The CDC's Fictional Flu Death Stats and Tamiflu's Lethal Side Effects

Views 34473

"You don't sell the drug, you sell the disease."

~ George Merck, founder of Merck

Flu season, or at least reporting on it, has reached a fever pitch … but the flu propaganda telling you it may be dangerous NOT to take Tamiflu and/or the flu vaccine may be a far greater risk to your health than the flu itself.

Take a look at this recent hysterical headline from the Daily Mail UK: "Flu virus has killed THOUSANDS in just ONE week with the death toll set to rise and Tamiflu shortages being reported across the country." Sounds terrifying, right? They even went out of their way to capitalize THOUSANDS to make the point, presumably, that you or your loved ones could be the next casaulty. 

According to the Daily Mail UK 'report,' "New CDC statistics show over 4,000 Americans died from the flu or pneumonia during the third week of January."

Did you notice that despite their headline stating it was "flu virus" which "killed THOUSANDS," they are referencing CDC statistics which clearly state that it was either the flu or pneumonia. Well, which one is it? Something doesn't add up here. 

The CDC Admits Their Flu Death Statistics Aren't Based On Confirmed Influenza Cases

The CDC's own resource page on the topic titled, "Estimating Seasonal Influenza-Associated Deaths in the United States," clearly states both that, "Seasonal influenza-related deaths are deaths that occur in people for whom seasonal influenza infection was likely a contributor to the cause of death, but not necessarily the primary cause of death," and even more succinctly: "CDC does not know exactly how many people die from seasonal flu each year."

So, what is the CDC's magical formula through which it arrives at its flu death statistics?

The CDC has a far from lucid answer to this question under the subject heading, "What categories does CDC use to estimate flu-associated deaths?", as follows:

"CDC uses two categories of underlying cause of death information listed on death certificates: pneumonia and influenza (P&I) causes and respiratory and circulatory (R&C) causes. CDC uses statistical models with records from these two categories to make estimates of influenza-associated mortality. CDC uses underlying R&C deaths (which include P&I deaths) as the primary outcome in its mortality modeling because R&C deaths provide an estimate of deaths that include secondary respiratory or cardiac complications that can follow influenza. R&C causes of death are more sensitive to describe flu-related deaths than underlying P&I deaths and more specific than deaths from all causes."

Yes, you read that correctly. The CDC uses a fuzzy math-based statistical model which identifies influenza as the cause of death even when respiratory diseases like pneumonia, or circulatory causes like cardiac arrest, are officially reported to have been the cause of death. This is all the more suspect when no virus testing is required to be performed in the majority of these cases. Absurdly, the CDC's own resource page on pneumonia states that, "Viruses, bacteria, and fungi can all cause pneumonia." Clearly, therefore, influenza alone can not be said to be the cause of all pneumonia deaths. You can see the same pseudoscientific process of arriving at annual flu death statistics exposed in the report below on Canada's equally propaganda-driven health system: 



Nor would the confirmed presence of influenza be sufficient to attribute the primary cause of death to the flu. Influenza, in fact, is a naturally occurring and often subclinical part of the human virome, detectable in human blood along with dozens of other viruses. Nor is influenza strictly 'other,' in the sense that its very infectious particle is comprised of host proteins and lipids. Learn more by reading: Why The Only Thing Influenza May Kill Is Germ Theory. Truth be told, we are only beginning to understand the role of viruses in mediating genotype-to-phenotype relationships within the immune system. And as Skip Virgin, PhD, explains brilliantly in a NIH lecture on the virome, many of the viruses we once thought were strictly harmful protect us against deadly bacterial infections and even cancer.

