Monday, April 27, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews)Perhaps due to the genetic makeup of the fast-spreading H1N1 strain of influenza -- which includes genetic elements from bird flu, swine flu and human flu spanning three continents -- there is considerable speculation that the origins of this virus are man-made.
It's not an unreasonable question to ask: Could world governments, spooked by the prospect of radical climate change caused by over-population of the planet, have assembled a super-secret task force to engineer and distribute a super virulent strain of influenza designed to "correct" the human population (and institute global Martial Law)? (Mister Goldbug - I have to disagree with the author of the article here. Government around the world through the U.N. have been performing population control -- like the AIDS virus which was made right here in America in Fort Dix, Maryland, as uncovered by Eustace Mullins)
Technically, it's possible. The U.S. military, all by itself, has the know-how to engineer and unleash such a virus. That doesn't mean they've done so, however. It would be an astonishing leap into crimes against humanity to intentionally unleash such a biological weapon into the wild.
Then again, governments of the world have routinely engaged in crimes against humanity, haven't they? The U.S., for example, dropped nuclear bombs on civilian populations in Japan. Israel rained white phosphorous on Palestinians, Hitler exterminated countless Jews, and Americans fired millions of rounds of depleted uranium rounds into targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unleashing a viral biological weapon in Mexico City is no great leap beyond what governments have already done to achieve their goals.
Throughout human history, virtually all the great crimes against humanity have been carried out by governments -- mostly in the name of peace, prosperity and security, by the way. So let's be clear about one thing: Governments are certainly capable of doing this if properly motivated. Let there be no question about that.
Is there any hard evidence of laboratory origins?
As of this moment, I have not personally seen any conclusive evidence of laboratory origins for this H1N1 swine flu. I am open to the possibility that new evidence may emerge in this direction, however, and I am suspicious of the genetic makeup of the virus as one possible indicator of its origins.
I am not a medical specialist in the area of infectious disease, but I have studied microbiology, genetics and a considerable amount of material on pandemics. What seems suspicious to me is the hybrid origin of the viral fragments found in H1N1 influenza. According to reports in the mainstream media (which has no reason to lie about this particular detail), this strain of influenza contains viral code fragments from:
• Human influenza
• Bird Flu from North America
• Swine flu from Europe
• Swine flu from Asia
This is rather astonishing to realize, because for this to have been a natural combination of viral fragments, it means an infected bird from North America would have had to infect pigs in Europe, then be re-infected by those some pigs with an unlikely cross-species mutation that allowed the bird to carry it again, then that bird would have had to fly to Asia and infected pigs there, and those Asian pigs then mutated the virus once again (while preserving the European swine and bird flu elements) to become human transmittable, and then a human would have had to catch that virus from the Asian pigs -- in Mexico! -- and spread it to others. (This isn't the only explanation of how it could have happened, but it is one scenario that gives you an idea of the complexity of such a thing happening).
Now, on a common sense level, what is the likelihood of such a combination of seemingly unlikely, trans-continental events taking place? At first glance, without the benefit of additional laboratory analysis, it seems extremely unlikely that this could have happened "naturally," without human intervention. It's not outside the realm of possibility, of course, but it seems exceedingly remote that such events happened without some human encouragement.
This is perhaps why the internet is smoking hot with talk of swine flu conspiracy theories. Alex Jones is, of course, covering the issue in articles like this one: http://www.infowars.com/medical-dir...
If the release of the virus was intentional, there are essentially two explanations for who might be behind it: 1) Governments attempting to reduce the human population, 2) Bio-terrorists attempting to kill lots of people. Or perhaps 3) Those two groups are one and the same!
Why we shouldn't dismiss the conspiracy theories outright
Many of the points made in conspiracy articles are well made, in fact: There is both a motive and a means for governments of the world to have played a role in the creation and transmission of this virus. Still, it doesn't mean they did, and NaturalNews will be cautious in reporting such conclusions until more evidence emerges.
There's no question about one aspect of the circulating conspiracy theories, however: If governments wanted to infect people with this bio-engineered swine flu, vaccines would be the best way to do it. It seems interesting that Mexico City health officials, in particular, leaped to a mass vaccination campaign in the midst of the swine flu outbreak even though no vaccines are yet available for swine flu!
So what, exactly, were Mexico City's health officials injecting into health care workers and patients? There's absolutely nothing they could have been injected with that would make any medical sense other than Tamiflu. But Tamiflu is an oral medication, not an injection. So what, then, was being injected into Mexico City's hospital workers?
What's very clear here is that Mexico is engaged in a massive cover-up about the swine flu. The potential from economic damage caused by other nations banning travel and imports from Mexico is very real, and as a strategy to minimize that economic damage, Mexico seems to be purposely under-reporting swine flu infections and deaths while engaging in elaborate theater whose only purpose is to make its own medical authorities appear to be doing something useful. Hence the useless vaccines stunt.
This is further supported by medical personnel whose comments appeared on the Barbara Walter show, published with ABC News Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2553104.htm). Read carefully what these medical experts have to say about the real situation on the ground in Mexico City:
ANTONIO CHAVEZ'S BBC WEBSITE POSTING (voiceover): The truth is that mortality is even higher than what is being reported by the authorities, at least in the hospital where I work in. It is killing three to four patients daily, and it has been going on for more than three weeks. It's a shame that there is fear here. Increasingly younger patients aged 20 to 30 years are dying before our helpless eyes, and there is great sadness among health professionals here.
