The annual flu barrage has already started in our local paper Franklin County news with this little pearl:
Before you read anything else, please flick through this presentation put together by the Cochrane Collaboration Influenza group (Yes, the last three slides bunk out, but the rest is good! This Cochrane powerpoint puts similar things in a different way... ), who believe that you need to understand what the issues are all about, before you can interpret what the “words” that the medical profession spout, REALLY mean.
Now that you’ve done that, you will understand some of the amusing things about the Franklin County News propaganda. Obviously, an “influenza-like illness” which the Collaboration describes, isn’t necessarily the flu and can’t be “prevented” by any means. However, Dr Sue Huang (the head of the National Influenza Centre) always counts all those “influenza-like illnesses that can’t be prevented, as the flu, and tells the public they can be prevented. The reason she does that, is that if you REALLY KNEW how few “influenza-like illnesses” WERE actually the flu, then you would start asking questions like, “Why are they deliberately inflating the data?” Simple. They do that to make you think that flu is a really big deal.
What you won’t know about the article above though, is that:
1) The hospitalisation data is wrong. Look very closely at this graph and THINK about what you are seeing here:
2) Of the 1,517 hospitalisation, 1122 were for Swine Flu. And how many of those hospitalizations would have occurred without the terrorism everyone endured via the media, that the upcoming pandemic could wipe out billions?? In the 2009 Annual Influenza Report there were 35 deaths recorded for swine flu,
but by 2011, that total was 49 deaths. … So if there were only 49 flu deaths in 2009, you’ve got to start asking a few questions, like….
3) In the 395 influenza hospitalizations for “something else” - the presumably more "vicious" influenza types - how many deaths were there? Apparently, none. Something the Health Department never talks about is, “How many people hospitalized were VACCINATED?" Why? When the medical profession tells the truth, the result isn't pretty, so they are best to not go there, huh? (PDF in case it disappears!).
4) How many REAL deaths were really CAUSED by the flu? 35 or 49? And how many deaths were vaccinated?
There’s always been silence with regard to those statistics. And what are the vaccinated patients told? “You will have got a flu that isn’t one in the vaccine!” and the patients never think to ask, “Did you take a swab to find out WHETHER my flu was supposed to be covered with the vaccine?” There is an old saying that statistics can be lies, damned lies and statistics. Silence can be either golden… or.. yellow.
How many people even got “the flu”? What Dr Jefferson described in his presentation applies here as well.
Let me show you: the Health Department considers that the number of people who get the flu in this country, is the number of people who stumble into the doctor after convincing themselves that they’ve got all the symptoms they have just heard some medical zombie describe on the radio.
On page 25 of the 2011 Annual Report from the Public Surveillance website we read:
But consider this… each of these 88 practices take ONLY three swabs a week, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The lucky first person who clutches their head on each of those days, and says, “Doc, I’ve got the floooooooo” is told to, “Open wide” and a nasopharangeal swab is taken. Just three a week (can’t overload the testing system) … and that tiny number of swabs are sent off for testing, and those results can look like this - with the DARK blue being the numbers of swabs, and the LIGHT blue being actual FLU:
The cases are estimated by taking the number of consultations for influenza-like illnesses reported weekly to the ESR by the 88 sentinal practices, averaging that out and multiplying those numbers, with the number of practices in the country. The swabs from sentinel practices, labs and hospitals, lets ESR know which percentages are positive, and then they test them to find which flu types predominate. However, we rarely hear whether or not the flu types match the vaccine, and we never hear whether the influenza-like illnesses (flu or non-flu) were vaccinated. So on the basis of a few hundred swabs from the estimated 41,133 New Zealanders the crystal ball says had “influenza like illnesses” ….. as you can see, a lot of the cases that walk in, aren’t the flu at all.
Not that the patients with negative swabs will be told they don’t have the flu. Instead they walked out the door clutching some of the millions of dollars of Tamiflu the Government brought in because of the “deadly” pandemic.
To the Health Department … all the tests that are negative for the flu are counted as the flu anyway. Why? On page 62 of the 2011 Annual Flu report, apparently doctors don’t know how to take swabs properly.
In the next few weeks, the media will parade “400 deaths caused by Influenza – nearly the same as the annual road toll rate!”
Where does this “400 deaths” a year come from? After all, a 2010 report from the Influenza group to the minister says this:
See that? 35 + some uncoded deaths = 49 deaths, the highest number of deaths since 2000. You would think that that Figure 1 graph, actually represents REAL deaths, yet we are "TOLD" that in New Zealand "approximately 400 people" will die of influenza every year. Continue Reading
Close Up's programme on whooping cough, was a triumph of emotional blackmail using a cute baby with whooping cough, to push a policy which doesn't work. But worse than that, was the standard of discussion on Close up's facebook page. You know that eminence based manipulation has truly scraped the bottom of the barrel when Grant Jacobs obliquely counsels all readers not to even look at the scientific links put up, .... inferring that those who don’t have the right background won’t understand the studies posted implying that there is no need for anyone else to look at them either
(For anyone reading this in Australia, I did a similar blog in 2008, on Australian media lies on pertussis as well, which you can read here. It also contains full text medical articles and proof that what their media reports is blatantly fictitious propaganda, created by medical people whose only aim is to intentionally deceive the reader by NOT providing the facts. After all, if they provided you with the facts, they wouldn't be able to bully you into "comformity and compliance" would they?)
