Print

Print


I generally like and respect Dr. Meryl Nass's insights.

However, here she misses the obvious point that 
flu infections have decreased most likely due to 
precautions people have been taking this year 
regarding Covid-19, as well as in 2009 for Avian 
Flu, which have benefits for other illnesses as well ....
Still, very interesting article.
- Mitchel

How CDC and WHO Rewrote the history of the 2009 
swine flu pandemic--reprinted from 2012

by Meryl Nass, M.D.


The article below I wrote 8 years ago, but it has 
relevance to today.  I describe some of the 
tricks that were pulled when a pandemic vaccine 
was rushed into use in 2009, and how the agencies 
that rushed it covered their tracks over the next several years--Meryl

Saturday, August 4, 2012


<http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2012/08/rewriting-history-of-pandemic-swine-flu.html>Rewriting 
the history of pandemic swine flu (to justify vaccine policies?)

Remember the 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic?  There were 
going to be a huge number of illnesses and 
deaths, but then it turned out the flu virus 
caused less severe disease than usual.
    * Since then, the H1N1 swine flu virus has 
remained in circulation, and 
<http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/>we have continued 
to have fewer reported flu deaths in the US and 
abroad than in prior, recent years.
    * Children, lacking prior immunity, were said 
to be at terrible risk--but then it turned out 
<http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/> that although 
there were 2-3 times as many pediatric flu deaths 
in 2009-10 as during an average season, the flu 
season lasted much longer than usual.  CDC 
reported 133 child flu deaths in 2008-9, 282 in 
2009-10, 122 in 2010-11 and 33 in 2011-12.
    * We were in dire need of vaccines, so it was 
said.  Therefore a bizarre vaccine approval process was instituted.
This process was crafted to mislead the 
public. 
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/07/29/swine-flu-vaccine.html>Vaccines 
were approved on the basis of prior testing of 
so-called "mock-up vaccines".  The 
<http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2009/10/non-us-swine-flu-vaccines-mock-vaccine.html>mock 
up vaccines were actually old bird flu vaccines 
tested years earlier for a potential bird flu 
epidemic.  They contained the same adjuvants as 
swine flu vaccines, but the antigens were 
completely different.  According to 
<http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_safety_vaccines_20090805/en/index.html>WHO:

... some manufacturers have conducted advance 
studies using a so-called “mock-up” vaccine. 
Mock-up vaccines contain an active ingredient for 
an influenza virus that has not circulated 
recently in human populations and thus mimics the 
novelty of a pandemic virus. Such advance studies 
can greatly expedite regulatory approval.

Approval of the new vaccines rested on sleight of 
hand:  regulatory agencies made the claim that 
the two vaccines were substantially 
identical.  Therefore, 
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/25/swine-flu-vaccination-uk>data 
from tests of old bird flu vaccines provided the 
proof needed to demonstrate safety and 
effectiveness of new swine flu 
vaccines.  According to the 
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/25/swine-flu-vaccination-uk>Guardian:

The clinical trials on which approval was based 
involved more than 6,000 people for each vaccine, 
each of whom received a version which was 
basically the same as the one to be rolled out, 
but originally contained an avian flu (H5N1) 
strain  which had been expected to causse a pandemic  instead of H1N1.

And POOF! -- hundreds of millions of people 
received the new, untested vaccines.

Later came the bad news.

The epidemic was actually mild, and most of those 
affected had few if any symptoms.

The vaccines had been given late, when most of 
the epidemic had passed, and many vaccinated 
people were already immune.  The vaccine probably 
had little impact on the pandemic.

The shot itself was dangerous.  Glaxo's version 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22470453/?tool=pubmed>caused 
13 times the expected number of cases of 
narcolepsy in children, and different versions 
increased the risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome.

WHO was awash with conflicts of interests:  the 
<http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5htt1btsuNKD-O2MlbiblXHv6AH_g>names 
of its advisory groupmembers were kept secret; 
<http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2912>many, 
it turned out, had ties to vaccine 
manufacturers. 
<http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-086173/en/index.html>A 
watering down of the way a pandemic was defined 
by WHO led to calling swine flu a pandemic early 
on.  This activated 
<http://www.bild.de/news/bild-english/news/germanys-secret-virus-vaccine-contract-revealed-10526394.bild.html>preexisting 
contracts between nations and pharmaceutical 
manufacturers, 
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/swine-flu-h1n1-vaccine-europe>requiring 
vaccines to be made and countries to purchase 
them: creating a captive vaccine market.

<https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=PR455(2010)&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=DC&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE>The 
Council of Europe got into the act, investigating 
WHO and the provenance of the contracts to 
understand how billions of healthcare dollars 
were spent to buy and administer unnecessary vaccines.

WHO (the World Health Organization) didn't take 
the assault lying down.  It arranged for 
<http://www.who.int/ihr/WHA64_10_HVF_2011.pdf>its 
own investigation, which unsurprisingly found no big mistakes.

In 2010, 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20520590>CDC 
thought the US vaccine caused nearly a doubling 
of GBS cases.  In July, new Canadian evidence 
revealed 
<http://o.canada.com/2012/07/10/swine-flu-vaccine-linked-to-increased-risk-of-rare-nerve-disorder/>a 
doubling or tripling of the Guillain Barre rate 
after swine flu vaccination to 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22782419>2 
cases per million 
doses. 
An<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22582210> 
even greater increase to 5 cases of GBS per 
million swine flu vaccine doses was identified in 
a Harvard Med School study in June.

