China succeeds in developing herbal medication to treat A/H1N1 flu

BEIJING, Dec. 17 (Xinhua) -- Chinese medical specialists announced Thursday they had developed a Chinese herbal medication to treat the A/H1N1 flu.

Seven months of scientific and clinical studies showed the remedy, called "Jin Hua Qing Gan Fang," was effective in treating A/H1N1 flu patients, said Wang Chen, president of Beijing's Chaoyang Hospital.

"It can shorten patients' fever period and improve their respiratory systems. Doctors have found no negative effects on patients who were treated in this way," he said.

"It is also very cheap, only about a quarter of the cost of Tamiflu," he said at a press conference held by the Beijing Municipal Government.

Tamiflu, a product of Swiss drugmaker Roche Holding, was recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the treatment of the A/H1N1 flu.

"The municipal government has gathered the most outstanding medical experts in the Chinese capital to develop the new medication," Zhao Jing, director of the Beijing Municipal Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, said at the press conference.

Over the past seven months, more than 120 medical specialists, led by academicians Wang Yongyan and Li Lianda from the Chinese Academy of Engineering, had participated in the research, she said.

The municipal government earmarked 10 million yuan (1.47 million U.S. dollars) for the project, she said.

"Medical experts proved the effectiveness of Jin Hua in treating A/H1N1 flu from both the basic scientific studies and clinical studies," she said.

The basic scientific studies lasted for almost five months and were conducted by experts from the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Beijing University of Technology.

"In vivo and in vitro, experiments on mice and rabbits show JinHua can bring down a fever and resist the A/H1N1 flu virus," said Huang Luqi, vice president of the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences.

Thursday's Beijing Daily hailed the new herbal medication as the "world's first traditional Chinese medicine to treat the A/H1N1 flu".

Citing medical officials, the paper said "Jin Hua" was picked from among more than 100 classic anti-flu prescriptions based on traditional Chinese herbal medicine.

"Science workers proved its effectiveness through medical experiments on more than 4,000 mice and clinical studies on 410 patients with slight A/H1N1 flu syndrome," it said.

The "Jin Hua" prescription had been adopted in many local traditional Chinese medicine hospitals, it said.

Zhao Jing said 11 hospitals nationwide, including Chaoyang Hospital and Ditan Hospital in Beijing, had conducted clinical studies on "Jin Hua" and gave positive assessments.

"We are applying for patents for 'Jin Hua' both at home and abroad," she said.

"We are further developing the medicine and trying to present it to the whole country and world as soon as possible, thus offering an alternative to treat the A/H1N1 flu," she said.

The Chinese mainland has reported almost 108,000 A/H1N1 flu cases, including 442 deaths, according to the Ministry of Health.

Dr. Cris Tunon, senior program management officer at the WHO Representative Office in China, said Thursday the "WHO welcomes the clinical results," as the traditional Chinese medicine offered a low-cost treatment of A/H1N1 flu.

 From this link

Again, what appears to be a wake-up call is issued! You will read below:

The poll, conducted in a national sample of Americans from Nov. 12-18, shows that about half of Americans are worried that they or their families will get sick if they travel by airplane this year.

The poll suggests the other half of us should worry, too.

This is quite alarming material and should persuade you to consider receiving the H1N1 vaccine if you can get it. Those who have followed my blogs on H1N1 know that it was a C2C program that made me think carefully, even though the guest was at odds in the issue with George Noory, a man who I truly respect. But on this matter, I had to agree with his guest Linda.

H1N1 Influenza A (Swine Flu) Alert Center

From WebMD Health News
CDC: 10,000 H1N1 Flu Deaths
from WebMD - a health information Web site for patients

Daniel J. DeNoon

December 10, 2009 - H1N1 influenza killed 10,000 Americans, sent 213,000 to the hospital, and sickened 50 million - a sixth of the population - by mid-November, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates.

The CDC's new estimates reflect a flood of new cases from mid-October to mid-November, as the current wave of the US flu pandemic was climbing to its peak. The numbers represent the middle of a range of estimates made using statistical calculations to correct for underreporting of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

"Sadly, there were nearly 10,000 deaths: 1,100 in children and 7,500 among young adults," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, said at a news conference. "That is much higher than we would see in a usual flu season. This is a flu that is much harder on young people and that has largely spared the elderly."

The new estimates suggest that about 15% of the population - 1 in 6 Americans - has had the H1N1 flu.

