Prev: Kevin's Spreadsheets
Next: Kimmie's Thread (nrsmac)
From: Alan B. Mac Farlane on 27 Jun 2008 22:05
(op. ed. Hi Guys ... found some stuff in my MD office about the Bush Flu
Scam he is running with Big Money Pharma Medicine. For my own health, I
LIKE GETTING THE FLU and other bugs going around. I want my Defense
Structure to know what is going on, make antibodies, and stay current ... I
do NOT however keep the flu around, it is gone in 30 minutes usually after
the histemic response shows up. For people who get flu shots, and lets say
they work, which they really don't ... well they are going to die faster
cause their Defense Structure is not being built up, but down. It is a good
read ... get more later. Sumbuddie on da watchtower saidis)




APRIL 28, 2005. Before the various recent flu scandals drop
completely below the radar, I wanted to dig some material out of my archive
and compile it and post it.

This is all about actual deaths from flu in the US every year, as
opposed to the propaganda figures the CDC trots out each flu season.

In press conferences, the CDC routinely floats 36,000 (or more) as
the number of annual flu deaths in the US. But when you go to the CDC�s own
sites, you find a completely different picture.

We�ll get to that a little later. First, let�s go with a simple
chart from the American Lung Association, a chart I posted in October of
2004. Here is the article I wrote then:

OCTOBER 22, 2004. Ask the American Lung Association. Better yet,
read their own report from August of 2004, titled, "Trends in Pneumonia and
Influenza/Morbidity and Mortality."

This report comes from "Research and Scientific
Affairs/Epidemiology and Statistics Unit." At the bottom of the document,
the source is listed as: National Center for Health Statistics, Report of
Final Mortality Statistics, 1979-2001.

Get ready for some surprises, especially since the CDC keeps
trumpeting flu-death annual numbers as 36,000. Like clockwork. Year in and
year out. 36,000 people in the US die from the flu every year. Killer
disease. Watch out. Get your flu shot. Every autumn. Don't wait. You might
fall over dead in the street.

Here are the total flu deaths from the report. From 1979 to 1995,
the stats were released every two years.

1979: 604
1981: 3,006
1983: 1,431
1985: 2,054
1987: 632
1989: 1,593
1991: 1,137
1993: 1,044
1995: 606
1996: 745
1997: 720
1998: 1,724
1999: 1,665
2000: 1765
2001: 257

Don't believe me?

Here is the page [as of October, 2004]:

www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-7F5D5E762256%7D/PI1.PDF

Get there and go to page 9 of the document. Then start scrolling
down until you come to the chart for flu deaths as a separate category.

Recently, Tommy Thompson, head of US Health and Human services,
stated that 91 percent of the people who die from the flu in the US every
year are 65 and older. So you might engage in a little arithmetic and figure
out how many people under 65 are really dying from the flu each year.

But no matter. The raw all-ages stats are low enough. Quite low
enough. Quite, quite.

Do you see what is going on here?

You can go into my archive and read recent pieces on this subject
and find my argument for those who blithely claim, "Well, harumph, you see,
uh ah, flu often leads to pneumonia and THAT'S why we have to be so careful
about the flu. Deaths from pneumonia are large numbers, harumph, blah blah
blah..."

It's a straight con, folks. The CDC is on a streetcorner with a
little table, and there are shills walking around repeating the 36,000-death
figure while the PR flacks at the table are working the vaccine angle.

The crowd is getting restless. A man shouts, "Where is my flu
shot? We're all going to die!"

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Congress is planning a measure that
will guarantee vaccine manufacturers annual billion-dollar payoffs no matter
how many doses are left over, unused.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

***************************************************************

Now let�s go to an AP story that appeared a few days before I
posted my Oct. 2004 article above:

�Thompson [Tommy Thompson, head of Health and Human Services] said
the flu vaccine supply will be reallocated to parts of the country where it
is needed most. Most at risk for severe complications from the flu are
seniors and young children.

