Real FLU death figures per year 
anunnaki
20 y
4,341
† Cross †
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Real WEIGHT LOSS
Regenerate your digestive system and organs. Speed up your metabolism...
HOW MANY AMERICANS REALLY DIE OF THE FLU EACH YEAR?
OCTOBER 22, 2004. Ask the American Lung Association. Better yet, read their own report from August of 2004, titled, "Trends in Pneumonia and Influenza/Morbidity and Mortality."
This report comes from "Research and Scientific Affairs/Epidemiology and Statistics Unit." At the bottom of the document, the source is listed as: National Center for Health Statistics, Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1979-2001.
Get ready for some surprises, especially since the CDC keeps trumpeting flu-death annual numbers as 36,000. Like clockwork. Year in and year out. 36,000 people in the US die from the flu every year. Killer disease. Watch out. Get your flu shot. Every autumn. Don't wait. You might fall over dead in the street.
Here are the total flu deaths from the report. From 1979 to 1995, the stats were released every two years.
1979: 604
1981: 3,006
1983: 1,431
1985: 2,054
1987: 632
1989: 1,593
1991: 1,137
1993: 1,044
1995: 606
1996: 745
1997: 720
1998: 1,724
1999: 1,665
2000: 1765
2001: 257
Don't believe me?
Here is the page:
www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-7F5D5E762256%7D/PI1.PDF
Get there and go to page 9 of the document. Then start scrolling down until you come to the chart for flu deaths as a separate category.
Recently, Tommy Thompson, head of US Health and Human services, stated that 91 percent of the people who die from the flu in the US every year are 65 and older. So you might engage in a little arithmetic and figure out how many people under 65 are really dying from the flu each year.
But no matter. The raw all-ages stats are low enough. Quite low enough. Quite, quite.
Do you see what is going on here?
You can go into my archive and read recent pieces on this subject and find my argument for those who blithely claim, "Well, harumph, you see, uh ah, flu often leads to pneumonia and THAT'S why we have to be so careful about the flu. Deaths from pneumonia are large numbers, harumph, blah blah blah..."
It's a straight con, folks. The CDC is on a streetcorner with a little table, and there are shills walking around repeating the 36,000 death figure while the PR flacks at the table are working the vaccine angle.
The crowd is getting restless. A man shouts, "Where is my flu shot? We're all going to die!"
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Congress is planning a measure that will guarantee vaccine manufacturers annual billion-dollar payoffs no matter how many doses are left over, unused.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/
More
- drumming up the death rate anunnaki
20 y
2,770
This is a reply to # 62,513DRUMMING UP THE DEATH RATE
2004-10-21
OCTOBER 21, 2004. The other day, I printed an excerpt from a USA Today/AP story that claimed annual flu deaths in the US are actually higher than suspected.
I have already shown (see my archive) that, buried in small print, the CDC itself lists annual flu deaths as MINISCULE.
Anyway, the USA Today piece talked about something else called respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and how 11,000 people in the US are dying from it every year.
Independent researcher John Cullison has searched CDC small print and has found their figures for RSV.
Turns out there are three different categories of RSV. We'll take them one at a time.
We have RSV pneumonia. The CDC code for this category is J12.1. Deaths? 1999: 30. 2000: 18. 2001: 26. (These are the only years for which figures are available). Total? 74 deaths.
Category two is acute bronchitis due to RSV. The CDC code for this category is J20.5. Deaths? 1999: 0. 2000: 0. 2001: 1. Total? 1 death.
Category three is acute broncholitis due to RSV. The CDC code for this category is J21.0. Deaths? 1999: 9. 2000: 6. 2001: 4. Total? 19.
Total of deaths from all three categories of RSV for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001 lumped together? 94.
During that period, according to USA Today and its medical experts who provided the "alarming news," we should have expected the total to be 33,000 deaths.
