looking even closer at true death stats on flu

LOOKING EVEN CLOSER AT TRUE DEATH STATS ON FLU


OCTOBER 30, 2004. I may have received this data before, from one of the ace researchers who has been showing me true CDC death stats from flu.

But 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.

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 one 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 THE 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. "Oh, sure, this is a case of the flu. Make a note."

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

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---except we 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.

Let me point out one other thing. You could do a whole lot of excusing (of the CDC) by saying, "Look, the CDC really wants to list flu deaths and pneumonia deaths together as one category, but they're just following international code guidelines and that's why they break it down into separate listings and it's not their fault blah blah and if you add up the flu and pneumonia deaths together you end up with a really large number blah blah..." Sure. But, as we see in this breakdown for the year 2000, 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.

Suppose we added up deaths from all these tables and categories for the year 2000. Suppose we wrongly stated these are all very good and tight categories of influenza and we're sure that the cause of death was flu and flu alone in every single case. Suppose we told that gigantic lie. What would we end up with? 3530 deaths. NOT 36,000 deaths. Not 70,000 deaths, which some people are now touting with breathtaking ease from their tower of authority.

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 reaonable 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 is 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

Reply to This Message

Alert Webmaster & Moderators

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?
How do you feel about this message?     Agree     Disagree       Hide this question