BARBARA MILLER: Another doctor who wrote into the BBC is Yeny Gregorio Dávila.
EXCERPT FROM YENY GREGORIO DÁVILA' BBC posing (voiceover): I work as a resident doctor in one of the biggest hospitals in Mexico City and sadly, the situation is far from "under control". As a doctor, I realize that the media does not report the truth. Authorities distributed vaccines among all the medical personnel with no results, because two of my partners who worked in this hospital were killed by this new virus in less than six days, even though they were vaccinated as all of us were. The official number of deaths is 20; nevertheless, the true number of victims are more than 200. I understand that we must avoid panic, but to tell the truth - it might be better now to prevent and avoid more deaths.
BARBARA MILLER: While Mexican officials say their primary concern right now is human life, the country's Finance Minister Augustin Carstens says it's clear that the outbreak will have a significant impact on the country's economy.
Vaccinated doctors dead in days
Did you catch what was said here? As Dr. Yeny Gregoria Davila posted on the BBC website, vaccines were given to the medical personnel and those very same medical personnel were dead within six days. Thus, the vaccine is certainly not protecting these people from infection.
According to the conspiracy theories, these vaccines may indeed be the carrier of the virus. Injecting front-line medical personnel with the virus is the fastest way to spread it even further because medical workers interact with large numbers of immune-compromised people on a daily basis, including many people who tend to travel from far away to visit the hospital and then return to their distant towns, burros or villages in Mexico.
Furthermore, the true number of people infected or killed by the virus is being vastly underreported, according to these doctors. It's just like China's handling of SARS: The country was hesitant to admit the disease existed at all in order to avoid international embarrassment over its lackluster health policies.
As the WHO knows quite well, nations are universally reluctant to tell the truth about infectious disease. There's even a good reason why: Big Pharma usually attempts to acquire the virus early on, patent its particular genetic code, then manufacture expensive vaccines that it sells back to the stricken nation at a ridiculously-high price. This is how Big Pharma profits from a pandemic, turning human suffering into corporate profits.
Thus, it is actually in a nation's economic interests to avoid sharing viral strains with world health authorities because WHO routinely shares viral specimens with pharmaceutical companies. This is just one factor in a long list of factors that compel nations to lie about infectious disease outbreaks.
Even when it comes to pandemic outbreaks, we are still dealing with layer upon layer of commercially-motivated deception on the part of nations. That's why it's so important to figure out how to "read between the lies" of the mainstream media. I teach some techniques for doing that in my upcoming Swine flu advanced preparedness LIVE teleconference which you can read about here: http://www.truthpublishing.com/Prod...
This teleconference also reveals secret Chinese Medicine formulas for expelling viruses, how to survive disruptions in basic infrastructure (which are likely to occur if this swine flu goes pandemic), why flu masks are utterly useless at protecting you from flu, and many other topics. Click the link above to read more about this teleconference.
Another reason to avoid vaccines
Let's suppose for a minute that the conspiracy theory angle on this swine flu infection is correct. If the spread of the virus starts to wane, the best way for health authorities to unleash a second wave of infections is to mandate the vaccination of the public with vaccines that are intentionally contaminated with live H1N1 viruses.
Does that sound far-fetched? Consider the news item published here on NaturalNews just one month ago, entitled Vaccines as Biological Weapons? Live Avian Flu Virus Placed in Baxter Vaccine Materials Sent to 18 Countries (http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html).
As that article explained, one pharmaceutical company was caught inserting LIVE bird flu viruses into vaccine materials sent to 18 countries. Was this a trial run for the H1N1 global infection effort? It certainly raises suspicions. When a new virus seemingly "engineered" from three different species suddenly appears in multiple nations -- just one month after a drug company was busted inserting live bird flu viral fragments into globally-distributed vaccine materials -- it should raise the eyebrows of even the most steadfast skeptics.
It doesn't prove anything, of course, but it does raise suspicions that this sort of thing could be happening beyond closed doors.The question to ask yourself on this is the usual one: Who benefits from a global pandemic?
Once you answer that question, you're well on the way to determining the truth or falsehood behind the H1N1 conspiracy theories.
I'm not even going to answer that question for you. I'll let you ponder the answer yourself.Once you answer the question of who benefits from a pandemic, ask yourself this second question: Are they capable of harming or killing humans to accomplish their goals?
Answer that question and you've figured out most of the true story behind these events.
NaturalNews will continue to cover this H1N1 swine flu outbreak in greatly detail. Watch the website for frequent updates.
Showing posts with label CDC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CDC. Show all posts
Monday, May 4, 2009
Thirty-Six Thousand People Do Not Die Each Year from "Regular Flu"
Thursday, April 30, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) Read just about any news report on swine flu deaths, and you'll come across a line that claims "36,000 people die each year from flu-related causes." It sounds authoritative. It's even a nice, round number. But where is this number coming from? And is it based on any actual science?