Instead of acknowledging these findings and 
planning for better vaccine testing, the swine 
flu pandemic's history was rewritten.

Although Bloomberg/Businessweek mentioned the 
study showing a doubling of the GBS rate, it 
concluded flu vaccine was safe in pregnancy:
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-10/swine-flu-shot-for-moms-doesn-t-raise-risk-for-newborns>Today’s 
research and a Canadian study looking at the 
vaccine’s effect on Guillain-Barre syndrome, a 
disorder in which the body attacks its nervous 
system, shows the shot is 
safe<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-10/swine-flu-shot-for-moms-doesn-t-raise-risk-for-newborns> 
and should be used as a precaution to prevent infection, he said.

More whitewashing of the data followed:  there 
were 
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-10/swine-flu-shot-for-moms-doesn-t-raise-risk-for-newborns>no 
problems with fertility in women vaccinated 
during any trimester of their pregnancy.  Here's 
a link to the Danish study published in 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22782418>JAMA.

Then came more 
bluster: 
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/us-swineflu-idUSBRE85O1DF20120625>actually, 
it was a really, really bad flu with huge numbers 
of deaths.  We missed them because we didn't look 
carefully enough:  they tended to occur in the 
underdeveloped countries, which is why it took 3 years for CDC to find them.

Except CDC didn't find them; instead, 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22738893>it 
estimated them.  What was the authors' conclusion?
Although no estimates of symptomatic case 
fatality ratios were available from Africa and 
southeast Asia, a disproportionate number of 
estimated pandemic deaths might have occurred in these regions.

A different 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22638836>review 
published by CDC scientists in May 2012, honestly noted:
Human infection with H1N1 has generally resulted 
in low mortality, although certain subgroups... 
have significantly higher risk of severe disease.

Let's examine the claim of vaccine safety during pregnancy.

In the US, 
<http://health.utah.gov/birthdefect/defect.html>the 
major birth defect rate is about 
<http://health.utah.gov/birthdefect/defect.html>3%. 
In the Danish study cited, the major birth defect 
rate in offspring of women vaccinated during 
their first trimester was 5.45%.  But in the 
Danish control group, the major birth defect rate was 4.54%.

The authors were able to dismiss the high birth 
defect rate by selecting a control group with a 
higher than expected rate, and by using groups 
small enough that the 0.91% increased rate in the 
vaccinated cohort was not statistically significant.

Anders Hviid, the last author on the study, was 
involved in an earlier study that was not 
sufficiently powered to detect a 2.7-fold 
increase in GBS following swine flu 
vaccinations.  He was then able to conclude that 
"<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21750072>The 
risk of occurrence of Guillain-Barré syndrome is 
not increased after pandemic influenza vaccine."

I imagine these are only the first volleys in 
CDC's attempt to rewrite the history of swine flu 
and its vaccine, and justify its vaccine policies 
despite evidence to the contrary.  Keep an eye out for what's next.

Might Hydroxychloroquine Actually Be Good for Your Heart?/ AAPS

Posted: 31 Aug 2020 01:40 PM PDT
Verbatim 8/31/20 from the 
<https://aapsonline.org/covid-19-might-hydroxychloroquine-actually-be-good-for-your-heart/>American 
Association of Physicians and Surgeons:
Many are afraid to take hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) 
for COVID as they have been told it could kill 
them because of its effect on the heart. Are you worried about this?

It is a fact that HCQ, azithromycin (Z-Pak), and 
other drugs can prolong the QT inteerval on the 
electrocardiogram (ECG)see image below. This 
could makke patients vulnerable to fatal changes 
in the heart’s rhythm (such as torsades de 
pointes or TdP). People with a rare condition 
called “congenital prolonged QT syndrome” are especially at risk.
[]
You do not have to have an expensive ECG to check 
for this. It takes about 5 minutes with 
inexpensive new technology that fits in your 
pocket and can be used in your home (see 
below).<https://www.amazon.com/Alivecor%C2%AE-KardiaMobile-Wireless-Detection-Smartphones/dp/B01A4W8AUK>
[]
Hundreds of millions of people have taken HCQ 
without ever worrying about this issue. Have we 
overlooked a serious problem for more than 50 
years? 
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7439006/>A 
just-published article that reviews the medical 
literature concludes that, on the contrary, HCQ protects the heart.

In one case series of 251 COVID-19 patients 
treated with HCQ and azithromycin, extreme QT 
prolongation occurred in 23 percent. The HCQ was 
stopped; no deaths occurred. No reports of 
cardiac deaths were found in the review. Rather, 
“HCQ/azithromycin were uniformly found to 
substantially reduce cardiac mortality and also 
to decrease thrombosis, arrhythmia and cholesterol in treated patients.”

Warnings issued by FDA, CDC, the American Heart 
Association, and others have suppressed the use 
of potentially life-saving HCQ treatment. 
However, author Chadwick Prodromos, M.D., notes 
that warnings cite no specific study, and do not 
comment on whether actual deaths have occurred.He 
concludes that: “HCQ decreases cardiac events. 
HCQ should not be restricted in use for COVID 19 
patients because of fear of cardiac mortality.”

It is important to remember that COVID-19 itself 
can damage the heart, increasing the importance of early treatment.

Cardiologist Peter McCullough, M.D., M.P.H., of 
the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute in 
Dallas, 
<https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext#%20>recommends 
HCQ and other measures for early treatment in a 
recent article in the American Journal of Medicine.