"That leaves most Americans not infected or vaccinated and still susceptible to H1N1 flu," Frieden said. "Even if there were a lot of infections without symptoms and adding in those who have been vaccinated, that still leaves a lot of people unprotected. Only time will tell what the future will hold - but the more people who get vaccinated, the lower the probability of a third wave of the pandemic."

The estimates suggest that there may have been as many as 13,930 deaths and 67 million flu cases from the beginning of the epidemic in April to November 14. Here's the CDC's breakdown according to age:
                               Mid-Level Range*         Estimated Range *
2009 Cases
0-17 years          ~16 million                12 million to ~23 million
18-64 years        ~27 million               19 million to ~38 million
> 65 years           ~4 million                    3 million to ~6 million
Cases Total         ~47 million              34 million to ~67 million

Hospitalizations
0-17 years            ~71,000                     51,000 to ~101,000
18-64 years         ~121,000                   87,000 to ~172,000
>65 years             ~21,000                      15,000 to ~29,000
Hospitalizations Total ~213,000    154,000 to ~303,000

 Deaths
0-17 years           ~1,090                          790 to ~1,550
18-64 years        ~7,450                      5,360 to ~10,570
>65 years            ~1,280                           920 to ~1,810

Deaths Total       ~9,820                      7,070 to ~13,930

H1N1 Flu Vaccination Widens

The US H1N1 flu vaccine supply continues to grow. The federal government has now shipped 85 million doses to states. Many states have begun offering the vaccine to anyone who wants it; others have expanded eligibility to include most residents.

One of those states is Georgia, where the CDC is based. Frieden said that all CDC personnel will now be asked to get the vaccine.

"I will get vaccinated using the nasal spray in next few days," Frieden said. Frieden turns 50 next year, and the intranasal vaccine is approved only for healthy people age 2 to 49 years.

American Indians, Alaskan Natives Hit Hard by H1N1 Flu

American Indians and Alaskan natives are four times more likely to die or be hospitalized if they get the H1N1 flu, the CDC reported today.

The report comes from 12 states representing about half of the US native population.

The four-fold risk of severe disease is similar to the increased risk seen among indigenous populations in other parts of the world.

It's not clear why native Americans are more susceptible to severe H1N1 flu. However, diabetes and asthma are more prevalent in this population than among all other racial and ethnic populations in the United States.

And American Indians and Alaskan natives suffer the highest poverty rate in the United States: 30%. This suggests that delayed access to medical care and poorer nutrition may contribute to flu susceptibility.

22% of Americans Would Travel if Sick with Flu

It's impossible to predict the future, but a new Harvard poll suggests that many Americans may be giving an unwanted holiday gift to their countrymen: the flu.

More than 1 in 5 Americans - 22% - say they would get on a plane, train, bus, or cruise ship even if they were sick with fever, cough, and sneezing.

That, of course, flies in the face of CDC recommendations, which call for people to stay home if they're sick.

The poll, conducted in a national sample of Americans from Nov. 12-18, shows that about half of Americans are worried that they or their families will get sick if they travel by airplane this year.

The poll suggests the other half of us should worry, too.

SOURCES:

CDC news conference with Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dec. 10, 2009.

CDC web site, "CDC Estimates of 2009 H1N1 Influenza Cases, Hospitalizations and Deaths in the United States, April - November 14, 2009," Dec. 10, 2009.

Authors and Disclosures
Journalist
Daniel J. DeNoon

Daniel J. DeNoon is senior medical writer at WebMD.

Oseltamivir Efficacy Questioned in Preventing Influenza Complications

Fran Lowry

December 9, 2009 - An updated Cochrane review has called into question the efficacy of neuraminidase inhibitors, including the most commonly used oral agent oseltamivir (Tamiflu, Roche Laboratories Inc), in preventing influenza complications in healthy adults.

The results of the review, published online December 8 in the British Medical Journal, appear with other articles on oseltamivir that all come to the same conclusion: The evidence for the drug's efficacy in reducing complications in otherwise healthy individuals with pandemic influenza is now uncertain.

According to a statement by the BMJ, the results have led to a joint investigation into oseltamivir by BMJ and Channel 4 News, based in London, United Kingdom.

Tom Jefferson, MD, from the Acute Respiratory Infections Group, Cochrane Collaboration, Rome, Italy, and colleagues updated a 2005 Cochrane review published in the Cochrane Library.