This statistic is being paraded around by almost everybody, as if to say that swine flu isn't so bad because regular flu kills so many people each year anyway. The truth is that the only standard by which the CDC and WHO are quoting deaths from swine flu is if they are confirmed deaths from a particular viral strain. To them, if a death has not been confirmed in their labs, it does not count as a death from that flu.
Got that? Only "confirmed" deaths count. And they must be confirmed in a laboratory using a rigorous method of comparing samples taken from the deceased with a known database of viral patterns.
As it turns out, virtually none of the 36,000 people said to die from regular flu each year have been confirmed in any lab whatsoever.
Thus, according to the guidelines of the CDC and WHO, they don't count. Based on their own rules, it is technically accurate to say that regular flu kills virtually no one. It's not true, of course, because people do die from the "regular flu" each year, but it is technically accurate according to the CDC and WHO rules for scientific evidence.
Again, that's because nearly all of these "regular flu" deaths aren't confirmed by a CDC or WHO-recognized lab. Thus, they have no scientific standing.
Infectious disease double standard
I find it interesting that when talking about swine flu, the criteria for inclusion in statistics is positive identification in a rigorous laboratory. But when talking about regular flu, the criteria for inclusion is -- technically speaking -- anybody's wild guess.
The 36,000 number, it turns out, was pulled out of thin air. It has no scientific validity whatsoever, even according to the CDC's own standards.
I tracked down the origins of this number on CDC.gov, by the way. Turns out it was an estimate derived by the CDC in 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pres).
It's an estimate, mind you, not a "confirmed" number of deaths. And that estimate has stayed exactly the same through 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Not a budge. Before the number was 36,000, it was 20,000 for many years. That tells you right off the bat this isn't some confirmed laboratory number -- it's a guesstimate!
I'm not disagreeing with the number. It's probably a fairly accurate guess (the CDC folks are a smart bunch). But it doesn't meet the criteria by which these infectious disease organizations report influenza deaths. (Mister Goldbug -- I have trouble agreeing with this statement here. the CDC is smart at deceiving people.)
As the CDC even says on their own website, "This estimate came from a 2003 study published in the Journal of the American Medication Association (JAMA), which looked at the 1990-91 through the 1998-99 flu seasons [10]. Statistical modeling was used to estimate how many flu-related deaths occurred among people whose underlying cause of death on their death certificate was listed as a respiratory or circulatory disease. During these years, the number of estimated deaths ranged from 17,000 to 52,000."
In other words, they took a look at how many people died from respiratory or circulatory disease, and from that they extrapolated "flu-related deaths."
This is all accomplished through "statistical modeling," which is the equivalent of statisticians waving magic wands to create new numbers where none exist. Based on the sample size, it can be quite accurate (plus or minus a few percentage points), or it can be way off base depending on the accuracy of the statistical sample.
Notably, if the same methodology were used to calculate swine flu deaths, it might currently show 300 or more deaths (and such methodologies would be widely criticized, of course, for being "just wild guesses," which they are).
As the CDC admits itself, "CDC does not know exactly how many people die from flu each year."
And... "It has been recognized for many years that influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates [12] and testing for influenza infections usually not done, particularly among the elderly who are at greatest risk of influenza complications and death. Some deaths – particularly in the elderly – are associated with secondary complications of influenza (including bacterial pneumonias)." (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/diseas)
In other words: Influenza isn't listed on death certificates and influenza testing isn't even done on most patients! Thus, it is not possible for these 36,000 influenza deaths to be confirmed at all.
Swine flu may escape detection, too
What else is interesting in all this is when the CDC explains that viral strains aren't even detectable in patients after the first few days of infection:
"Influenza virus infection may not be identified in many instances because influenza virus is only detectable for a short period of time and many people don't seek medical care until after the first few days of acute illness." - The CDC
If this is true, then isn't it also true that most swine flu patients can NEVER be confirmed in a lab?
I find this quite curious, because according to what the CDC is saying here, it is impossible to ever get an accurate "confirmed" count of swine flu patients because the influenza virus isn't detectable after a "short period of time." Thus, by limiting swine flu death reports to only those patients who have been confirmed in a laboratory, the CDC is essentially eliminating the very possibility that many swine flu patients will ever be tested and identified as carrying the strain.
Put another way, the criteria for identifying and reporting swine flu deaths is, itself, limiting the number of swine flu deaths that will ever be counted. Essentially, the system is rigged to under-report swine flu deaths by eliminating anyone who wasn't tested in time to identify the strain. (Mister Goldbug -- I have to say that while the system might be rigged to under-report swine flu deaths, it could also be used to artificially inflate death reports to scare hell out of the country in order to encourage mandatory vaccination.)
This, I believe, is why the swine flu death count remains magically low even as doctors on the ground in Mexico City are reporting much larger numbers of real-world swine flu deaths.
Different strains
The other important thing to realize here is that the 36,000 figure is not talking about just one strain of influenza: It's a cumulative figure from ALL the other strains of influenza combined!
"Regular flu," you see, isn't just one flu. It's a collection of potentially hundreds of different flu strains. So assigning the 36,000 deaths a year figure to "regular flu" is misleading because it makes it sound like a single strain of influenza.
The truth is that nobody really knows how many deaths each year occur from the different strains of flu circulating in the wild. Some top-notch CDC officials can probably take a pretty good guess at it, but it's still just that: A guess. The real numbers are, frankly, unknown.
