CDC pharma shill lie

"john" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Every year in the United States, on average.......approximately 36,000
people die from flu." CDC October 6, 2004
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm

Number of flu deaths 753
(2002)http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf

That's the number of deaths for which the influenza virus was absolutely
identified. There were about 70,000 deaths from combined influenza and
pneumonia. In most cases, it is never determined just what the infection
really is. Moreover, viral pneumonias often precede bacterial pneumonias, so
the differentiation of one from the other is moot.

It should also be realized that the figures vary substantially from year to
year, due to differences in the nature of the influenza virus itself. It is
not reasonable to generalize from the statistics from one annual dataset.

The figure given above is an estimate, but it was not derived from lies.

Lar

"Larry Hoover" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"john" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Every year in the United States, on average.......approximately 36,000
people die from flu." CDC October 6, 2004
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm

Number of flu deaths 753
(2002)http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf

That's the number of deaths for which the influenza virus was absolutely
identified. There were about 70,000 deaths from combined influenza and
pneumonia. In most cases, it is never determined just what the infection
really is. Moreover, viral pneumonias often precede bacterial pneumonias,

so

Quoted message said:

the differentiation of one from the other is moot.

It should also be realized that the figures vary substantially from year

to

Quoted message said:

year, due to differences in the nature of the influenza virus itself. It

is

Quoted message said:

not reasonable to generalize from the statistics from one annual dataset.

The figure given above is an estimate, but it was not derived from lies.

Lar

The whole flu vaccine fiasco is the result of efforts tos tabilize the flu
vaccine supply and to increase the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.
As you noted, predictions of deaths are iify. But recently tyhere has been a
drive by the CDC to expand the list of who is "at risk", causing a lot of
confusion in the populace AND increasing demand as those who do not neesd
the vaccine take it because they are confused.

The big problem is that in mild flu seasons, like 2003-2003, 10's of
millions of doses go unused. This causes the manufacturers to lose money.
The next years was a bad flu season, and doses were difficult to come by.

www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/05/17/hlsc0517.htm

But this is why even teh CDC contradicts itself. Their figures for the
public health industry - the people actually treating flu victime - MUST be
accurate and reasonable. But the information the CDC releases to the public
must back their drive to keep the vaccine available.

Larry

Quoted message said:

"Larry Hewitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The big problem is that in mild flu seasons, like 2003-2003, 10's of
millions of doses go unused. This causes the manufacturers to lose money.
The next years was a bad flu season, and doses were difficult to come by.

No they don't. The manufacturers get paid for producing it. It's the
middlemen, health units, clinics, HMOs, or whatever, that get stuck for the
cost of unused vaccine.

Quoted message said:

www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/05/17/hlsc0517.htm

But this is why even teh CDC contradicts itself. Their figures for the
public health industry - the people actually treating flu victime - MUST
be
accurate and reasonable. But the information the CDC releases to the
public
must back their drive to keep the vaccine available.

Larry

I think you're missing the point altogether. There are major medical
meetings in the late spring to discuss projections of the type of influenza
virus that is likely to emerge the following fall. Most often, it is the
type that was most prominent late in the spring. It's not really known how
the virus estivates, but it does.

The influenza virus that causes pandemics is (nearly always) a Type A
orthomyxovirus, with a permutation of one each from at least 13 HA
(hemagglutinin) and 9 NA (neuraminidase) proteins. They drop the two A's,
for brevity. The H5N1 virus is the one making all the health officials
worried, in fear that it might cross over from the bird form of Type A
viruses to the one that infects humans.

Anyway, the vaccine producers take the recommendations of the experts (the
HN typology), and start producing vaccines under contract. Some, I'm sure,
is done on spec (without contract, but to permit extra profits if there is a
higher than expected demand). Once you're making a particular vaccine,
making a little extra is both easy and inexpensive. But the rest is simply
pre-sold.

What is becoming clear from epidemiology is that there is a "critical mass",
a population percentage who must be susceptible to a particular virus or
strain thereof, for propogation through the population to occur. Below that
critical percentage, the virus dies out, or at worst, causes local
outbreaks. You don't have to vaccinate everybody, just as many as it takes
to get below that critical mass.

I happen to live in Ontario, where vaccines are free to any citizen who
wants them. I saw a reference to Ontario in the link you provided. We're at
about 40% coverage. It will be interesting to see if there are any
significant differences in morbidity in years when the flu virus is
particularly virulent. That's the unpredicable variable. There was just this
September an article in JAMA that showed high variability in hospital
admissions for flu and complications arising therefrom, year over year. We
predict from averages, but we see high variability in past records. Picking
a single year's statistics, as you have done, is fallacious. Moreover, as I
also indicated, most influenza-related deaths were not confirmed by specific
tests. That does not mean those deaths were not due to influenza. We just
don't have the information required to specify more clearly. The absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.