The researchers selected 20 randomized, placebo-controlled studies of neuraminidase inhibitors in otherwise healthy adults exposed to naturally occurring influenza to determine duration and incidence of symptoms, incidence of lower respiratory tract infections or their proxies, and adverse events.

They focused on oseltamivir because of the greater experience with the drug worldwide.

Few Trials Judged Adequate Also Had Shortcomings

Of the trials, only 5 were judged adequate by usual Cochrane Collaboration methods, Dr. Jefferson and colleagues write. Most of the trials were at risk for bias resulting from poor descriptions of the methods, no description of losses to follow-up, and blinding.

The authors write that their attempts to deal with these shortcomings failed. Only 3 of the 5 lead authors of the studies on oseltamivir replied to their request for more information. Of these authors, none possessed original data.

Instead, these authors referred them to Roche, oseltamivir's manufacturer. However, the company did not provide the information "as quickly as we needed it to update this review," Dr. Jefferson and colleagues write.

From their analysis, the reviewers found that oseltamivir did not reduce influenza-related lower respiratory tract complications (risk ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 - 1.35).

They also found that oseltamivir induced nausea (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 - 2.93), that the evidence of rarer adverse events from pharmacovigilance studies was of poor quality, and that adverse events may have been underreported.

"Neuraminidase inhibitors have modest effectiveness against the symptoms of influenza in otherwise healthy adults. The drugs are effective postexposure against laboratory confirmed influenza, but this is a small component of influenza-like illness, so for this outcome neuraminidase inhibitors are not effective," Dr. Jefferson and colleagues conclude.

Paucity of good data has undermined previous findings for oseltamivir's prevention of complications from influenza.

Oseltamivir may be regarded as optional for reducing the symptoms of seasonal influenza, they add. "Paucity of good data has undermined previous findings for oseltamivir's prevention of complications from influenza. Independent randomized trials to resolve these uncertainties are needed."

In a related article, Peter Doshi, a doctoral student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and a coauthor of the updated Cochrane review, writes that his team of reviewers had been trying to obtain data to verify claims that oseltamivir lowers serious complications of influenza since August 2009.

Evidence Is Fragmented, Inconsistent, Contradictory

"We failed, but in failing discovered that the public evidence base for this global public health drug is fragmented, inconsistent, and contradictory. We are no longer sure that oseltamivir offers a therapeutic and public health policy advantage over cheap, over the counter drugs such as aspirin," he writes.

Mr. Doshi writes that the review team's suspicions were aroused after a Japanese pediatrician, Keiji Hayashi, MD, pointed out that their previous review, which had found that oseltamivir was effective in reducing pneumonia and other important complications of influenza, was based on a single peer-reviewed study by Kaiser and colleagues.

It turns out that the Kaiser study, which was a meta-analysis of 10 manufacturer-funded trials, included just 2 studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals. When the Cochrane reviewers tried to verify the data from the 8 unpublished trials, they found inconsistencies in the evidence for oseltamivir's effectiveness and safety.

Roche funded the Kaiser meta-analysis.

Mr. Doshi said the Kaiser paper was dropped from their new analysis. "The previous Cochrane review placed its trust in publications and included Kaiser's unpublished data, but to do so once again, despite our inability to obtain data sufficient to perform an independent analysis, would have shifted our position from that of trust in publication to that of trust in secrecy."

He also called into question US Food and Drug Administration's safety reporting rules. Manufacturers must report adverse events, but only if they occur in the United States. "In the case of oseltamivir, considering that 75% of global consumption has occurred in Japan, this has important implications for our knowledge of its safety," Mr. Doshi writes.

Treatment With Oseltamivir Unlikely to be Clinically Important

Nick Freemantle, PhD, and Melanie Calvert, MD, from the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, were invited by BMJ to review the observational studies provided to the Cochrane reviewers by Roche. They said that in general, the studies support the conclusion that oseltamivir may reduce the incidence of complications of influenza in otherwise healthy adults, but as such events are rare, treatment with oseltamivir for most people is not likely to be clinically important.

They had several criticisms of the studies and said the studies were difficult to interpret. "Differences in baseline comorbidity or geographical distribution were present in several studies. It seems likely that some patients were included in more than one study, which undermines the ability of these studies to provide independent estimates," the authors write.

"We have remarkably few resources in this country to spend on pharmaceuticals on health and it's surprising to see such widespread use of oseltamivir. But I suppose that once you've gone and bought lots of doses then it's a bit like the situation with gun control in the US. If you have a gun in the house it's much easier to use it. But it does not mean it's the right thing to do," Dr. Freemantle said in a statement to BMJ.