It's also unknown how many people die from the viral load vs. how many die from secondary infections (such as bacterial pneumonia) that often follow viral infections. Technically, a lot of those 36,000 people (or so) might have been killed by various strains of common bacteria, not by the viruses.
Yesterday morning, Mexico was reporting 159 deaths from swine flu. According to the WHO, that number is not only 7. How does 159 magically become 7? By including the word "confirmed" in front of it.
Fine. Let's all go with the "confirmed" modifier. All infectious disease deaths must now be confirmed in a CDC or WHO laboratory in order to count. So that means the 36,000 number needs to be revised down to however many have been "confirmed" in that group.
And how many is that? Only the CDC knows. I'm guessing it's a two-digit number.
So much for the myth of "36,000 flu-related deaths a year." If you believe that number, I'm sure there's a job waiting for you at the U.S. Treasury Dept., too, where numbers are materialized out of thin air on a daily basis in order to finance the national debt.
(NaturalNews) Read just about any news report on swine flu deaths, and you'll come across a line that claims "36,000 people die each year from flu-related causes." It sounds authoritative. It's even a nice, round number. But where is this number coming from? And is it based on any actual science?
This statistic is being paraded around by almost everybody, as if to say that swine flu isn't so bad because regular flu kills so many people each year anyway. The truth is that the only standard by which the CDC and WHO are quoting deaths from swine flu is if they are confirmed deaths from a particular viral strain. To them, if a death has not been confirmed in their labs, it does not count as a death from that flu.
Got that? Only "confirmed" deaths count. And they must be confirmed in a laboratory using a rigorous method of comparing samples taken from the deceased with a known database of viral patterns.
As it turns out, virtually none of the 36,000 people said to die from regular flu each year have been confirmed in any lab whatsoever.
Thus, according to the guidelines of the CDC and WHO, they don't count. Based on their own rules, it is technically accurate to say that regular flu kills virtually no one. It's not true, of course, because people do die from the "regular flu" each year, but it is technically accurate according to the CDC and WHO rules for scientific evidence.
Again, that's because nearly all of these "regular flu" deaths aren't confirmed by a CDC or WHO-recognized lab. Thus, they have no scientific standing.
Infectious disease double standard
I find it interesting that when talking about swine flu, the criteria for inclusion in statistics is positive identification in a rigorous laboratory. But when talking about regular flu, the criteria for inclusion is -- technically speaking -- anybody's wild guess.
The 36,000 number, it turns out, was pulled out of thin air. It has no scientific validity whatsoever, even according to the CDC's own standards.
I tracked down the origins of this number on CDC.gov, by the way. Turns out it was an estimate derived by the CDC in 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pres).
It's an estimate, mind you, not a "confirmed" number of deaths. And that estimate has stayed exactly the same through 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Not a budge. Before the number was 36,000, it was 20,000 for many years. That tells you right off the bat this isn't some confirmed laboratory number -- it's a guesstimate!
I'm not disagreeing with the number. It's probably a fairly accurate guess (the CDC folks are a smart bunch). But it doesn't meet the criteria by which these infectious disease organizations report influenza deaths. (Mister Goldbug -- I have trouble agreeing with this statement here. the CDC is smart at deceiving people.)
As the CDC even says on their own website, "This estimate came from a 2003 study published in the Journal of the American Medication Association (JAMA), which looked at the 1990-91 through the 1998-99 flu seasons [10]. Statistical modeling was used to estimate how many flu-related deaths occurred among people whose underlying cause of death on their death certificate was listed as a respiratory or circulatory disease. During these years, the number of estimated deaths ranged from 17,000 to 52,000."
In other words, they took a look at how many people died from respiratory or circulatory disease, and from that they extrapolated "flu-related deaths."
This is all accomplished through "statistical modeling," which is the equivalent of statisticians waving magic wands to create new numbers where none exist. Based on the sample size, it can be quite accurate (plus or minus a few percentage points), or it can be way off base depending on the accuracy of the statistical sample.
Notably, if the same methodology were used to calculate swine flu deaths, it might currently show 300 or more deaths (and such methodologies would be widely criticized, of course, for being "just wild guesses," which they are).
As the CDC admits itself, "CDC does not know exactly how many people die from flu each year."
And... "It has been recognized for many years that influenza is infrequently listed on death certificates [12] and testing for influenza infections usually not done, particularly among the elderly who are at greatest risk of influenza complications and death. Some deaths – particularly in the elderly – are associated with secondary complications of influenza (including bacterial pneumonias)." (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/diseas)
In other words: Influenza isn't listed on death certificates and influenza testing isn't even done on most patients! Thus, it is not possible for these 36,000 influenza deaths to be confirmed at all.
Swine flu may escape detection, too
What else is interesting in all this is when the CDC explains that viral strains aren't even detectable in patients after the first few days of infection:
"Influenza virus infection may not be identified in many instances because influenza virus is only detectable for a short period of time and many people don't seek medical care until after the first few days of acute illness." - The CDC
If this is true, then isn't it also true that most swine flu patients can NEVER be confirmed in a lab?