There's something I'd like to add. Something you may not have considered, if
you're relatively young, and relatively healthy. If you serve as a viral
vector, by not protecting yourself from infection, you could then pass the
virus along to someone who will die from it. The annual incidence of
mortality from influenza (averaged over many years) is approximately equal
to the total deaths from suicide. It's not a trivial issue. They lock down
nursing homes during flu outbreaks for a reason.

Lar

Yes, It will be interesting to watch the Alzheimers statistics and see how
they improve with the vaccines being so liberal in Ontario.

oooops...did I say that out loud?

"Larry Hoover" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Larry Hewitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The big problem is that in mild flu seasons, like 2003-2003, 10's of
millions of doses go unused. This causes the manufacturers to lose

money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The next years was a bad flu season, and doses were difficult to come

by.

Quoted message said:

No they don't. The manufacturers get paid for producing it. It's the
middlemen, health units, clinics, HMOs, or whatever, that get stuck for

the

Quoted message said:

cost of unused vaccine.

Quoted message said:

www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/05/17/hlsc0517.htm

But this is why even teh CDC contradicts itself. Their figures for the
public health industry - the people actually treating flu victime - MUST
be
accurate and reasonable. But the information the CDC releases to the
public
must back their drive to keep the vaccine available.

Larry

I think you're missing the point altogether. There are major medical
meetings in the late spring to discuss projections of the type of

influenza

Quoted message said:

virus that is likely to emerge the following fall. Most often, it is the
type that was most prominent late in the spring. It's not really known how
the virus estivates, but it does.

The influenza virus that causes pandemics is (nearly always) a Type A
orthomyxovirus, with a permutation of one each from at least 13 HA
(hemagglutinin) and 9 NA (neuraminidase) proteins. They drop the two A's,
for brevity. The H5N1 virus is the one making all the health officials
worried, in fear that it might cross over from the bird form of Type A
viruses to the one that infects humans.

Anyway, the vaccine producers take the recommendations of the experts (the
HN typology), and start producing vaccines under contract. Some, I'm sure,
is done on spec (without contract, but to permit extra profits if there is

a

Quoted message said:

higher than expected demand). Once you're making a particular vaccine,
making a little extra is both easy and inexpensive. But the rest is simply
pre-sold.

What is becoming clear from epidemiology is that there is a "critical

mass",

Quoted message said:

a population percentage who must be susceptible to a particular virus or
strain thereof, for propogation through the population to occur. Below

that

Quoted message said:

critical percentage, the virus dies out, or at worst, causes local
outbreaks. You don't have to vaccinate everybody, just as many as it takes
to get below that critical mass.

I happen to live in Ontario, where vaccines are free to any citizen who
wants them. I saw a reference to Ontario in the link you provided. We're

at

Quoted message said:

about 40% coverage. It will be interesting to see if there are any
significant differences in morbidity in years when the flu virus is
particularly virulent. That's the unpredicable variable. There was just

this

Quoted message said:

September an article in JAMA that showed high variability in hospital
admissions for flu and complications arising therefrom, year over year. We
predict from averages, but we see high variability in past records.

Picking

Quoted message said:

a single year's statistics, as you have done, is fallacious. Moreover, as

I

Quoted message said:

also indicated, most influenza-related deaths were not confirmed by

specific

Quoted message said:

tests. That does not mean those deaths were not due to influenza. We just
don't have the information required to specify more clearly. The absence

of

Quoted message said:

evidence is not evidence of absence.

There's something I'd like to add. Something you may not have considered,

if

Quoted message said:

you're relatively young, and relatively healthy. If you serve as a viral
vector, by not protecting yourself from infection, you could then pass the
virus along to someone who will die from it. The annual incidence of
mortality from influenza (averaged over many years) is approximately equal
to the total deaths from suicide. It's not a trivial issue. They lock down
nursing homes during flu outbreaks for a reason.

Lar

"Larry Hoover" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Larry Hewitt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The big problem is that in mild flu seasons, like 2003-2003, 10's of
millions of doses go unused. This causes the manufacturers to lose

money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The next years was a bad flu season, and doses were difficult to come

by.

Quoted message said:

No they don't. The manufacturers get paid for producing it. It's the
middlemen, health units, clinics, HMOs, or whatever, that get stuck for

the

Quoted message said:

cost of unused vaccine.

As you note further on, much of the supply is made on spec. The health
department in my county cancelled an order - they didn;t pay fot it anyway.
The manufacturers took a beating in 2003-2003.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/05/17/hlsc0517.htm

But this is why even teh CDC contradicts itself. Their figures for the
public health industry - the people actually treating flu victime - MUST
be
accurate and reasonable. But the information the CDC releases to the
public
must back their drive to keep the vaccine available.