Well, they weren't off by much. Sometimes, you know, it's hard to get it exactly right. Standard margin of error creeps in. The medical expert interviewed was having a problem with the coffee maker. The phone connection between the reporter and the expert was hazy and there were people shouting in the background.
Reminds me of my one day in 1961 as a phone salesman in a boiler room operation in West LA. I was supposed to be selling subscriptions to a local newspaper. It wasn't going well at all. Hell, the circulation of the newspaper was hovering at about 750 a week. Finally, I called a school from my canned list of numbers. The phone rang and rang and rang and, just as I was going to hang up, a man picked up and said hello in a soft voice. Turned out he was the janitor.
Desperate, I tried to shove that damn subscription down his throat. He had the presence of mind to ask me what the circulation of the paper was.
I said, "Oh, about 100,000 a week."
"Okay," he said, "we'll take it."
I couldn't hear him very well, because when I quoted the 100,000 figure, all the other phone pros in the boiler room cracked up and fell out.
The fat man next to me said, "Dig THIS fucking guy!"
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
More
- very few people die from the flu anunnaki
20 y
2,872
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses
Bio Cleanse Detox Kit
”It seems so many people (including myself) are walking around w...
This is a reply to # 62,515VERY FEW PEOPLE DIE FROM THE FLU
2004-10-13
OCTOBER 13, 2004. Two days ago, I posted a long piece which made a case for the fact that, in the US, very few people die from the flu.
As of this morning, that piece is still on this page. See bottom story on this scroll. [article now in archives]
John Keller started the ball rolling with a report that exposed the CDC's own death stats---once pneumonia had been broken away from the eternal CDC category called "pneumonia/flu."
Keller found, online, the CDC's flu-death stats for 2002 and 2001. Total for the two years? Slightly more than 1000. Far, far, below the tired old 36,000-per-year figure the CDC trots out at the beginning of every so-called flu season.
Two other readers of this site, John Cullison and Martin Maloney, searched and confirmed Keller's discovery. A third reader came on board with the same results.
Make no mistake about it. This is an astounding find. It undermines and undercuts the US government's ceaseless pounding to "get a flu shot."
So far, no mainstream news outlet has picked up on Keller's report. And, as far as I can tell, very few alternative news outlets have, either.
Of course, if queried, the CDC will tell you that its welded pneumonia/flu category is necessary because, quite often, flu leads to pneumonia.
This is a generality, and as with most generalities, it is passed from hand to mouth without detailed investigation.
Such an investigation would, first of all, confirm analyses of a great number of flu cases in which flu viruses have actually been found in patients (viruses, not antibodies to viruses) in very, very large numbers. (Very, very large numbers of flu viruses in each patient.)
Step two would consist of showing that in these genuine flu cases, pneumonia often follows. THAT would entail isolating pneumonia germs (not antibodies) in very large numbers, in these patients.
Why am I so insistent on the finding of large numbers of germs in a given patient? Because that is what you need to say that the germs are contributing to illness. Just as it takes many people to dig up a huge field with small shovels, it takes many, many germs to contribute to disease in a patient.
(Even then, the map is incomplete, because prior to the "germ invasion," something else has gone wrong with the patient. His immune defense was weakened, as a result of non-germ factors: poor nutrition, unsanitary living conditions, overcrowding, contaminated water, toxic medical drugs, chemical insult, and so on.)
I would be quite willing to look at well-done studies which show, in the manner I have described, that pneumonia often follows flu. I don't mean pilot studies with a few patients. I mean studies that analyze several thousand patients at a time. Show them to me.
Doctors or researchers who say, "Oh yes, I've often seen flu lead to pneumonia," or "Everyone in the field knows that flu leads to pneumonia," are ruled out. That is hearsay and rumor.
Beyond the well-done studies I am asking for, it would be necessary to confirm that flu progressing into pneumonia often results in death. Because that is what we are talking about. Death stats.
At this point, I see absolutely no reason for the CDC to lump flu with pneumonia in one category and list deaths for both as one stat.
