Bay Area sees increase in fatalities related to flu
Original post made on Jan 13, 2014
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, January 9, 2014, 6:30 PM
on Jan 13, 2014 at 9:20 am
By Dr. Russell Blaylock (www.russellblaylockmd.com)
"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..."
Link to article: Web Link
Partial list of References:
1. CDC, Novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infections in three pregnant women -- United States, April -- May, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep May 15, 2009; 58: (18): 497-500.
2. Maines TR et al. Transmission and pathogenesis of swine-origin 2009 A(H1N1) influenza viruses in ferrets and mice. Science 2009;325: 484-487.
3. CDC report: Web Link.
4. Strauss JH, Strauss EG, Viruses and Human Disease. Academic Press, San Diego, 2002, p153.
5. Jain S, et al. Hospitalized patients with 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, April-June 2009. NEJM 2009;361 Oct 8, 2009 (10.1056/NEJM oa0906695).
6. The ANZIC influenza investigators. Critical care services and 2009 H1N1 influenza in Australia and New Zealand. NEJM, 2009; 361: Oct 8, 2009 (10.56/NEJMoa0908481).
7. The Cochrane Collaboration: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006 (1). Article number CD004879. In this review that analyzed 51 studies involving more than 260,000 children and found that below age 2 years, the seasonal flu vaccine offered no protection and those older than 2 years, only 33 to 36% had protective antibody response. (See Neil Z. Miller. The Vaccine Safety Manuel for more information).
8. NIH News: Web Link.
9. CDC: 2009-2010 Influenza Season Week 41 ending October 17, 2009. Web Link
10. Neil Z. Miller. The Vaccine Safety Manual. New Atlantan Press, Santa Fe, 2008, p97. This material also comes from the CDC.
11. MMWR. Influenza Vaccination Coverage Among Children and Adults -- -United States, 2008 -- 09 Influenza Season. Oct 9, 2009/58 (39); 1091-1095.
12. Nanan R, et al. Measles virus infection causes transient depletion of activated T cells from peripheral circulation. J. Clinical Virology 1999; 12; 201-210.
13. Schneider-Schaulies J et al. Receptor interactions, tropism, and mechanisms involved in morbillivirus induced immunomodulation. Advances Virus Research 2008; 71: 173-205.
14. Mawas F et al. Suppression and modulation of cellular and humoral immune responses to Heaemophilus influenzae type B (HiB) conjugate vaccine in hib-diptheria-tetanus toxoids-acellular pertussis combination vaccines: a study in a rat model. J Infectious Diseases 2005; 191: 58-64.
15. Pollard KM, et al. Effects of mercury on the immune system. Metals and Ions in Biological Systems 1997; 34: 421-440.