Senior feature writer
The Dominion Post and Your Weekend
04 474 0063
From: Hilary Butler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 November 2011 5:57 p.m.
Subject: Your article, "battline immunisation ignorance"
While what follows may appear to be anger at you, it is not. It’s anger at the medical people who came to you with dogma … not with facts, and have deliberately mislead you. I will prove that to you using their own documents.
After last night's Sunday documentary, Nikki Turner hit out, with the email below. However, all this document does, is to show just how little Nikki Turner actually understands the very system she's trying to explain.
Firstly we need to remember that ACC is no fault compensation – it is not proving causal links.
This is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever seen her spout. Here's why.
ACC has never been "fault" compension insofar as the injured party cannot find fault with the doctor, the practice, the DHB, the Government and the manufacturer, who were all indemnified for perpetuity. Parents couldn't "blame" them. No "fault" was ascribed to them. Furthermore, compensation was only available for "uncommon" injuries. Soreness at site just didn't count. That was "normal".
ACC never paid these parents compensaion on some beneficent whim. I know. You know how I know? I spent 15 years helping parents fight for ACC compensation. The PARENTS had to prove that there was nothing else that could have caused the brain damage - that the only possible thing "at fault" was a product called a vaccine. The standard of evidence required the parents to PROVE a causal link, and not only to prove a causal link, but to find a doctor who will AGREE that there is a causal link, and preferably, to produce medical evidence from the medical literature to support that causal link. Continue Reading
This morning, "Littlies" sent out the following IMAC propaganda email below, to all the people who sign up for Littlies monthly emails and promotional stuff for kids (Highlighting and comments mine). It would seem that like parliament, Littlies has utterly failed to understand the principle and rights of parents to have informed choice. Continue Reading
Following on from yesterday's blog about Paul Offit's Science Friction, .. today's blog is about how Nikki Turner's presentations to the Parliamentary Select Committee are tainted with the same "blight". Part of Paul Hutchison's recommendations to Parliament included Nikki Turner's unfactual statement (under her IMAC guise) that if vaccination against measles stopped, New Zealand would see 5,000 to 6,000 measles hospitalisation and 20 - 60 deaths per year. A pretty spectacular statement when the medical literature (and Starship hospital policy) makes it so clear that complications and deaths can be radically reduced with vitamin A. In this upload, you will see IMAC's measles claims, and following that, you will see the death decline graph for New Zealand. Following on from that you will see.... Continue Reading
In the Sunday Star Times today, Judge David McNaughton delivered a swift message to Starship doctors about predictive and substandard medical care, and the presumption of guilt without good cause. The Judge found Famaile Lino not guilty of abusing his six month old child after Starship jumped to conclusions, and robustly defended their own preconceived mindsets. The Lino's lawyer said, " "It's a very important case. It shows how suddenly a person can be at home with their feet up looking after their children, and a nightmare commences." Here's the rub though. Court cases like this USUALLY only happen to people like the Linos or the Kahuis. Starship doesn't usually go after people who know what's going on; the limitations of the medical profession; and how to defend themselves. Starship are of course, scuttling into a "risk management" position, by defending the indefensible: Continue Reading
In a previous blog, mention was made of North and South’s rabidly nose-in-the-air provaccine article called “The case for vaccination”. The editor, Virginia Larson stuck her personal stake in the ground, with a scathing editorial, saying, “We did not seek out the extreme anti-immunisation campaigners for “balance” because their arguments aren’t balanced.” and ..... “they’ve already done enough damage by spreading hysteria over the MMR triple jab and are now set on painting the HPV vaccine Gardasil as part of some greater plot to poison or sterilise us.” The article’s author, North and South’s deputy editor Joanna Wane, didn’t mention the questions raised over the efficacy or value of the MeNZB. You would have thought that was deserving enough to be added to the mix of bile? Or perhaps those concerns were well founded? Not according to Perry Bisman. Continue Reading
How do we know this? Because on page 40 of the June Issue of North and South, Dr Michael Tatley from CARM tells us, “An awfully large number of people have been exposed to vaccines and if they’re as bad as some of the anti lobby are suggesting, there must be a lot of really sick people out there. And we just don’t see them.” No, CARM doesn’t see them, and most of the time, neither do they receive reports about those children, as I mentioned in this blog. Why? Continue Reading
On May 8th, IMAC scored a coup with this patsy plant, in the Press. This article is stunning - not for it's factual or investigative, intelligent content, but for the seeming naive gullibility of the reporter, who it would appear didn't realise that he was asked to come for a walk, like a little puppy dog. I can just see it now. Someone walks in and asks, “Who is the most provaccine reporter here?”, ... and hands them suitably predigested material on a plate. Pre-written, with the "right" slant, just as it "should" be! “What we need is a re-port-er, okay? .. No – no, not an investigative journalist! Shhhh A re-port-er, to re – port what we think, just the way we think it. No, we don't need balance - we just need the right message!” Of course they wouldn’t want an “investigative” journalist on the job, because that might involved "balance"!. And worse, in the past, investigative journalists who have taken the time and energy to do their own research have become ultra critical of IMAC pre-digested soundbites. Continue Reading