Friday, November 13, 2009

Falsifying History -Revising the H1N1 death toll

On B's suggestion I revised the title.

I just came across this one.....
If the numbers for H1n1 don't look scary enough, you just revise them!
I am not kidding. This is flasifying history, right before your very eyes.
Because these stats will be the "official" numbers though it can't really be known, since no one is checking.

Using new methodology, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has revised its estimate of the total number of deaths caused by swine flu. The new figures will result in a tripling of the number deaths from H1N1 overnight.

While the official estimates have not yet been released, it appears that the tally of deaths from the novel form of influenza will rise to around 4,000, up from 1,200, as was first reported Wednesday by The New York Times.

The changes reflect new surveillance methods thought to be more accurate but also show that figuring out the death toll from influenza is not a precise science.

"We don't really know how many cases of H1N1 there have been, truly," said Dr. Len Horovitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York.

Raising the numbers to justify the hype?? Why don't they lower them? The numbers could actually be lower, because they don't really know.


  1. Hey I wanted to leave a comment here for Edo and Silverfish.

    Glad about the lack of telly watching, it hasn't been on here all day either, that said, the H1N1 fear mongering is on the radio, in the papers....

    I admit to having tuned most of it out at this point in time

    oh and as for ceding powers to WHO, this may backfire in their faces unless "spun" right
    And this latest makes it clear the spin is on going.

    If they do not REALLY KNOW, Why assume the toll is higer, when it may actually be lower.
    But the higher number justifies the hype so of course the number increases, though they don't really know.

    Silv, you did call this right off, but a question for you given your more science background then moi.

    If the science was there that backed a two injection solution as being necessary for kids, why would it be changed.
    I am thinking...
    a) there was no science behind the reccomendation or it wouldn't have been changed and given the lack of proper testing including none on children for the Canadian vaccine, the science is irrelevant

    b) I am also wondering if something in the way of liability is rearing it's ugly head, hence the sudden announcement of two injections not be required?

    any thoughts?

  2. Penn, that was the problem right from the start, There was NO science, not even a little bit. It was all based on conjecture and then the manipulation of bad statistics. Now I have spent more than a few hours doing research and Never have I based the outcome of an experiment on conjecture. This whole piece of crap goes far beyond bad science, it falls into the category of criminal fraud on every level.

    Now I have had meeting during the last while with former colleagues, including the former head of the Manitoba Medical Ass. And we are all just shaking our heads as none of this makes any sense from a scientific or medical point of view. The only way any of this makes any sense is when one looks at the money angle.

    Now I don’t know if you remember the Hong Kong flu epidemic that occurred during the late sixties, the people were stacked up in the hospitals like cord wood, as a matter of fact the hospital here hired a local cabinet shop to build bunk beds out of 2x4’s and plywood so that they could house the sick in the hallways three high and even then there wasn’t the hype that we see for this none event.

    The consensus here is that as soon as all of the smoke from this lie clears no questions will be asked and that will really be the true crime. On a brighter note perhaps when this is all not said and done assholes like David the Butler to big pharma Jones will be shown the door.

  3. ok let me throw one more scenario at ya silv.

    Since there was no testing of the vaccine, particularly on children, is it plausible that the mass vaccination is the experiment itself.

    Thinking aboout the kids..

    You have some kids who "accidently" received an adult dose.

    You have some kids who will have received one vaccine.

    Then you have some kids who will still be getting two vaccines.

    Does this boil down to mass experimentation? Giving different control groups to monitor??

    This thought crossed my mind too.

    As for the possibility for the reason behind the change in policy, one injection vs two injections that it would give two groups of guinea pigs, basically.

    And no the Hong Kong Flu epidemic does not ring a bell at all.
    Given that depending on the year in which it happened I would have been 7 yrs old, tops.

    The money angle, however....

    Yes, there has been lots of money made by the pharmaceutical companies, the media companies have been aided massively by all the advertising.Lots of distraction created,distraction from the faltering economy, distraction from G-20, the mess the Olympics is going to be, or as I call them the Para-military Olympics.the new pornographic xray at the airports, which they got nicely in place for the Olympics, and bigger issues with the banks, increasing warfare and on and on.....
    Anyway, what are your thoughts on the control groups theory?

  4. btw; silverfish I looked into the Hong Kong flu 1968. 1 million died worldwide approximately..

    Oh and something else interesting, it was a category 2 pandemic unlike the swine flu pandemic, because it yielded a low death rate

    "In comparison to other pandemics, the Hong Kong flu yielded a low death rate, with a case-fatality ratio below 0.5% making it a category 2 disease on the Pandemic Severity Index. The pandemic infected an estimated 500,000 Hong Kong residents, 15% of the population.[4] In the United States, approximately 33,800 people died.[7]"

    If I am not mistaken swine flu is a category 6 ??

    gonna ask the parents if they even recall this one?

  5. Perhaps instead of calling it revisionist history, it would be more accurate to call it exaggerationist (since the default is to always make it higher). As I understand the word, revisionist refers to those historians who try to go beyond the official government history and find out what really was going on. So it seems a bit ironic to me to call it revisionist when it is distorting what facts are available even more than they already were.


  6. The expression, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" comes to mind.

  7. Oh dear, I seem to have caused a change, when I really was just enjoying the irony. In this upside down world, it seemed entirely appropriate to apply revisionist to the officials who collect the data and tell us what it means (of course it is ludicrous that the CDC even claims to have a death count when by their own admission they stopped testing for the flu months ago).
    On another note of how surreal this world has become, on a military blog I read on occasion, the blogger posted some extracts from the U.S. propaganda stories of WW2, and the commenters acknowledged that they knew it was propaganda, but still thought they were great stories.


  8. Hey B, I actually like the new title, I thought long and hard about it......

    And, it does seem a more accurate title, falsifying history.

    Because some time down the road when people look back at this episode in history, these will be the official "statistics" and they are completely made up.

    Like sanj said

    There are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"

    Different label, same thing.