In which case, we fall back on Keller's discovery that, by the CDC's own admission, buried deep in its files, very few people die from the flu.
Which creates yet another reason to look with amazement on all this fear-mongering surrounding getting flu shots.
I'd venture to say that, in my brief appearance on the Coast to Coast AM radio show Monday night, only a small number of the 5-10 million listeners registered my mention of Keller's revelation. It was too startling. It came out of the blue. It was against the grain of so much government/medical propaganda.
In the same way, media outlets are hesitant, to say the least, to pick up on this. It sounds preposterous. "Well, if what you're saying is true, then why is the government doing so much to..." "How could this be?" "Why would the CDC trumpet 36,000 deaths a year from the flu when its own figures contradict that?"
I am personally immune to such wondering, because for the last 20 years, as a reporter, I have run into this type of situation over and over.
You would do well to read or re-read my long piece at the bottom of this scroll.
It contains information that is a key to understanding the situation behind the situation we are now witnessing vis-a-vis Chiron and the flu-vaccine scandal of 2004.
John Keller's original report can be found at:
www.lewrockwell.com/keller/keller20.html#
John Cullison's report (which adds details to Keller) can be found at:
www.curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=74&i=576
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
- flu deaths per year in us anunnaki
20 y
2,903
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 62,516FLU DEATHS PER YEAR IN US
2004-10-15
OCTOBER 15, 2004. John Cullison has sent me the CDC’s own flu death stats (the real ones) for several years.
Flu Pneu
----- -----
1999 1665 62065
2000 1765 63548
2001 257 61777
2002 753 65231
(No 2003 stats yet.)
Of course, these stats are quite different, quite different, quite different from what the CDC tells the press and public (36,000 deaths per year).
Column one is flu. Column two is pneumonia.
Have a nice day.
For new readers who have just come on board and want to know where Cullison found these revelations, go to my archive and read my recent articles.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
- the hypnotic effect of numbers anunnaki
20 y
2,792
This is a reply to # 62,517THE HYPNOTIC EFFECT OF NUMBERS
2004-10-13
OCTOBER 13, 2004. These days, the CDC or the World Health Organization can report a new disease outbreak, and no matter how small the actual case numbers are, if the media package is wrapped in the proper tone of warning/hysteria backed up with scientific giggle-gaggle, everybody bows down and worries.
This is a major feat of PR.
The public has pretty much abandoned its own sense of what numbers mean.
Hell, most people have no idea how many people live in the US, any other nation, or the world.
Let us take three situations. SARS, so-called avian flu, and West Nile Disease.
First of all, as I have covered in past articles, there is no convincing proof that West Nile and SARS have ever been isolated as distinct viruses. So, right from the start, we're treading on very thin ice.
Anyway, since SARS was named, WHO stats show that 8096 human cases have occurred, worldwide, and there have been 774 deaths.
Since January 28, 2004, WHO reports 43 cases of human avian flu, and 31 deaths. Globally.
The CDC states there are no reliable estimates for West Nile Disease in humans, worldwide. In the US, since 1999, there have been 9122 reported cases of serious WN Disease, and 628 people have died.
I could add various limiting qualifiers to these stats (which would lower case numbers), but I'll forego that here.
Think about the stats, and try to put them in some sort of context.
People die all the time. Millions, for example, die of starvation.
100,000 people in the US alone die from the correct administration of FDA-approved medical drugs every year.
It is certain, in the SARS, WN, and avian flu situation, that some of the deaths have resulted from a combination of prior illness plus toxic medical drugs.
All in all, we are talking about a drop in the bucket, when it comes to death and West Nile, avian flu, and SARS.
Yet, people are looking over their shoulders for a virus with teeth and claws. And when they get sick, they accept whatever their doctors tell them.