The CDC appears to be aware of the weaknesses of their approach, as evidenced by their feeling obligated to answer the following hypothetical question: "Why doesn't CDC base its seasonal flu mortality estimates only on death certificates that specifically list influenza?" Their answer powerfully confirms their lack of interest in evidence-based confirmation of their flu death statistics: 

"Seasonal influenza may lead to death from other causes, such as pneumonia, congestive heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It has been recognized for many years that influenza is underreported on death certificates and patients aren't always tested for seasonal influenza infection, particularly the elderly who are at greatest risk of seasonal influenza complications and death. Some deaths - particularly among the elderly - are associated with secondary complications of seasonal influenza (including bacterial pneumonias). Influenza virus infection may not be identified in many instances because influenza virus is only detectable for a short period of time and/or many people don't seek medical care until after the first few days of acute illness. For these and other reasons, statistical modeling strategies have been used to estimate seasonal flu-related deaths for many decades. Only counting deaths where influenza was included on a death certificate would be a gross underestimation of seasonal influenza's true impact." [bold emphasis added]

As you can see above, they admit that " Influenza virus infection may not be identified in many instances," making it impossible to confirm that these are, indeed, flu-related deaths despite their being recording as such. In other words, this is NOT evidence-based whatsoever.

Recently, my colleague RFK Jr. elaborated further on this gross misrepresentation of the truth in his article titled, "Caveat Emptor: Science vs. CDC on Scary Flu Shot Promotions,":

"CDC's strategy to use fear to ramp up flu vaccine sales ­­­­requires the agency to exaggerate both flu risks and vaccine efficacy. Pharmaceutical companies and public health officials vastly overstate flu cases and deaths in order to market influenza "as a threat of great proportions." Simple fact-checking shows that since October 2017, only 14.7% of the almost 447,000 "flu" specimens tested by clinical laboratories working with CDC have tested positive for influenza. This proportion has remained relatively constant for the past two decades. According to the British Medical Journal's Peter Doshi, "Even the ideal influenza vaccine…can only deal with a small part of the 'flu' problem because most 'flu' appears to have nothing to do with influenza." Actual influenza deaths not only rank lower than the major killers such as heart disease and cancer but also are lower down in the mortality rankings than ulcers and hernias."

The reality is that these frightening flu death statistics bandied about by the mainstream media and public health authorities as fact are not evidence-based in the least. Just like the CDC and media's widespread misrepresentation of the flu vaccine as safe and effective, their facts and figures are not grounded in peer-reviewed, published research, as one would expect. But this is actually quite typical for the eminence-based, or cult of authority-based model of medicine and health policy that dominates the sociopolitical landscape today. Evidence has never really played a significant role in the CDC's policies. 

Tamiflu Caused Death Attributed To 'The Flu'?

So, what happens when someone is treated for flu-like symptoms with Tamiflu and subsequently dies? Do you think the CDC accounts for the possibility that the drug or drugs used contributed to their deterioration or death or do they just blame 'the flu'? This is an important question to ask, considering that Tamiflu's lethality has been identified as a possible side effect in the medical literature. For instance:

"CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest Tamiflu use could induce sudden deterioration LEADING TO DEATH especially within 12 hours of prescription. These findings are consistent with sudden deaths observed in a series of animal toxicity studies, several reported case series and the results of prospective cohort studies. From "the precautionary principle" the potential harm of Tamiflu should be taken into account and further detailed studies should be conducted." [capitalization emphasis added]"



"It is concluded that unchanged oseltamivir has various effects on the central nervous system (CNS) that may be related to clinical findings including hypothermia, abnormal behaviours including with fatal outcome, and SUDDEN DEATH" [capitalization emphasis added]"

Another, 2007 article published in the British Medical Journal addressed Oseltamivir's Adverse Reactions as follows:

"...Thus adverse reactions to oseltamivir may be roughly classified into three groups: (a) sudden onset reactions related to central suppressive action of oseltamivir-P during cytokine storm, including sudden death, abnormal behaviours, and other sudden neuropsychiatric disorders; (b) late onset reactions such as pneumonia, sepsis, hyperglycaemia, and late onset neuropsychiatric disorders possibly related to inhibition of human cytosolic neuraminidase (sialidase) activity by oseltamivir carboxylate; and (c) allergic reactions and others…"

They listed the manner by which Tamiflu indices death as follows:

"...Of the total 80 deaths, 50 were sudden deaths or deaths from sudden cardiopulmonary arrest (18 in those <10 years old, 32 in those aged 20 or over)..."