Review Calls Entire Process Into Question

Fiona Godlee, MD, Editor-in-Chief of BMJ, and Mike Clarke, MD, Director of the UK Cochrane Centre, say the updated review is important because it calls into question "not only the effectiveness of oseltamivir but the whole system by which drugs are evaluated, regulated and promoted."

In her editorial, Dr. Godlee writes that the claims of the efficacy of oseltamivir, based on an analysis of 10 drug company trials, have formed a key part of decisions to stockpile the drug and made it widely available.

It was only after questions from the BMJ and Channel 4 News that Roche agreed to make full study reports available on a password-protected site, she writes.

It can't be right that the public should have to rely on this sort of detective work by academics and journalists to patch together the evidence for such a widely prescribed drug.

"It can't be right that the public should have to rely on this sort of detective work by academics and journalists to patch together the evidence for such a widely prescribed drug. Individual patient data from all trials of drugs should be readily available for scientific scrutiny," Dr. Godlee concludes.

In its reply, Roche says it has provided full responses to all questions from the BMJ and Channel 4, which "should leave no doubt about the high integrity of the data, publications, and interactions between Roche and independent investigators."

All reports were written to the standards of the regulatory authorities of Europe, the United States, and Japan, and have been accepted by all for licensing purposes. Roche has "willingly shared data and reports with numerous other eligible individuals and groups," writes James Smith, MD, International Medical Leader, Tamiflu, for Roche.

He voices concern that the Cochrane review team "chose to follow-up their inquiries through a television company rather than by approaching the manufacturer directly...it is unclear to us why Dr. Jefferson would adopt this approach, particularly given that he was a paid ad hoc consultant to Roche working on flu and oseltamivir between 1997 and 1999. During that period he worked closely with Roche experts, many of whom are still in the company, and he would therefore not have had difficulty in contacting them directly to discuss his requirements."

Dr. Smith ends by stating: "Why Dr. Jefferson and the BMJ chose to pursue their scientific enquiries through commercial television remains to be clarified."

Dr. Jefferson has reported he has received support from the UK National Institute for Health Research and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and that he was a paid ad hoc consultant to Roche from 1997 to 1999. Peter Doshi has reported he has no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Nick Freemantle and Dr. Melanie Calvert have reported that the BMJ helped them access 3 articles not available through their university library and that they supervise a PhD student who is supported and employed by Roche. Dr. Godlee has reported that she has published a number of articles critical of the drug industry and supports the idea that drugs should be evaluated by independent third parties rather than directly or indirectly by the drug's producers. As editor of the BMJ, she is a member of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and reports that the BMJ Group receives a proportion of its revenue from drug company advertising and sponsorship. Dr. Mike Clarke has reported that he is active in the Cochrane Collaboration and has a fixed-term contract with the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Smith is international medical leader, Tamiflu, F Hofmann-La Roche.

BMJ. Published online December 8, 2009.

Aos, this link may interest you: H1N1 Influenza A (Swine Flu)Alert center

The thing with Swine flu is that it can turn deadly.

The case of a 23-y.0. girl in California became ill with fever, temp and chest x-ray showed a "minor shadow," and was felt to represent a "mild pneumonia." initial H1N1 testing was negative. The next day, the patient was much worse, the chest x-ray showed a large part of the lung was now white on x-ray. The "mild case" was suddenly severe pneumonia. A lung biopsy confirmed H1N1. The patient died five days later . . . (10 days from the onset of symptoms).

 So, this is the thought on when to take antiviral medications, as of 12 days ago.

From Medscape Neurology

 New Guidelines on H1N1 Influenza Urge Quicker Use of Antivirals

Robert Lowes

November 12, 2009 - Updated treatment guidelines for H1N1 influenza from the World Health Organization (WHO) urge clinicians to administer antiviral medications as soon as possible to patients in at-risk groups with flu symptoms, patients with pneumonia, and those with uncomplicated influenza-like illness that worsens or fails to improve within 72 hours.

The reason for immediate antiviral therapy is that a mild case of H1N1 influenza can morph into a deadly disease such as pneumonia within 24 hours, according to the revised guidelines released Tuesday.

"The virus can take a life within a week," Nikki Shindo, MD, a medical officer in WHO's Global Influenza Programme, said during a press conference today. "The week of opportunity is very narrow in regard to the progression of the disease. The medicine needs to be administered before the virus destroys the lungs."