"�We are looking all over the regions to find out where there is a
shortage, and we will redeploy the resources to make sure the seniors get
the vaccine first,� he said. He noted that 91 percent of flu deaths last
year were people 65 or older.�

Do the math. If the true death stats from the flu are as stated by
the American Lung Association, how many people under the age of 65 actually
die from the flu in the US every year? Take the year 2000: 1765 deaths.
Using Thompson�s guideline, subtract the people over 65 who died from the
flu, and you get a remainder of 177 people in the US under the age of 65 who
died from the flu in the year 2000.

Now let�s go to an even earlier post of mine�Oct. 11, 2004. This
was, as I recall, a very busy day for me on the site. I had three
researchers contacting me: John Keller, John Cullison, and Martin Maloney.
Keller had broken the whole hoax first at the Cure Zone, and I had picked up
on it there.

UPDATE Oct.11, 2004, 12:25PM, Pacific Time: More from John
Cullison that confirms the Keller report on ACTUAL very low CDC stats for
flu deaths in the US. Cullison writes:

I've found the preliminary data for 2002. It's at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf. It's in
THIS document that Keller's instructions make sense. Sure enough, on page
16, Influenza (J10-J11) is listed as 753 [deaths], and Pneumonia (J12-J18)
accounts for the other 65,231 cases.

UPDATE: October 11, 2004, 12:30PM, Pacific Time: Here is another
source, Martin Maloney, who has tracked the CDC page address cited by
Keller. He offers his succinct confirmatory finding:

Perhaps this is what you are looking for. Near the bottom of page
31 of that PDF document, you will find, under the heading:

Table 10. Number of deaths from 113 selected causes by age: United
States, 2001 - Con.

//snip//

Influenza and pneumonia (J10-J18)
.................................. 62,034
Influenza (J10-J11)
.......................................................... 257
Pneumonia (J12-J18)
...................................................... 61,777

These researchers, mind you, were looking at the CDC�s own data on
the CDC sites.

At some point in 2004, another researcher came on board. I
withhold his name, at his request. He found another way to get into CDC site
data, and I was able to track that and confirm the very, very low
death-stats for flu.

There was another hurdle to cross for me. CDC people and doctors
around the US had a fixed idea about the flu. One of those �everybody knows
this is true� ideas. It is: FLU OFTEN LEADS TO PNEUMONIA, AND EVEN THOUGH
THE ACTUAL FLU-DEATH STATS MAY BE LOW, THE DEATHS FROM PNEUMONIA ARE QUITE
HIGH. THEREFORE YOU CAN DISCOUNT THE ACTUAL FLU-DEATH STATS AND GO TO THE
PNEUMONIA STATS.

Is this idea correct?

I began searching through the CDC�s own data.

At the end of October, 2004, I found what I was looking for. Here
is an excerpt from my article on flu and pneumonia. It begins with a
blockbuster about the flu itself, and then gets into the flu-pneumonia
connection:

�I spotted, this morning, a letter to the editor at
RedFlagsWeekly.com, from Randy L. Powers. He provides a link to a CDC
website, where deaths from flu and flu-plus-other-stuff are broken down for
the year 2000.

You can go to Red Flags, scroll all the way down the center of the
page to the bottom and pick up the link to the letters section,and find
Randy's letter and his live link to the CDC pdf file. [probably not there
anymore]

Or you can type in:
www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwki10.htm

And then you would go to pages 1068-1071.

Either way you do it, you'll come across a bunch of tables that
list flu-death stats for the year 2000. You'll need to look at all the
tables.

I have previously reported that the actual CDC flu-death stat for
the year 2000 was 1765. It's in small print, not in the CDC press releases
that trumpet that ridiculous canned 36,000 figure.

So, working with the 1765 figure, I read through the various
tables. It was easy to find how the CDC came up with that number.
Table 1 lists 60 deaths from flu "with influenza virus identified." Table
five lists 1705 deaths from flu with "virus not identified."
Add up the two totals and you get 1765 deaths from the flu.

