mind when you hear about this vaccine being safe and produced just like the seasonal flu vaccine -- What else do they not know about this vaccine that they will discover months, years or even decades later. Once injected with the vaccine and you develop a complication there will be little that can be done to treat the life-long degenerative disorder it produces. You will just be a sad story on 60 minutes.
Well, that is nicely presented and along with Dr. Mercola and Dr. Blaylock, there are others who stand on this side of the issue.
The Flip Side of the coin: The CDC
The position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and their recommendations regarding flu vaccinations.
Every flu season has the potential to cause a lot of illness, doctor's visits, hospitalizations and deaths. CDC is concerned that the new H1N1 flu virus could result in a particularly severe 2009-2010 flu season. Vaccines are the best tool we have to prevent influenza. CDC recommends vaccination against seasonal and 2009 H1N1 flu to prevent the influenza this year. The seasonal flu vaccine is unlikely to provide protection against 2009 H1N1 influenza. The 2009 H1N1 vaccine is not intended to replace the seasonal flu vaccine - it is intended to be used along-side seasonal flu vaccine.
CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a panel made up of medical and public health experts, met July 29, 2009, to make recommendations on who should receive the 2009 H1N1 vaccine While some issues are still unknown, such as how severe the flu season, the ACIP considered several factors, including current disease patterns, populations most at-risk for severe illness based on current trends in illness, hospitalizations and deaths, how much vaccine is expected to be available, and the timing of vaccine availability.
The groups recommended to receive the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine include:
• Pregnant women because they are at higher risk of complications and can potentially provide protection to infants who cannot be vaccinated;
• Household contacts and caregivers for children younger than 6 months of age because younger infants are at higher risk of influenza-related complications and cannot be vaccinated. Vaccination of those in close contact with infants younger than 6 months old might help protect infants by "cocooning" them from the virus;
• Healthcare and emergency medical services personnel because infections among healthcare workers have been reported and this can be a potential source of infection for vulnerable patients. Also, increased absenteeism in this population could reduce healthcare system capacity;
• All people from 6 months through 24 years of age
o Children from 6 months through 18 years of age because cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza have been seen in children who are in close contact with each other in school and day care settings, which increases the likelihood of disease spread, and
o Young adults 19 through 24 years of age because many cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza have been seen in these healthy young adults and they often live, work, and study in close proximity, and they are a frequently mobile population; and,
• Persons aged 25 through 64 years who have health conditions associated with higher risk of medical complications from influenza.
2009 H1N1 vaccination has begun but initial supplies are small. More doses are expected for shipment each week. We ask members of the public who want to receive this vaccine to be patient as this program expands and more vaccine becomes available. While we expect there will be enough vaccine available for anyone who wishes to receive it, the ACIP also made recommendations regarding which people within the groups listed above should receive the first available doses. For more information see the CDC press release CDC Advisors Make Recommendations for Use of Vaccine Against 2009 H1N1.
Once the demand for vaccine for the prioritized groups has been met at the local level, programs and providers should also begin vaccinating everyone from the ages of 25 through 64 years. Current studies indicate that the risk for infection among persons age 65 or older is less than the risk for younger age groups. However, once vaccine demand among younger age groups has been met, programs and providers should offer vaccination to people 65 or older.
- - - - -
So, there you have it. For you, which side of the coin proves to you that they have presented the information Beyond A Reasonable Doubt?
Choose wisely.
QED
Subscribe to this comment's feed