Did you catch that? Heart and respiratory deaths -- the very 'causes of death' attributed to flu by the CDC -- were the most commonly reported cause of death from Tamiflu.

Again, what happens when a child, recently vaccinated with the flu vaccine, experiences symptoms of 'the flu' [technically over 200 different viruses can cause these symptoms, according to the Cochrane Summaries] and is immediately administered Tamiflu (which is the standard of care)? If a rapid decline in their condition is observed, or if that child dies, how would they differentiate the cause of death from vaccination and Tamiflu (and other co-administered interventions) or 'the flu'? By default, the medical reporting system attributes the cause of death to the flu, with no differential technique employed to identify possible iatrogenic reactions produced by these presumably 'life saving' intervention. The same thing happens with chemotherapy-induced death in cancer patients. It's standard practice to blame the victim and protect the guilty party, because without this sleight of hand, the business of medicine could not continue.

Amazingly, the toxicological data on Tamiflu makes it clear that one cannot distinguish Tamiflu-induced decline from flu-induced decline. Here's an excerpt from the Toxnet monograph on Tamiflu under the subject heading Clinical Effects:

"Toxicity is commonly indistinguishable from the underlying influenza illness and the effects of other medications (eg, antihistamines, quinolones) with the potential to cause delirium."

This is stated again in the document under the subject heading: "SEVERE TOXICITY":

" In cases of severe toxicity, patients may very rarely develop neuropsychiatric illness including agitation, delirium, hallucinations, and psychosis. This appears to be common with high-dose therapy for critically ill patients with influenza, although whether the cause is directly due to oseltamivir toxicity or the underlying illness remains unclear." [bold emphasis added]

Children appear to be uniquely susceptible to the toxicity of Tamiflu, and yet, in 2012, the FDA approved its use in children two months or younger. A clue to why they are more susceptible to harm is provided by an animal toxicity study, described as follows:

"LABORATORY ANIMALS: Acute Exposure/ In a 2-week study in unweaned rats, administration of a single dose of 1000 mg/kg oseltamivir phosphate to 7- day-old rats resulted in deaths associated with unusually high exposure to the prodrug. However, at 2000 mg/kg, there were no deaths or other significant effects in 14-day-old unweaned rats. Further follow-up investigations of the unexpected deaths of 7-day-old rats at 1000 mg/kg revealed that the concentrations of the prodrug in the brains were approximately 1500-fold those of the brains of adult rats administered the same oral dose of 1000 mg/kg, and those of the active metabolite were approximately 3-fold higher. Plasma levels of the prodrug were 10-fold higher in 7-day-old rats as compared with adult rats. These observations suggest that the levels of oseltamivir in the brains of rats decrease with increasing age and most likely reflect the maturation stage of the blood-brain barrier. No adverse effects occurred at 500 mg/kg/day administered to 7- to 21-day-old rats." [bold emphasis added]

Source: [Physicians Desk Reference 60th ed, Thomson PDR, Montvale, NJ 2006., p. 2812] **PEER REVIEWED**

Did you catch that? Concentrations of the prodrug in the brains were approximately 1500-fold those of the brains of adult rats, presumably because their blood-brain barriers were not developed.

No wonder even the mainstream media can't keep from reporting on the "odd side effects" of Tamiflu, particularly in children: USA Today: 

Tamiflu may have odd side effects, particularly in children, experts say

As science begins to reveal the role of microbes in our own immunity, it is important to recognize the protest on the part of an establishment deeply invested in the role of routine pharmaceuticals in human health. They will use fear to provoke compliance with chemical interventions, ironically, capable of inducing exactly what they purport to protect you from. Hopefully this information will arm you with awareness and allow you to see media efforts for what they are - sales tactics.

For more information on Tamiflu's link to abnormal behavior and possibly death, read our recent article on the topic: Tamiflu and Abnormal Behavior.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

© Copyright 2008-2024, Journal Articles copyright of original owners, MeSH copyright NLM.