But wait a minute. All these stats are based on reports turned in
from the field---which means doctors out there making diagnoses all over the
US. If 1705 deaths from the flu NEVER HAD AN IDENTIFICATION OF A VIRUS THAT
THE CDC CLAIMS ACTUALLY CAUSES THE FLU, WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?

We are left with vague eyeball diagnosis of patients. Meaningless.
Zero science.

Therefore, for the year 2000, the CDC flu-death stats that, at
their best, fit any sane conventional assessment come to a total of SIXTY.
Sixty confirmed cases of death from flu in the US.

This is right in line with my operating principle for
investigating lies: the closer you get, the worse it is.

In fact, it would be very nice to know, in those 60 confirmed
cases of death from the flu, exactly HOW the flu virus was IDed.
Was it by actual isolation, or was it by finding antibodies to the flu
virus? If the latter, that is NOT a proper ID. The presence of
antibodies simply signifies the person's immune system has contacted the
virus. Antibodies usually mean the person has successfully warded off the
virus. Anyway...

If you study the other tables, you find more illumination. For
example, in table 6, we see 912 deaths under a category called INFLUENZA
WITH PNEUMONIA, VIRUS NOT IDENTIFIED. Oops. There it is again. The flu virus
(that's what they're talking about) was never IDed. So how can they say this
was really "INFLUENZA-with-pneumonia" as the cause of death? They can't.

If you've been reading my articles on this whole stat business,
you know that I've expressed grave doubt about the 'everybody-knows-science'
that says, "Hell, flu is very dangerous because it often leads to pneumonia.
So even if the actual flu deaths are very low, we have to vaccinate anybody
that moves because, that way, we're preventing pneumonia." Yeah. Sure.

Again, let me repeat, in the year 2000, there were 912 deaths
listed under pneumonia WHERE THE FLU VIRUS WAS NEVER IDENTIFIED. There is no
provable link between those pneumonia cases and flu.

Table 2, in fact, is deaths from flu-with-pneumonia where the flu
virus WAS identified. Even if we assume that in these cases the flu actually
LED to the pneumonia, the total of deaths is: 31.

That's right. 31.

So much for the vaunted and provable 'everybody-knows' link
between flu and pneumonia.

What about the other tables for the year 2000? Table 3 is the
category FLU WITH OTHER RESPIRATORY MANIFESTATIONS,WHERE THE FLU VIRUS WAS
IDENTIFIED. Of course, we don't know what the other respiratory
manifestations were---exceptwe DO know they were never IDed as pneumonia.
Total of deaths from this category? 27.

Table 4 is FLU WITH OTHER MANIFESTATIONS (even more vague) WHERE
THE FLU VIRUS WAS IDENTIFIED. Total deaths in this category? 2.

Table 7 is FLU WITH OTHER RESPIRATORY MANIFESTATIONS WHERE THE FLU
VIRUS WAS NOT IDENTIFIED. In other words, it's a vague plus vague category.
A maybe not-sure could-be flu plus who knows what other respiratory
problems. Total deaths? 767.

And table 8 is FLU WITH OTHER MANIFESTATIONS WHERE THE FLU VIRUS
WAS NOT IDENTIFIED. Even vaguer. Total deaths? 26.

And that's it.

The closer you get, the worse it is. They're winging it. They're
making all sorts of wild assumptions about flu cases without ever having
IDed a flu virus. They're in deep water without a hint of a paddle. They're
basically admitting their press releases trumpeting large flu-death figures
are lies. They're confessing that their "universal" flu-peumonia death link
is sheer unwarranted presumption.

This is a huge story. It may never get out into the mainstream.
But it's huge.