I find this quite curious, because according to what the CDC is saying here, it is impossible to ever get an accurate "confirmed" count of swine flu patients because the influenza virus isn't detectable after a "short period of time." Thus, by limiting swine flu death reports to only those patients who have been confirmed in a laboratory, the CDC is essentially eliminating the very possibility that many swine flu patients will ever be tested and identified as carrying the strain.
Put another way, the criteria for identifying and reporting swine flu deaths is, itself, limiting the number of swine flu deaths that will ever be counted. Essentially, the system is rigged to under-report swine flu deaths by eliminating anyone who wasn't tested in time to identify the strain. (Mister Goldbug -- I have to say that while the system might be rigged to under-report swine flu deaths, it could also be used to artificially inflate death reports to scare hell out of the country in order to encourage mandatory vaccination.)
This, I believe, is why the swine flu death count remains magically low even as doctors on the ground in Mexico City are reporting much larger numbers of real-world swine flu deaths.
Different strains
The other important thing to realize here is that the 36,000 figure is not talking about just one strain of influenza: It's a cumulative figure from ALL the other strains of influenza combined!
"Regular flu," you see, isn't just one flu. It's a collection of potentially hundreds of different flu strains. So assigning the 36,000 deaths a year figure to "regular flu" is misleading because it makes it sound like a single strain of influenza.
The truth is that nobody really knows how many deaths each year occur from the different strains of flu circulating in the wild. Some top-notch CDC officials can probably take a pretty good guess at it, but it's still just that: A guess. The real numbers are, frankly, unknown.
It's also unknown how many people die from the viral load vs. how many die from secondary infections (such as bacterial pneumonia) that often follow viral infections. Technically, a lot of those 36,000 people (or so) might have been killed by various strains of common bacteria, not by the viruses.
Yesterday morning, Mexico was reporting 159 deaths from swine flu. According to the WHO, that number is not only 7. How does 159 magically become 7? By including the word "confirmed" in front of it.
Fine. Let's all go with the "confirmed" modifier. All infectious disease deaths must now be confirmed in a CDC or WHO laboratory in order to count. So that means the 36,000 number needs to be revised down to however many have been "confirmed" in that group.
And how many is that? Only the CDC knows. I'm guessing it's a two-digit number.
So much for the myth of "36,000 flu-related deaths a year." If you believe that number, I'm sure there's a job waiting for you at the U.S. Treasury Dept., too, where numbers are materialized out of thin air on a daily basis in order to finance the national debt.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
What's Missing From Every Media Story about H1N1 Influenza
Saturday, May 02, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) If you read the stories on H1N1 influenza written by the mainstream media, you might incorrectly think there's only one anti-viral drug in the world. It's name is Tamiflu and it's in short supply.
That's astonishing to hear because the world is full of anti-viral medicine found in tens of thousands of different plants. Culinary herbs like thyme, sage and rosemary are anti-viral. Berries and sprouts are anti-viral. Garlic, ginger and onions are anti-viral. You can't walk through a grocery store without walking past a hundred or more anti-viral medicines made by Mother Nature.
And yet how many does the mainstream media mention? Zero.
The totality of influenza preparedness is defined by the mainstream media as the number of doses of Tamiflu a nation has stockpiled. You see it in stories like this one at the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124...
Tamiflu comes from an herb
To live in a world that's saturated with natural anti-viral medicine and then not even acknowledge it in the media is beyond bizarre. It's Twilight Zone-like. It's like we've been teleported to an alternate universe where anti-viral plants have disappeared... or at least everyone is pretending they have.
Where do you think Tamiflu comes from, by the way?
It's extracted from the Traditional Chinese Medicine herb called Star Anise. It's one of hundreds of different anti-viral herbs found in Chinese Medicine, not to even mention anti-viral herbs from South America, North America, Australia, Africa and other regions.
I find it downright comedic that Big Pharma and the world's health authorities extract their "champion" anti-viral drug Tamiflu from a Chinese Medicine herb, and then they go out of their way to announce to people that herbs and natural remedies are useless against influenza. If that's the case then why are they using herbs to make their own medicine?
How many stories have you read that bother to tell you Tamiflu is made from the star anise herb that's been used for over 5,000 years in Traditional Chinese Medicine? Virtually none. The powers that be don't want anybody to know they could actually grow their own medicine in a garden or a windowsill. If you can grow cilantro, you can grow medicine. If everybody figured that out, Big Pharma wouldn't be reaping the enormous profits it's making right now from Tamiflu sales, and the governments of the world wouldn't be able to scare and control people by promising to distribute Tamiflu (but only if you behave).
The Tamiflu scam is global
H1N1 influenza is not a hoax. But the way it's being reported by health authorities and the mainstream media certainly is. The scam in all this is what they leave out of the stories -- the fact that human beings live among a huge natural medicine chest of anti-viral drugs found in every city park, every forest, every swamp and every open field.
You cannot walk across any patch of natural land in America and NOT find anti-viral medicine. It's everywhere! It's in the weeds growing in the cracks in the sidewalks; it's in weeds on the side of the stream; and it's growing in the small patch of dirt left remaining in the median between highway lanes.
In the deserts of the American Southwest, you can't even drive to work without passing mile after mile of abundant anti-viral medicine grown by Mother Nature and just waiting for humans to wake up and be smart enough to recognize it.