Patients in at-risk groups who should receive antivirals once they experience flu symptoms include pregnant women, children younger than 2 years, and individuals with chronic illnesses such as respiratory problems, according to Dr. Shindo.

Dr. Shindo said that earlier WHO guidelines focused on treating severe disease stemming from the H1N1 virus. The updated guidelines, she explained, have more to say about preventing severe disease, especially with the use of antiviral medications. Initial guidance about antivirals had been more conservative because WHO "had almost no experience" in regard to their effectiveness and because supplies were limited, said Dr. Shindo. Now, WHO has more data about the safety and usefulness of the medicine, and supplies are more ample.

The updated guidelines state that clinicians should not delay antiviral treatment for patients with suspected H1N1 influenza for the sake of conducting tests to confirm the diagnosis. In addition, a negative result from some rapid influenza diagnostic tests should not justify withholding antiviral therapy because these tests "miss many infections with pandemic H1N1 virus."

The first-line antiviral for treating the H1N1 virus is oseltamivir (Tamiflu), according to WHO. If oseltamivir is not available, it is not possible to administer it to a particular patient, or if the virus is resistant to oseltamivir, the guidelines recommend that clinicians use zanamivir (Relenza), which is inhaled.

To ensure easier access to treatment, public health authorities should distribute antivirals through general practitioners and not primarily through hospitals, said Dr. Shindo. "Patients should not have to visit the hospital to get antivirals prescribed," she said. "This should help ensure that individuals get the care they need faster. This will leave hospitals freer to treat the more severe cases."

Although Dr. Shindo emphasized the need for the earlier use of antivirals, she said that people not in the at-risk groups who are experiencing only mild flu symptoms do not need to take antiviral therapy. Nor should healthy individuals take it as a preventive measure.

WHO Guidelines Do Not Conflict With CDC Directives

The updated WHO guidelines specify watchful waiting for 72 hours for patients who have uncomplicated influenza-like illness and who do not have an underlying medical condition that puts them at risk. Hallmarks of progressive illness that warrant antiviral therapy include:

* Shortness of breath, hypoxia, and fast or labored breathing in children, which would suggest oxygen impairment or cardiopulmonary insufficiency.
* Altered mental status, unconsciousness, drowsiness, and seizures, which suggest central nervous system complications.
* Evidence of sustained virus replication or invasive secondary bacterial infection.
* Severe dehydration, expressed as decreased activity, dizziness, decreased urine output, and lethargy.

By necessity, this recommendation for follow-up requires patient education, Dr. Shindo said. Clinicians should instruct patients who initially present with uncomplicated influenza-like illness to return for another visit if they develop these or other symptoms of progressive illness - or do not get better - within 72 hours from the onset of symptoms, according to WHO.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have not issued any guidance on follow-up care for influenza patients that stipulates a 72-hour time frame, but the agency does advise patients who do not improve within a few days that they might have a complication like a secondary infection, said Anthony Fiore, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

"I do not see the WHO recommendations as being in conflict [with the CDC directives]," Dr. Fiore told Medscape Infectious Diseases. CDC recommendations on administering antiviral medications are revised on average every 4 to 6 weeks, said Dr. Fiore. "We will look at the WHO guidance and the evidence base used to develop the guidance as part of [our] revision."

The updated treatment guidelines are available on the WHO Web site.

CDC Update

At a CDC press briefing today, Anne Schuchat, MD, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, provided an updated estimate of H1N1 cases using data extrapolated from the CDC's Emerging Infections Program .

The CDC estimates that during the first 6 months of the pandemic (April through October 17, 2009), a total of 22 million people (range, 14 - 34 million) in the United States became infected with H1N1 influenza. Of these, 98,000 people (range, 63,000 to 153,000) were hospitalized; and 3900 (range, 2500 - 6100) died.

The data are also broken down by age group and highlight that fact that numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are disproportionately higher in people aged 64 years and younger than in older individuals.

These numbers will be updated every 3 to 4 weeks, she said.

Dr. Schuchat also discussed the effect of H1N1 influenza in patients with diabetes, which afflicts about 19% of adults hospitalized for H1N1. According to Dr. Schuchat, people with diabetes should be vaccinated (with the injectable vaccine not the nasal spray) against H1N1. People with diabetes who also have respiratory illness should receive antiviral therapy, which should be initiated prior to availability of test results. Patients with diabetes should also ensure that they have been vaccinated against pneumococcal infections.