ADDENDUM: I want to offer an educated opinion about a larger
circumference of spin at the CDC. Look at it this way. You've got two
parallel forces at work there in Atlanta. On one track, there are the bean
counters who are assembling the stats and tables I've just gone over. They
just keep their noses close to the computer and they add beans on beans. On
another track,and this is very important, you've got people who are saying,
"Listen, flu IS NOT A REPORTABLE DISEASE IN THE US. There is no rule that
doctors in the field must report every (or any) flu diagnosis they make to
the CDC. Therefore, we know that all sorts of flu cases and, therefore, FLU
DEATHS, are not being funneled to us. So we have to take a different
approach. We have to do STATISTICAL PROJECTIONS. From the data we do have,
or from some restricted studies we do on very small populations, we have to
introduce computer modeling, and we can then make a reasonable estimate of
how many people actually die of the flu every year. THAT'S how we come up
with the 36,000 figure. See? We're not lying. We're just doing the best job
we can."

There is a great deal to learn about how these computer
projections are really done. People tend to glaze over when you bring
this subject up. People assume the math is correct and right and there are
geniuses at work and they know the best way to proceed.

Well, I would point out that, in Rolling Stone, and other
publications, a big scandal was broken about the way HIV-positive stats
were assembled in South Africa, where the predictions tell us that the whole
country will soon die of AIDS. It turned out that researchers were getting
their blood for HIV tests from pregnancy clinics' leftover vials. They were
testing this blood for"antibodies to HIV," and then sending the numbers and
percentages to GENEVA, to the World Health Organization, where the computer
boys took the numbers and did their projections. And that's how the dire
press releases about the future of South Africa were created for medical
reporters from Alaska to the South Pole. One thing was wrong: PREGNANCY
ITSELF CAN CAUSE AN HIV BLOOD TEST TO REGISTER POSITIVE FALSELY. Pregnancy
can cause the blood test to confirm the presence of antibodies to HIV when
those antibodies are not really there. Not there. And that's the blood they
were using to begin with---from pregnant women.

In the matter of flu deaths in the US, the burden of proof lies
with the CDC. They must show, in great detail, that their statistical
projections of 36,000 deaths a year are based on good and reasonable science
all the way down the line. Meanwhile, as I've shown, the only data we have
to work with are, all in all, a great torpedo in the belly of the CDC. And
that data is posted right there on a CDC page.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

Getting the picture? I�ll add a few more comments today, April 28,
2005. There is no reason to trust the CDC�s computer projections on flu
deaths. First, we don�t have info on how they make these projections.
Second, when you go to the small print,as I�ve done above, you see some very
alarming deceptions. You see fast and loose �science.�

Further: even the isolation of an actual flu virus in a patient
(as opposed to merely finding antibodies to a flu virus) is not enough to
make a flu diagnosis. Why? Because there is a thing called TITER. Titer is
basically a measure of how many viruses per unit of blood are present in
that patient. You need a whole lot of titer to make a clear diagnosis of
flu. If the patient has just a few viruses floating around in his body,
there is no reason to expect he has the flu. When you look back at those
tables I just went over, you see absolutely no mention of titer.

Also, in those tables, you see no mention of the overall health
status of the �flu patient.� Any flu patient. This is key. In many
instances, the flu is not really doing much at all. The patient is ill from
other causes. For instance, he has been beaten down by years of toxic
medical drugs. He has had multiple surgeries and accompanying
immune-suppressing blood transfusions. He has had other illnesses that have
worn down his immune system. He has eaten a terrible diet. He has received
toxic vaccines. These and other factors are much more important to how ill
the patient is than the presence of a flu virus in his body. To say
such an immune-suppressed patient has died of the flu is a complete lie.

I�ll offer one final remark to round off this utterly fantastic
scandal. Attendees in my ongoing paranormal writing workshop will
recall that, in the last session, I described in detail how, as you write
story, as you move in with your lens on a small piece of a space you are
creating, you really know what it�s like to inhabit a landscape of your own
invention. You know how exhilarating that can be. The corollary to that is,
when you are following SOMEONE ELSE�S STORY---a story that is built as a
deception for an ulterior motive---THE CLOSER YOU GET, THE WORSE IT IS.

A word to the wise.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com




 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Kevin's Spreadsheets
Next: Kimmie's Thread (nrsmac)