I bring all this up, because I think that the recent John Keller revelations about VERY, VERY FEW PEOPLE DYING FROM FLU IN THE US EVERY YEAR are flying right into the radar of the public, which reflects: "Any number of deaths is frightening, no matter how few, as long as the CDC or WHO claims it's a threat to us all."
A million, 36,000, a thousand, seven hundred, four. It doesn't matter. People don't make distinctions.
What matters is the tone of the announcement and who is announcing it.
That, my friends, is called slavery, is called fascism. And although it may not be immediately apparent, the people who are wielding the spin are ultimately after political power.
There is one more factor to add in. The word is CONTAGION. The public has been conditioned up to its eyeballs to view POSSIBLE contagion as a dire threat, even when it doesn't pan out.
Even when, in the matter of so-called SARS in Hong Kong, it was discovered that a quarter of all the cases being reported centered on the Amoy Apartments complex, where feces were leaking through toilet pipes from apartment to apartment. Fecal-borne illness doesn't need people with samples under microscopes, doesn't need spinning centrifuges, in a hunt for viruses. That doesn't cure anyone. Plumbers cure people.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
- the cdc pr campaign to induce fear anunnaki
20 y
2,840
This is a reply to # 62,518THE CDC PR CAMPAIGN TO INDUCE FEAR
OCTOBER 24, 2004. Below is an article from the National Post. Read it carefully. It sketches the CDC campaign to put Americans in a state of fear regarding the flu, so more people will get their flu shots.
You might say it's a PR campaign undertaken on behalf of vaccine manufacturers.
We are talking about the prescribed use of key words and phrases and images designed to evoke the desired response.
Put this together with my recent exposure of TRUE miniscule flu-death figures and you have something resembling a RICO crime in progress.
This is Ministry of Fear stuff right out of 1984.
Instead of investigating illness, the CDC is promoting a Pavlovian program of fear, panic, and even terror.
National Post October 22/2004
Vaccine fevers by Lawrence Solomon
Americans are being told that a manufacturing problem in a U.K. pharmaceutical plant has led to the U.S. shortage of flu vaccines. Americans aren't being told (and we aren't either) that the real manufacturer at fault is a U.S. government agency, the Centers for Disease Control, along with the World Health Organization and other vaccinate-anything-that-moves ideologues that have fabricated a phony crisis over the flu vaccine.
"Epidemics of influenza typically occur during the winter months and are responsible for an average of approximately 20,000 deaths," the CDC stated in 2002. That number mutated to "36,000 flu-related deaths" in November, 2003, and by December a gathering of public health officials warned that the toll could reach 70,000 this year. [whereas the true death figures are tiny---JR]
In concert with the ramp-up in death statistics, the government-steered vaccination industry has run an elaborate bureaucracy designed to hype vaccine use, as seen in a slide show presentation last April by Glen Nowak, the CDC's spokesman for the National Immunization Program, to the American Medical Association. Here is the "Recipe that fosters influenza vaccine interest and demand," in the truncated language that appears on his slides: "Medical experts and public health authorities [should] publicly (e.g. via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes) – and urge influenza vaccination." This "recipe," the slide show indicated, would result in "A. Significant media interest and attention [and] B. Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behaviour (e.g. as 'very severe,' 'more severe than last or past years,' 'deadly')." Other aspects of the CDC's "Seven-Step Recipe for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination" includes "Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people – helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza." and "Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)."
This motivational slide show was designed to push the bounds of the vaccinated...
end of Post excerpt
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com- looking even closer at true death st... anunnaki
20 y
2,799
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Original Hulda Clark
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 62,521LOOKING EVEN CLOSER AT TRUE DEATH STATS ON FLU
OCTOBER 30, 2004. I may have received this data before, from one of the ace researchers who has been showing me true CDC death stats from flu.
But I spotted, this morning, a letter to the editor at RedFlagsWeekly.com, from Randy L. Powers. He provides a link to a CDC website, where deaths from flu and flu-plus-other-stuff are broken down for the year 2000.