I have a sobering prediction about H1N1 influenza (formerly "swine flu"): If it does become a global pandemic, many of those people who refuse to recognize the anti-viral medicine provided by Mother Nature will die. Their misplaced faith in Big Pharma will literally cost them their lives. In contrast, those who have the wisdom to get their medicine from Mother Nature will not only survive the pandemic, they'll thrive even as others around them are dying. It is those who embrace Mother Nature's powerful, synergistic and living medicines who will weather any pandemic storm, and they will emerge as the DNA holders of the future of human civilization.
(NaturalNews) If you read the stories on H1N1 influenza written by the mainstream media, you might incorrectly think there's only one anti-viral drug in the world. It's name is Tamiflu and it's in short supply.
That's astonishing to hear because the world is full of anti-viral medicine found in tens of thousands of different plants. Culinary herbs like thyme, sage and rosemary are anti-viral. Berries and sprouts are anti-viral. Garlic, ginger and onions are anti-viral. You can't walk through a grocery store without walking past a hundred or more anti-viral medicines made by Mother Nature.
And yet how many does the mainstream media mention? Zero.
The totality of influenza preparedness is defined by the mainstream media as the number of doses of Tamiflu a nation has stockpiled. You see it in stories like this one at the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124...
Tamiflu comes from an herb
To live in a world that's saturated with natural anti-viral medicine and then not even acknowledge it in the media is beyond bizarre. It's Twilight Zone-like. It's like we've been teleported to an alternate universe where anti-viral plants have disappeared... or at least everyone is pretending they have.
Where do you think Tamiflu comes from, by the way?
It's extracted from the Traditional Chinese Medicine herb called Star Anise. It's one of hundreds of different anti-viral herbs found in Chinese Medicine, not to even mention anti-viral herbs from South America, North America, Australia, Africa and other regions.
I find it downright comedic that Big Pharma and the world's health authorities extract their "champion" anti-viral drug Tamiflu from a Chinese Medicine herb, and then they go out of their way to announce to people that herbs and natural remedies are useless against influenza. If that's the case then why are they using herbs to make their own medicine?
How many stories have you read that bother to tell you Tamiflu is made from the star anise herb that's been used for over 5,000 years in Traditional Chinese Medicine? Virtually none. The powers that be don't want anybody to know they could actually grow their own medicine in a garden or a windowsill. If you can grow cilantro, you can grow medicine. If everybody figured that out, Big Pharma wouldn't be reaping the enormous profits it's making right now from Tamiflu sales, and the governments of the world wouldn't be able to scare and control people by promising to distribute Tamiflu (but only if you behave).
The Tamiflu scam is global
H1N1 influenza is not a hoax. But the way it's being reported by health authorities and the mainstream media certainly is. The scam in all this is what they leave out of the stories -- the fact that human beings live among a huge natural medicine chest of anti-viral drugs found in every city park, every forest, every swamp and every open field.
You cannot walk across any patch of natural land in America and NOT find anti-viral medicine. It's everywhere! It's in the weeds growing in the cracks in the sidewalks; it's in weeds on the side of the stream; and it's growing in the small patch of dirt left remaining in the median between highway lanes.
In the deserts of the American Southwest, you can't even drive to work without passing mile after mile of abundant anti-viral medicine grown by Mother Nature and just waiting for humans to wake up and be smart enough to recognize it.
I have a sobering prediction about H1N1 influenza (formerly "swine flu"): If it does become a global pandemic, many of those people who refuse to recognize the anti-viral medicine provided by Mother Nature will die. Their misplaced faith in Big Pharma will literally cost them their lives. In contrast, those who have the wisdom to get their medicine from Mother Nature will not only survive the pandemic, they'll thrive even as others around them are dying. It is those who embrace Mother Nature's powerful, synergistic and living medicines who will weather any pandemic storm, and they will emerge as the DNA holders of the future of human civilization.
Swine Flu Smoking Gun? CDC was Combining Flu Viruses in 2004
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 by: Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor
(NaturalNews) Last week, when what is now called a "swine flu" was first reported to be infecting and killing some people in Mexico, health officials noted it was a strain of flu never before seen. In fact, it is technically incorrect to call this simply a "swine" flu. Analyses showed it's a mixture of swine, human and avian viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Moreover, it is genetically different from the fully human H1N1 seasonal influenza virus that has been circulating globally for the past few years. Bottom line: the new flu virus contains DNA from avian, swine viruses (including elements from European and Asian viruses) and human viruses.
So did this curious mixture just develop naturally, out of the blue? Is it the result of inhumane farming practices, as the Humane Society of the United States (http://www.hsus.org/) has suggested, that exposes immune-compromised pigs to all sorts of animal and human feces?
Well, maybe. But let's go back and look at the facts to see if any other scenario could be possible.
First of all, there's the troublesome detail that the virus has elements that come from multiple continents. Then there's the fact that true swine flu is only rarely transmissible to humans -- this flu is spreading human-to-human, most likely because it contains DNA from human flu.
Could someone have deliberately mixed these viruses together? Is that possible? Absolutely.
Was this virus mixing being done artificially in the lab, or had it already been done? Yes.