Larry

I think you're missing the point altogether. There are major medical
meetings in the late spring to discuss projections of the type of

influenza

Quoted message said:

virus that is likely to emerge the following fall. Most often, it is the
type that was most prominent late in the spring. It's not really known how
the virus estivates, but it does.

The influenza virus that causes pandemics is (nearly always) a Type A
orthomyxovirus, with a permutation of one each from at least 13 HA
(hemagglutinin) and 9 NA (neuraminidase) proteins. They drop the two A's,
for brevity. The H5N1 virus is the one making all the health officials
worried, in fear that it might cross over from the bird form of Type A
viruses to the one that infects humans.

Anyway, the vaccine producers take the recommendations of the experts (the
HN typology), and start producing vaccines under contract. Some, I'm sure,
is done on spec (without contract, but to permit extra profits if there is

a

Quoted message said:

higher than expected demand). Once you're making a particular vaccine,
making a little extra is both easy and inexpensive. But the rest is simply
pre-sold.

Agreed. My point about the CDC is that they publish TWO numbers for
influenza related deaths that are different by a factor of 10 or more. The
low number is the rigouous number given to the medical cmmunity. The high
number is a "guesstimate" that includes deaths where the proximate cause is
not the flu, but the ultimate cause is suspected to be the flu. This larger
number is what is released for public consumption in campaigns to get the
population vaccinated.

Quoted message said:

What is becoming clear from epidemiology is that there is a "critical

mass",

Quoted message said:

a population percentage who must be susceptible to a particular virus or
strain thereof, for propogation through the population to occur. Below

that

Quoted message said:

critical percentage, the virus dies out, or at worst, causes local
outbreaks. You don't have to vaccinate everybody, just as many as it takes
to get below that critical mass.

Again, agreed. Any parent knows that 1 kid in class gets sick, all the kids
AND their families get sick. The problem is getting to that populatioin. AS
my ama article notes, there is considerable debate how to do this. The CDC
wants more health are workers vaccinated, but they are resisting.

The "politically" correct way to do this in the US is to lable segments of
the population as "susceptible". To say something like "we need to randomly
vaccinate 1/3 of the population to prevent a pandemic" would be political -
and legal - suicide. So the CDC has been adding groups to the endangered
list in an effort to up the number of people getting vaccinated. But since
this is a strictly voluntary procedure --- and since the part of the
population that would benefit most from a vaccination is uninsured or
underinsured ( urban, low income but not on medicaiad or medicare) getting
the shots is driven striclty by the severity of the season. Last year with
all of the hype my boss (I worked for a goevernment agency) brought the
health department in to give shots. The year before he cancelled the visit
for lack of interest.

Quoted message said:

I happen to live in Ontario, where vaccines are free to any citizen who
wants them. I saw a reference to Ontario in the link you provided. We're

at

Quoted message said:

about 40% coverage. It will be interesting to see if there are any
significant differences in morbidity in years when the flu virus is
particularly virulent. That's the unpredicable variable. There was just

this

Quoted message said:

September an article in JAMA that showed high variability in hospital
admissions for flu and complications arising therefrom, year over year. We
predict from averages, but we see high variability in past records.

Picking

Quoted message said:

a single year's statistics, as you have done, is fallacious. Moreover, as

I

Quoted message said:

also indicated, most influenza-related deaths were not confirmed by

specific

Quoted message said:

tests. That does not mean those deaths were not due to influenza. We just
don't have the information required to specify more clearly. The absence

of

Quoted message said:

evidence is not evidence of absence.

Agreed. But I am deeply suspicious of statistics like that. The playing
field is not level. How do we know that the changing definitons,
diagnostics, etc mean that the old numbers are under=reported r the new
numbers are inflated. Consideribg what is happening in health care, I lean
strongly towards the latter. People make money off of increased diagnoses of
illness/symdromes/diagnoses. Lots of money.

Quoted message said:

There's something I'd like to add. Something you may not have considered,

if

Quoted message said:

you're relatively young, and relatively healthy. If you serve as a viral
vector, by not protecting yourself from infection, you could then pass the
virus along to someone who will die from it. The annual incidence of
mortality from influenza (averaged over many years) is approximately equal
to the total deaths from suicide. It's not a trivial issue. They lock down
nursing homes during flu outbreaks for a reason.

Well, that is the debate. There are some that want to vaccinate the whole
population. But IMHO life is a risk. Do we spend billions saving a few
thousand from the flu and make it impossible to save a lot from other
diseaes because we are broke?

Larry

Quoted message said:

Lar