To date, 41.6 million doses of H1N1 vaccine have become available. "This is more than we had before but not as much as we had hoped to have by today," Dr. Schuchat said. Currently, 94 million doses of seasonal influenza vaccine have been distributed, with 114 million doses total expected by the end of the year.

NB:Robert Lowes

Freelance writer, St. Louis, Missouri

Disclosure: Robert L. Lowes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

"Even if a peak has occurred, half the people who are going to get sick haven't gotten sick yet." 

 The Last Wave, starring Richard Chamberlain

Great movie about Australian aborigines and telepathy and the dreamtime. At the end, the last wave comes. This is an early, if not the first, movie for Richard and he seems to have fuzz rather than facial hair.

 My point is this:

It is said that in the mainland US, the Swine flu has peaked.

But another wave of the pandemic is coming!

Signs That Swine Flu Has Peaked

Although federal health officials decline to use the word “peaked,” the current wave of swine flu appears to have done so in the United States.

Flu activity is coming down in all regions of the country, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday, though it is still rising in Hawaii, Maine and some isolated areas.

The World Health Organization said Friday that there were “early signs of a peak” in much of the United States.

On Wednesday, the American College Health Association, which surveys over 250 colleges with more than three million students, said new cases of flu had dropped in the week ending Nov. 13. It was the first drop since school resumed in the fall, and it was significant — new cases were down 27 percent from the week before.

And on Friday, Quest Diagnostics, the country’s largest laboratory, said its tests of 142,000 suspected flu specimens since May showed that the flu peaked in late October.

Nonetheless, Dr. Anne Schuchat, the director of immunization and respiratory diseases at the C.D.C., chose her words carefully, saying: “I wish I knew if we had hit the peak. Even if a peak has occurred, half the people who are going to get sick haven’t gotten sick yet.”

Dr. Schuchat also noted that even when new infections topped out, hospitalizations and deaths were still on the way up, because most took place days or weeks later.

Privately, federal health officials say they fear that if they concede the flu has peaked, Americans will become complacent and lose interest in being vaccinated, increasing the chances of another wave.

In New York, where cases peaked last May, vaccine clinics have gone begging for takers as long lines form in the rest of the country.

Epidemiologists expected a peak about now, because flu waves typically last six to eight weeks.

The current fall wave of new infections began in late August in the Southeast, where schools start earlier than on the East or West Coasts; it took several weeks to spread across the country and began falling in the Southeast two weeks ago.

The drop was clearly not caused by the swine flu vaccine drive, which has not gone as fast as the authorities had hoped because the vaccine seed strain grew so slowly.

Only about 54 million doses are available now, and Dr. Schuchat said she wanted to “apologize for the frustration the public has been experiencing.”

Lone Simonsen, an epidemiologist at George Washington University, said she expected a third wave in December or January, possibly beginning in the South again.

“If people think it’s going away, they can think again,” Dr. Simonsen said.

Based on death rates in New York City and in Scandinavia, she has argued that both 1918 and 1957 had mild summer waves followed by two stronger waves, one in fall and one in midwinter.

Only 43 states are now reporting “widespread” flu activity, down from 48 two weeks ago.

As Dr. Schuchat noted, that is still above peak activity in a typical flu season.

The winter flu season usually starts in December; it is expected to return this year.

Since last week, 21 children and teenagers died of confirmed or suspected cases of the flu, Dr. Schuchat said. Based on her agency’s belief that three pediatric deaths take place for each confirmed one, about 600 children and teenagers have died since this epidemic began.

The World Health Organization said the flu appeared to be peaking in the United States and some Western European countries, like Belgium, Britain and Ireland. But it was moving rapidly east and north.

Canada’s outbreak is still intensifying, as is the one in Norway, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, including Afghanistan, are seeing a surge in cases.

Norway reported finding a mutated virus in three people who died or were severely ill. The mutation, known as D222G on the receptor binding domain, allow the virus to grow deeper in the lungs.

The mutation does not appear to be circulating and may have spontaneously arisen in the three patients, said Geir Stene-Larsen, director of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Only 3 of Norway’s 70 tested samples had it.

Asked about that, Dr. Schuchat said the same mutation had also been found in mild cases in several countries and it did not make the virus resistant to vaccine or to treatment with drugs like Tamiflu. She said that she did not want to “underplay” it, but that “it’s too soon to say what this will mean long term.”

The D222G mutation allows the virus to bind to receptors on cells lining the lungs, which are slightly different from those in the nose and throat.