Who was blending potentially viruses in labs? Were those horrible generic boogie men known to Americans far and wide as "terrorists" doing it? There's no proof of bioterrorism at work here yet. However, there is evidence the United States government has been working on concocting new flu virus blends.
So could the hysteria-provoking, new swine flu have escaped from a lab? Or was it deliberately released as some kind of test? When these kinds of questions are asked, the knee-jerk reaction of the mainstream media (MSM) is to giggle and talk about "conspiracy theories" and to joke about wearing tinfoil hats.
But here's the potential smoking gun, the facts that suggest a potential source of the pandemic could be CDC labs. And at the very least, this possibility deserves thoughtful examination and research.
The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) is hardly a place most Americans have heard about and, apparently, the Center's web site has news the MSM isn't familiar with, either. But information they published years ago has now taken on an urgent importance. CIDRAP, along with the Canadian newspaper Canadian Press (CP), revealed back in 2004 that the CDC was launching experiments designed to mix the H5N1 (avian) virus and human flu viruses. The goal was to find out how likely it was such a "reassortant" virus would emerge and just how dangerous it might be. Of course, it's logical to wonder if they also worked with the addition of a swine flu virus, too.
Here's some background from the five-year-old report by the University of Minnesota research center: "One of the worst fears of infectious disease experts is that the H5N1 avian influenza virus now circulating in parts of Asia will combine with a human-adapted flu virus to create a deadly new flu virus that could spread around the world. That could happen, scientists predict, if someone who is already infected with an ordinary flu virus contracts the avian virus at the same time. The avian virus has already caused at least 48 confirmed human illness cases in Asia, of which 35 have been fatal. The virus has shown little ability to spread from person to person, but the fear is that a hybrid could combine the killing power of the avian virus with the transmissibility of human flu viruses. Now, rather than waiting to see if nature spawns such a hybrid, US scientists are planning to try to breed one themselves -- in the name of preparedness."
And CDC officials actually confirmed the government had plans for the research. The CIDRAP News folks did a great job covering this important issue, which was apparently mostly ignored by the MSM back in 2004, and CIDRAP News wrote to the CDC for information. This e-mail produced an answer from CDC spokesman David Daigle who admitted the CDC was working on the project in two ways. "One is to infect cells in a laboratory tissue culture with H5N1 and human flu viruses at the same time and then watch to see if they mix. For the human virus, investigators will use A (H3N2), the strain that has caused most human flu cases in recent years," the CIDRAP story stated. This co-infection approach was described as slow and labor-intensive. However, it was a way to produce a new virus that appeared to be closer to what develops in nature.
There was another, faster way CDC scientists could create the mix, too. Called reverse genetics, it involves piecing together a new virus with genes from the H5N1 and H3N2 viruses. Reverse genetics had already been used successfully to create H5N1 candidate vaccines in several laboratories, the CDC's Daigle wrote. "Any viable viruses that emerge from these processes will be seeded into animals that are considered good models for testing how flu viruses behave in humans... The aim will be to observe whether the animals get sick and whether infected animals can infect others," he revealed in his e-mail.
What's more, the CP reported the CDC had already made hybrid viruses with H5N1 samples isolated from patients in Hong Kong in 1997, when there was the first outbreak of that virus, dubbed the "Hong Kong flu". It is not clear if the results of that research were ever published. Back in 2004, Dr. Nancy Cox, then head of the CDC's influenza branch, would tell the CP only: "Some gene combinations could be produced and others could not."
The CP's report noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) had been "pleading" for laboratories to do this blending-of-viruses research. The reason? If successful, these flu mixes would back up WHO's warnings about the possibility of a flu pandemic. In fact, Klaus Stohr, head of the WHO's global flu program at the time, told the CP that if the experiments were successful in producing highly transmissible and pathogenic viruses, the agency would be even more worried -- but if labs couldn't create these mixed flu viruses, then the agency might have to ratchet down its level of concern.
The 2004 CIDRAP News report addressed the obvious risks of manufacturing viruses in labs that, if released, could potentially spark a pandemic. However, the CDC's Daigle assured the Minnesota research group the virus melding would be done in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory. "We recognize that there is concern by some over this type of work. This concern may be heightened by reports of recent lab exposures in other lab facilities," he told CIDRAP. "But CDC has an incredible record in lab safety and is taking very strict precautions."
Five years later, we must ask more questions. Were those safety measures enough? Was the CDC creating or testing any of these virus mixes in or near Mexico? What other potentially deadly virus combinations has the US government created? Don't US citizens, as taxpayers who funded these experiments, have a right to know? And for all the residents of planet earth faced with a potentially deadly global epidemic, isn't it time for the truth?
(NaturalNews) Last week, when what is now called a "swine flu" was first reported to be infecting and killing some people in Mexico, health officials noted it was a strain of flu never before seen. In fact, it is technically incorrect to call this simply a "swine" flu. Analyses showed it's a mixture of swine, human and avian viruses, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Moreover, it is genetically different from the fully human H1N1 seasonal influenza virus that has been circulating globally for the past few years. Bottom line: the new flu virus contains DNA from avian, swine viruses (including elements from European and Asian viruses) and human viruses.