You can go to Red Flags, scroll all the way down the center of the page to the bottom and pick up the link to the letters section, and find Randy's letter and his live link to the CDC pdf file.
Or you can type in:
www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd/mortabs/gmwki10.htm
And then you would go to pages 1068-1071.
Either way you do it, you'll come across a bunch of tables that list flu-death stats for the year 2000. You'll need to look at all the tables.
I have previously reported that the actual CDC flu-death stat for the year 2000 was 1765. It's in small print, not in the CDC press releases that trumpet that ridiculous canned 36,000 figure.
So, working with the 1765 figure, I read through the various tables. It was easy to find how the CDC came up with that number. Table one lists 60 deaths from flu "with influenza virus identified." Table five lists 1705 deaths from flu with "virus not identified." Add up the two totals and you get 1765 deaths from the flu.
But wait a minute. All these stats are based on reports turned in from the field---which means doctors out there making diagnoses all over the US. If 1705 deaths from the flu NEVER HAD AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE VIRUS THAT THE CDC CLAIMS ACTUALLY CAUSES THE FLU, WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?
We are left with vague eyeball diagnosis of patients. Meaningless. Zero science. "Oh, sure, this is a case of the flu. Make a note."
Therefore, for the year 2000, the CDC flu-death stats that fit any sane conventional assessment come to a total of SIXTY. Sixty confirmed cases of death from flu.
This is right in line with my operating principle for investigating lies: the closer you get, the worse it is.
In fact, it would be very nice to know, in those 60 confirmed cases of death from the flu, exactly HOW the flu virus was IDed. Was it by actual isolation, or was it by finding antibodies to the flu virus? If the latter, that is NOT a proper ID. The presence of antibodies simply signifies the person's immune system has contacted the virus. Antibodies usually mean the person has successfully warded off the virus. Anyway...
If you study the other tables, you find more illumination. For example, in table 6, we see 912 deaths under a category called INFLUENZA WITH PNEUMONIA, VIRUS NOT IDENTIFIED. Oops. There it is again. The flu virus (that's what they're talking about) was never IDed. So how can they say this was really "INFLUENZA-with-pneumonia" as the cause of death? They can't.
If you've been reading my articles on this whole stat business, you know that I've expressed grave doubt about the 'everybody-knows-science' that says, "Hell, flu is very dangerous because it often leads to pneumonia. So even if the actual flu deaths are very low, we have to vaccinate anybody that moves because, that way, we're preventing pneumonia." Yeah. Sure.
Again, let me repeat, in the year 2000, there were 912 deaths listed under pneumonia WHERE THE FLU VIRUS WAS NEVER IDENTIFIED. There is no provable link between those pneumonia cases and flu.
Table 2, in fact, is deaths from flu-with-pneumonia where the flu virus WAS identified. Even if we assume that in these cases the flu actually LED to the pneumonia, the total of deaths is: 31.
That's right. 31.
So much for the vaunted and provable 'everybody-knows' link between flu and pneumonia.
What about the other tables for the year 2000? Table 3 is the category FLU WITH OTHER RESPIRATORY MANIFESTATIONS, WHERE THE FLU VIRUS WAS IDENTIFIED. Of course, we don't know what the other respiratory manifestations were---except we DO know they were never IDed as pneumonia. Total of deaths from this category? 27.
Table 4 is FLU WITH OTHER MANIFESTATIONS (even more vague) WHERE THE FLU VIRUS WAS IDENTIFIED. Total deaths in this category? 2.
Table 7 is FLU WITH OTHER RESPIRATORY MANIFESTATIONS WHERE THE FLU VIRUS WAS NOT IDENTIFIED. In other words, it's a vague plus vague category. A maybe not-sure could-be flu plus who knows what other respiratory problems. Total deaths? 767.
And table 8 is FLU WITH OTHER MANIFESTATIONS WHERE THE FLU VIRUS WAS NOT IDENTIFIED. Even vaguer. Total deaths? 26.