Henry L. Niman, a flu tracker in Pittsburgh, has been warning for a week that the same mutation has repeatedly been found in Ukraine, which is in the grips of a severe outbreak and where surprising numbers of people have died with lung hemorrhages.

Separate reports of Tamiflu-resistant virus also surfaced Friday. Duke University Medical Center said it had found four cases among its patients in six weeks, and British health authorities reported five in one Welsh hospital.

Although Tamiflu resistance would be a serious worry for health officials, it was not clear that the strains were circulating outside the hospitals. Many isolated cases of resistant virus have been found.

Released yesterday, a report on  H1N1 vaccine compared to seasonal flu vaccine and reactions/side effects.

 H1N1 Vaccine as Safe as Seasonal Vaccine, WHO Says

Emma Hitt, PhD

November 19, 2009 - The H1N1 2009 pandemic influenza vaccine appears to be as safe as the seasonal flu vaccine, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

About 1 adverse event is being reported for every 10,000 doses, said Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, director of the WHO's Initiative for Vaccine Research, at a virtual press briefing today. Of those adverse event reports, about 5 of 100 are considered serious.

According to Dr. Kieny, serious adverse events so far include 30 deaths and about 12 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome; however, she emphasized that none of the deaths reported to date has been confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. In addition, all cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome have been transient, and only a few have been linked to the vaccine.

Dr. Kieny added that there appears to be no difference between the safety profile of the seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines, and the number of adverse events is comparable between the 2 vaccines. In addition, the safety profiles of the different forms of pandemic vaccine are also similar.

Adverse reactions associated with the pandemic vaccine include a variety of local reactions including "pain at injection site, swelling, redness, and reactions such as fever, headache, muscle pain, or fatigue," Dr. Kieny said. "These generally resolve within 1 or 2 days."

"No new safety issues have been identified from reports received to date," she said.

At least 80 million doses of vaccines have been distributed and 65 million doses have been administered. "These are figures that we have received from 16 countries, but we think they are conservative estimates because immunization campaigns are under way now in 40 countries," Dr. Kieny added.

The WHO expects to start shipment of the vaccine to developing countries at the end of this month. According to Dr. Kieny, this represents a slight delay, but they expect that all vaccine doses will reach 95 eligible countries during the next 3 months.

To add to the last post, another choice . . . a way to  Boost Immunity

Vitamin D Boosts Immunity © by C. Norman Shealy, M.D., Ph.D.

 "Vitamin D has long been known to enhance immune function, even curing tuberculosis of the skin. In the past few years it has been shown to increase naturally body-produced antibiotics! It has now been repeatedly reported that taking 2000 units of D 3 per kg of body weight daily for 3 days, at the first sign of influenza, markedly reduces symptoms and speeds recovery. In Europe and in Australia there are reports of using a single dose of 600,000 units of D3 once a year to prevent flu---far more effective and safer than flu vaccines!" 

Please read the entire article.

NB: Norm Shealy, a neurosurgeon at Duke and the founder of both the American Holistic Medical Association and the Pain Rehabilitation Center at the Shealy Institute in Missouri; and his partner Caroline Myss, Ph.D., also an Intuitive Medical Diagnostic and author of numerous books, is one of the world's leading experts in pain management. He was among the first physicians ever to specialize in the resolution of chronic pain.

Friends have asked again about taking antiviral meds for suspected H1N1.

This is the latest: Treatment is recommended for all outpatients with confirmed or suspected influenza if they belong to groups known to be at higher risk for complications. These groups include:

* Children younger than 2 years;
* Persons aged 65 years or older;
* Pregnant females;
* Persons of any age with chronic medical or immunosuppressive conditions;     and
* Persons younger than 19 years who are on chronic aspirin therapy.

The entire article from Medscape follows:

What are the clinical indications to initiate antiviral treatment for patients with suspected H1N1 influenza? 

Response from James Wilde, MD
Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine & Pediatrics, Department of Emergency Medicine; Faculty, Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia 

 When novel H1N1 "swine flu" was first detected on April 22, 2009, little information was available about the virus. Soon after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notified the public that a new subtype of influenza A had appeared in the US Southwest, reports came in from Mexico indicating that the virus may be highly lethal. Initial estimates of mortality rates from H1N1 infection in Mexico ranged as high as 8%.[1,2] This is a remarkably high mortality rate when viewed in the context of the 2% mortality rate observed during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, the most deadly single-season pandemic in world history, which killed as many as 50-100 million people worldwide.