So did this curious mixture just develop naturally, out of the blue? Is it the result of inhumane farming practices, as the Humane Society of the United States (http://www.hsus.org/) has suggested, that exposes immune-compromised pigs to all sorts of animal and human feces?
Well, maybe. But let's go back and look at the facts to see if any other scenario could be possible.
First of all, there's the troublesome detail that the virus has elements that come from multiple continents. Then there's the fact that true swine flu is only rarely transmissible to humans -- this flu is spreading human-to-human, most likely because it contains DNA from human flu.
Could someone have deliberately mixed these viruses together? Is that possible? Absolutely.
Was this virus mixing being done artificially in the lab, or had it already been done? Yes.
Who was blending potentially viruses in labs? Were those horrible generic boogie men known to Americans far and wide as "terrorists" doing it? There's no proof of bioterrorism at work here yet. However, there is evidence the United States government has been working on concocting new flu virus blends.
So could the hysteria-provoking, new swine flu have escaped from a lab? Or was it deliberately released as some kind of test? When these kinds of questions are asked, the knee-jerk reaction of the mainstream media (MSM) is to giggle and talk about "conspiracy theories" and to joke about wearing tinfoil hats.
But here's the potential smoking gun, the facts that suggest a potential source of the pandemic could be CDC labs. And at the very least, this possibility deserves thoughtful examination and research.
The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) is hardly a place most Americans have heard about and, apparently, the Center's web site has news the MSM isn't familiar with, either. But information they published years ago has now taken on an urgent importance. CIDRAP, along with the Canadian newspaper Canadian Press (CP), revealed back in 2004 that the CDC was launching experiments designed to mix the H5N1 (avian) virus and human flu viruses. The goal was to find out how likely it was such a "reassortant" virus would emerge and just how dangerous it might be. Of course, it's logical to wonder if they also worked with the addition of a swine flu virus, too.
Here's some background from the five-year-old report by the University of Minnesota research center: "One of the worst fears of infectious disease experts is that the H5N1 avian influenza virus now circulating in parts of Asia will combine with a human-adapted flu virus to create a deadly new flu virus that could spread around the world. That could happen, scientists predict, if someone who is already infected with an ordinary flu virus contracts the avian virus at the same time. The avian virus has already caused at least 48 confirmed human illness cases in Asia, of which 35 have been fatal. The virus has shown little ability to spread from person to person, but the fear is that a hybrid could combine the killing power of the avian virus with the transmissibility of human flu viruses. Now, rather than waiting to see if nature spawns such a hybrid, US scientists are planning to try to breed one themselves -- in the name of preparedness."
And CDC officials actually confirmed the government had plans for the research. The CIDRAP News folks did a great job covering this important issue, which was apparently mostly ignored by the MSM back in 2004, and CIDRAP News wrote to the CDC for information. This e-mail produced an answer from CDC spokesman David Daigle who admitted the CDC was working on the project in two ways. "One is to infect cells in a laboratory tissue culture with H5N1 and human flu viruses at the same time and then watch to see if they mix. For the human virus, investigators will use A (H3N2), the strain that has caused most human flu cases in recent years," the CIDRAP story stated. This co-infection approach was described as slow and labor-intensive. However, it was a way to produce a new virus that appeared to be closer to what develops in nature.
There was another, faster way CDC scientists could create the mix, too. Called reverse genetics, it involves piecing together a new virus with genes from the H5N1 and H3N2 viruses. Reverse genetics had already been used successfully to create H5N1 candidate vaccines in several laboratories, the CDC's Daigle wrote. "Any viable viruses that emerge from these processes will be seeded into animals that are considered good models for testing how flu viruses behave in humans... The aim will be to observe whether the animals get sick and whether infected animals can infect others," he revealed in his e-mail.
What's more, the CP reported the CDC had already made hybrid viruses with H5N1 samples isolated from patients in Hong Kong in 1997, when there was the first outbreak of that virus, dubbed the "Hong Kong flu". It is not clear if the results of that research were ever published. Back in 2004, Dr. Nancy Cox, then head of the CDC's influenza branch, would tell the CP only: "Some gene combinations could be produced and others could not."
The CP's report noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) had been "pleading" for laboratories to do this blending-of-viruses research. The reason? If successful, these flu mixes would back up WHO's warnings about the possibility of a flu pandemic. In fact, Klaus Stohr, head of the WHO's global flu program at the time, told the CP that if the experiments were successful in producing highly transmissible and pathogenic viruses, the agency would be even more worried -- but if labs couldn't create these mixed flu viruses, then the agency might have to ratchet down its level of concern.
The 2004 CIDRAP News report addressed the obvious risks of manufacturing viruses in labs that, if released, could potentially spark a pandemic. However, the CDC's Daigle assured the Minnesota research group the virus melding would be done in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory. "We recognize that there is concern by some over this type of work. This concern may be heightened by reports of recent lab exposures in other lab facilities," he told CIDRAP. "But CDC has an incredible record in lab safety and is taking very strict precautions."
Five years later, we must ask more questions. Were those safety measures enough? Was the CDC creating or testing any of these virus mixes in or near Mexico? What other potentially deadly virus combinations has the US government created? Don't US citizens, as taxpayers who funded these experiments, have a right to know? And for all the residents of planet earth faced with a potentially deadly global epidemic, isn't it time for the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)