Sunday, November 22, 2009

WHO's pandemic definition change kickstarts the H1N1 fear show

H1N1- the facts on the ground never matched the hype, hysteria and fear mongering show put on by Public Health Officials and the main stream media. I asked myself what or who was benefitting from the swine flu theatrics

If this flu had been as deadly and dangerous as had been touted why would anyone feed the frenzy of a scared citizenry. That makes no sense, when you take a moment or two to really think about that scenario.

I'll lay it out quickly and simply had a real pandemic been at work, you would have seen it, you would have known it, without being told, it would have been obvious to you.
I am quite sure in the past, when pandemics swept through populations the people didn't need government and media hype to demonstrate there was a problem.

So in the situation of a real pandemic, fear mongering would have been the last thing any government would have encouraged. You ask, why?
The answer is obvious when you think about it.. the government could not contend with fearful panicked out of control citizens.

Panicked citizens do not follow rules, panicked citizens do not listen to the government, panicked citizens may break the law for survival.

So how would it serve Public Health Authorities and governing bodies, in the case of real pandemic to ramp up the fear?

It wouldn't.

However, if you wish to create the illusion of a pandemic, spread fear for political and pharmaceutical profit purposes, the hysteria surrounding H1N1 has been ideal.
Just create the right balance of fear and reassurance. Come up with fancy slogans like "this year it is a different flu season" but also reassure the populace that the vaccine is coming, and most cases are mild.

But, how to get all this started? I know, lets start the show with a bang by changing the very meaning of pandemic, as was done by the WHO, so that you can hype a pandemic out of just about any influenza situation.For visuals, see here

This is how WHO once defined pandemic:

"The WHO definition for "influenza pandemic" once required "several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness."

Now it requires "sustained chains of human-to-human transmission leading to community-wide outbreaks" in two parts of the world, with this addition: The cause must be an animal or human-animal flu virus; the latter is known as genetic reassortment.

What makes this interesting is this-
Under this new definition, "community-wide outbreaks" of swine flu in two South American countries and somewhere in China could qualify as a pandemic. No deaths required.

But a pure human flu that could maybe kill 20 million people, NOT a pandemic!
Not according to the new WHO definition anyway.

So begins the larding of H1N1 with fear.
And, as this fellow points out it just goes on from there.
(By the way, would someone give this man a medal for bravery. I am thinking he deserves it)

Months of dire swine flu warnings were a dangerous, disruptive cry of "wolf" for an ailment Canadian health officials knew would be a mild, manageable beast.

Canadian health officials KNEW.

In particular, H1N1's May and June run through Australia, which mirrors Canada in its health care capabilities, showed the virus was a temperate one.

"By their measures, things like physicians' visits and the like, this was no different than a usual flu year," says Schabas of the Australian experience. "In fact, it was milder."

Even before that Health Officials KNEW

But even after its terrifying Mexican debut in April, where it was blamed for hundreds of deaths, health officials knew that H1N1 had no apocalyptic potential.

"Within about a week of the first stories out of Mexico, it was becoming clear that the death toll (there) was in the order of hundreds, not tens of thousands," Schabas says.

As for it's effects on the young:

And the tragic death of 13-year-old Toronto hockey player Evan Frustaglio, which galvanized the nation's attention on the disease, did not warrant the ensuing panic.

While mortality rates among people 20 and younger in Canada will be slightly higher than in a normal flu season, the actual number of deaths among healthy youngsters will be in the range of just seven, Schabas says.

"The risk of a young person being killed by a car in Ontario ... is 100 or more times higher than the risk of being killed by H1N1."

As for the bally-hooed 3rd wave of the pandemic:

"They (health officials) sound like burnt-out surfers sitting on a beach, watching the waves go in and out and arguing the next one will be better."
But, still the show goes on, despite reports that swine flu is peaking. I guess, when you have invested so much money, time, hype, fear, advertising, slogan making, the show must go on.
My last question, I am still wondering if there was some other reason for the mass vaccinations.

1 comment:

  1. I just want to throw this comment out there....

    After writing this post, I was thinking about the defintion change made by the WHO.

    Specifying that the breakout must be " be an animal or human-animal flu virus; the latter is known as genetic reassortment."

    Isn't this or doesn't this seem to be an open invitation to pharmaceutical corporations to create (in the lab) new combinations of viruses that can be released into the human population? That is not farfetched, because if you check to a past post vaccine makers spread uncirculated virus's to test vaccines,I relinked in this one, you can read that was exactly what happened

    " Mock-up vaccines contain an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations and thus mimics the novelty of a pandemic virus"

    In other words mock vaccines which actually contained viruses were used on people to spread a novelty pandemic.

    Is this what is in the batches of H1n1, another noveltu pandemic virus??

    This just leads to more and more questions, about exactly what is going on here.

    Was the change made so it would be favourable to big pharma?
    To kickstart a profitable vaccine industry?