The CDC and other public health authorities responded quickly to what appeared to be the start of a new and deadly pandemic. The initial strategy was to treat anyone who had confirmed or suspected swine flu with the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir (Tamiflu®) or zanamivir (Relenza®). Although the literature in general shows only modest benefit from the use of antiviral medications for influenza infections, some recent studies showed a reduction in influenza mortality in high-risk hospitalized patients after the use of neuraminidase inhibitors.[3,4] In an effort to stop the spread of the virus and reduce the mortality rate, treatment was recommended without regard for the severity of the illness or underlying health problems.

It soon became apparent that there was a mismatch between the information coming from Mexico and the experience with H1N1 in the United States and the rest of the world. Data from the United States and World Health Organization (WHO) indicated that the mortality rate from H1N1 infection outside of Mexico was very low, probably even lower than the mortality rate expected from seasonal flu, which kills an estimated 36,000 Americans each year.[4,5] Data over the ensuing months have confirmed that overall mortality from H1N1 infection is less than 1% and may be less than 0.1%.

Resistance to antiviral medications has been well documented in influenza viruses.[4] In 2006, resistance to adamantanes (amantadine, rimantadine) was detected in A/H3N2 seasonal flu viruses in the United States. By the next year, resistance was nearly 100%. Similarly, resistance to oseltamivir was noted in A/H1N1 seasonal flu isolates in 2008, and by 2009, the resistance rate was almost 100%. Given this history, public health authorities have reason to be concerned about the overuse of neuraminidase inhibitors and the development of resistance in the treatment of H1N1 infection.

New information about low mortality rates coupled with concerns about the development of resistant strains led to revised CDC guidelines on May 6, 2009. As of that date, treatment was recommended for hospitalized patients with proven or likely flu and all other patients with an influenza-like illness who are members of groups known to be at higher risk for seasonal flu complications. Those guidelines also contained recommendations for the prophylactic use of oseltamivir or zanamivir in certain populations, such as healthcare workers and others who had close contact with a person known or suspected to have an active H1N1 infection. Treatment with antiviral medications was not recommended for otherwise healthy patients who were not members of high-risk groups.

The May 6, 2009, guidelines remained in effect throughout much of the summer in the United States, during which time H1N1 remained in low-level circulation. In August, rates of infection increased dramatically, first in the Southeast United States and then in most of the rest of the country. By September, the May 6 recommendations became somewhat impractical, particularly in regard to prophylaxis. In response, the CDC published revised guidelines on September 8, 2009. Those guidelines removed the recommendation for prophylaxis in all but a handful of cases.

The September 8, 2009, guidelines still had some problems. The most significant was the inclusion of children younger than 5 years on the list of high-risk groups. Children younger than age 5 can be expected to have 4-8 upper respiratory infections each year, many associated with fever.[6] Because the clinical features of influenza and other upper respiratory tract infections overlap, including all children younger than age 5 on the list of high-risk patients meant that many of these children could be prescribed multiple courses of oseltamivir over the course of a 3- to 6-month fall and winter season. This could potentially deplete the supply of oseltamivir and accelerate the development of resistance.

In response to these concerns, the CDC published another revision to the treatment guidelines on September 22.[7] In this revision, children between 2 and 5 years of age were noted to be at only a slightly increased risk for hospitalization due to influenza and were, therefore, removed from the list of high-risk groups. Children younger than 2 years remained on the list because the data do show a substantially increased risk for hospitalization due to influenza in this age group.
Conclusion

Current recommendations by the CDC are to treat all hospitalized patients with likely or proven H1N1 infection with oseltamivir or zanamivir. Treatment of outpatients is recommended if the patient has an influenza-like illness and more severe symptoms, such as evidence of lower respiratory tract infection or clinical deterioration.

Treatment is recommended for all outpatients with confirmed or suspected influenza if they belong to groups known to be at higher risk for complications. These groups include:

* Children younger than 2 years;
* Persons aged 65 years or older;
* Pregnant females;
* Persons of any age with chronic medical or immunosuppressive conditions; and
* Persons younger than 19 years who are on chronic aspirin therapy.

Available rapid assays for influenza have shown very poor sensitivity in the detection of H1N1.[8] Antiviral therapy should be started as soon as possible after the onset of symptoms, ideally within 48 hours.[4] Treatment decisions should not be based on the results of assays performed for detection of influenza, due to poor sensitivity of detection of H1N1.[8]

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