|
by Jeremy R. Hammond
October
11, 2018
from
JeremyRHammond Website
Influenza A virus (CDC)
The CDC's
claim that
there were
80,000 flu deaths
during the
2017-2018 flu season
is based on a
mathematical model
premised on a
highly dubious assumption.
On September 27 (2018),
the CDC issued the claim at a press
conference that
80,000 people died from the flu
during the 2017-2018 flu season.
This claim has been parroted to the public by
the mainstream media (MSM) as
though fact.
But what neither the
CDC nor the MSM will tell you is
that the number "80,000" does not come from surveillance or death
certificate data of deaths determined to be associated with
laboratory confirmed influenza.
Rather, this number is a preliminary estimate made by "adjusting"
the actual reported numbers. To "adjust" the numbers, the CDC
multiplies lab-confirmed cases on the basis of certain assumptions.
As
previously written, to determine
the multiplier, the CDC makes a number of assumptions to estimate,
-
the likelihood
that a person hospitalized for any respiratory illness would
be tested for influenza
-
the likelihood
that a person with influenza would test positive
Once the CDC has its
estimated hospitalization rate, it then multiplies that number by
the ratio of deaths to hospitalizations to arrive at its estimated
mortality rate.
Thus, any overestimation
of the hospitalization rate is compounded in its estimated death
rate.
The number of "80,000" the CDC is claiming as the number of flu
deaths is based not on reported flu deaths, but on a mathematical
model built on the highly dubious assumption that the percentage of
people who (a) are hospitalized for respiratory illness and have the
flu is the same as (b) the percentage of people who are hospitalized
for respiratory illness, are actually tested, and test positive.
This implies that doctors are not more likely to seek lab
confirmation for people who actually have influenza than they are
for people whose respiratory symptoms are due to some other cause.
Assuming
that doctors can do better than a
pair of rolled dice at picking out patients with influenza, it
further implies that doctors are no more likely to order a lab test
for patients whom they suspect of having the flu than they are to
order a lab test for patients whose respiratory symptoms they think
are caused by something else.
The CDC's assumption thus introduces a selection bias into its model
that further calls into question the plausibility of its
conclusions, as it is bound to result in overestimation of both
hospitalizations and deaths associated with influenza.
In fact, CDC researchers have acknowledged that,
"If physicians were
more likely to recognize influenza patients clinically and
select those patients for testing, we may have over-estimated
the magnitude of under-detection."
The Autoimmune
Revolution
Of course, the "we may have" statement there is nonsense.
If doctors are more
likely to order lab testing to confirm influenza infection for
patients with influenza than patients hospitalized for some other
respiratory illness, then the CDC has overestimated flu
hospitalizations and deaths. Period... Not "may have". Definitely
has.
I mentioned that the "80,000" number comes from a preliminary
estimate.
This is done because it
takes two or three years before the data to be available to use the
usual method to estimate what the media relay matter-of-factly as
"flu deaths".
Here are some things to
keep in mind when you are faced with fearmongering information
from the CDC and mainstream media:
-
The CDC's model
groups influenza deaths with pneumonia deaths and treats
this combined total as a "lower bound" for
influenza-associated deaths, even though most cases of
pneumonia are not associated with influenza infection.
-
Furthermore, only
about 7% to 15% of what are "influenza-like illnesses" are
actually caused by influenza viruses.
There are over
200 known viruses that cause influenza-like illnesses, while
the vaccine is designed to offer protection against only
three or four strains of influenza (depending on whether
it's a "trivalent" or "quadrivalent"
vaccine).
-
While the CDC in
its public relations messaging and the mainstream media
report the CDC's numbers as though uncontroversial and as
though representative of known influenza-caused deaths, in
truth they are rather controversial estimates of
influenza-associated deaths.
As William
Thompson of the CDC's National Immunization Program once
acknowledged,
"Based on
modeling, we think it's associated. I don't know that we
would say that it's the underlying cause of death."
(That's
false, of course, in the sense that the CDC does
claim matter-of-factly that influenza is the underlying
cause of death when it relays its estimates to the public.
In other words,
the CDC flat out lies, and the mainstream media
broadcast the lie to the public to persuade them to line up
for a flu shot.)
-
In contrast to
the CDC's claimed numbers, the average number deaths each
year for which the cause is actually attributed on death
certificates to influenza is
little more than 1,000.
-
CDC researchers
have acknowledged that even this low number may be an
overestimate as lab confirmation of influenza infection is
not always obtained, writing in the American Journal of
Public Health that,
"simply
counting deaths for which influenza has been coded as
the underlying cause on death certificates can lead to
both over- and underestimates of the magnitude of
influenza-associated mortality."
-
The two primary
justifications for the CDC's universal influenza
vaccine recommendation are that vaccination
-
reduces
transmission of the virus
-
reduces
the risk of potentially deadly complications.
Cochrane
reviews of the scientific literature, however, have
determined that both of these claims are unsupported by
scientific evidence.
-
A study from
earlier this year showed that, contrary to the CDC's
assumption, vaccinated individuals shed over 6 times as much
aerosolized virus as unvaccinated individuals.
-
A growing body of
scientific evidence has shown that repeated annual influenza
vaccination can actually impair the immune system's ability
to fight off influenza infections.
There is an
opportunity cost to vaccination, which is the lost naturally
acquired immunity that would otherwise be conferred in the
event of exposure to influenza viruses.
While natural
immunity protects against not only the infecting strain, but
also other strains (and possibly even against non-influenza
viruses), the
vaccine
offers no such benefit...
For much more about how
the CDC deceives the public about the numbers of flu deaths
annually, read "How
the CDC Uses Fear Marketing to Increase Demand for Flu Vaccines"
in Foreign Policy Journal.
That article is an expanded excerpt from the second installation of
a four-part series I'm working on exposing how the government and
media systematically deceive the public about the safety and
effectiveness of the influenza vaccine.
It goes well beyond the
issue of the CDC's flu deaths estimates, so be sure to read it, too!
|