And that's it.
Let me point out one other thing. You could do a whole lot of excusing (of the CDC) by saying, "Look, the CDC really wants to list flu deaths and pneumonia deaths together as one category, but they're just following international code guidelines and that's why they break it down into separate listings and it's not their fault blah blah and if you add up the flu and pneumonia deaths together you end up with a really large number blah blah..." Sure. But, as we see in this breakdown for the year 2000, the closer you get, the worse it is. They're winging it. They're making all sorts of wild assumptions about flu cases without ever having IDed a flu virus. They're in deep water without a hint of a paddle. They're basically admitting their press releases trumpeting large flu-death figures are lies. They're confessing that their "universal" flu-peumonia death link is sheer unwarranted presumption.
Suppose we added up deaths from all these tables and categories for the year 2000. Suppose we wrongly stated these are all very good and tight categories of influenza and we're sure that the cause of death was flu and flu alone in every single case. Suppose we told that gigantic lie. What would we end up with? 3530 deaths. NOT 36,000 deaths. Not 70,000 deaths, which some people are now touting with breathtaking ease from their tower of authority.
This is a huge story. It may never get out into the mainstream. But it's huge.
ADDENDUM: I want to offer an educated opinion about a larger circumference of spin at the CDC. Look at it this way. You've got two parallel forces at work there in Atlanta. On one track, there are the bean counters who are assembling the stats and tables I've just gone over. They just keep their noses close to the computer and they add beans on beans. On another track, and this is very important, you've got people who are saying, "Listen, flu IS NOT A REPORTABLE DISEASE IN THE US. There is no rule that doctors in the field must report every (or any) flu diagnosis they make to the CDC. Therefore, we know that all sorts of flu cases and, therefore, FLU DEATHS, are not being funneled to us. So we have to take a different approach. We have to do STATISTICAL PROJECTIONS. From the data we do have, or from some restricted studies we do on very small populations, we have to introduce computer modeling, and we can then make a reaonable estimate of how many people actually die of the flu every year. THAT'S how we come up with the 36,000 figure. See? We're not lying. We're just doing the best job we can."
There is a great deal to learn about how these computer projections are really done. People tend to glaze over when you bring this subject up. People assume the math is correct and right and there are geniuses at work and they know the best way to proceed.
Well, I would point out that, in Rolling Stone, and other publications, a big scandal was broken about the way HIV-positive stats were assembled in South Africa, where the predictions tell us that the whole country will soon die of AIDS. It turned out that researchers were getting their blood for HIV tests from pregnancy clinics' leftover vials. They were testing this blood for "antibodies to HIV," and then sending the numbers and percentages to GENEVA, to the World Health Organization, where the computer boys took the numbers and did their projections. And that's how the dire press releases about the future of South Africa were created for medical reporters from Alaska to the South Pole. One thing was wrong: PREGNANCY ITSELF CAN CAUSE AN HIV BLOOD TEST TO REGISTER POSITIVE FALSELY. Pregnancy can cause the blood test to confirm the presence of antibodies to HIV when those antibodies are not really there. Not there. And that's the blood they were using to begin with---from pregnant women.
In the matter of flu deaths in the US, the burden of proof lies with the CDC. They must show, in great detail, that their statistical projections of 36,000 deaths a year are based on good and reasonable Science all the way down the line. Meanwhile, as I've shown, the only data we have to work with is a great torpedo in the belly of the CDC. And that data is posted right there on a CDC page.
JON RAPPOPORT
- looking even closer at true death st... anunnaki
20 y
2,799
- the cdc pr campaign to induce fear anunnaki
20 y
2,840
- the hypnotic effect of numbers anunnaki
20 y
2,792
- flu deaths per year in us anunnaki
20 y
2,903
- very few people die from the flu anunnaki
20 y
2,872
- drumming up the death rate anunnaki
20 y
2,770
Share:
Translate This Page: