With all the recent press devoted to swine flu or the novel H1N1 influenza pandemic, there may be more fear than fact circulating through the newspapers, television, and the Internet.
It is interesting that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently reports that deaths from the flu are actually lower this year than in previous years. Numbers are even below what’s known as the “epidemic threshold” for similar time periods in previous, non-pandemic years.
In the 2007–2008 flu season, the CDC reported that the peak death rate (for pneumonia and influenza) was 9 percent. The highest death rate since the novel H1N1 pandemic began in early 2009 has only been 6.0 percent.
The CDC estimates that most people who contract the virus are expected to recover without medical attention or any significant consequences. Ninety percent of those who suffered complications from H1N1 since early 2009 also had either asthma or a seizure disorder. Those with preexisting or underlying medical conditions (asthma, seizure disorder, diabetes, heart disease, and pregnancy) are at increased risk of suffering complications, which is typical for influenza.
Epidemiologists have found that not only is the H1N1 virus associated with milder and less-lethal cases of the flu but also is less easily transmitted from person to person than the regular flu strains. Therefore, less of the population is at risk for this flu pandemic, and those that do contract it are less likely to suffer complications leading to hospitalization or death.
If the death rate in this year’s pandemic novel H1N1 outbreak is lower than previous non-pandemic years, what is all the media fuss about? Why are authorities mandating health care workers and others receive immunizations for H1N1?
To understand this we need to look back at the death rate from influenza in the last century. These numbers have been carefully tracked by Public Health Organizations like the CDC.
The 1917–1918 flu epidemic was one of the worst on record. Various theories exist explaining why this epidemic was worse than all others, but several facts are clear. First, this epidemic took place at the end of the World War I, and it took root in military facilities that were overcrowded.
Second, areas most heavily affected by the flu were suffering from lack of adequate food, medical care, and basic hygiene. Third, this was the first time that aspirin had ever been recommended as treatment for the flu.
Since the great Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918, death rates from the flu have been steadily falling. This decline was initially quite steep, but it leveled off in the mid-1950s. The drop in death rate could not be correlated with the introduction of the influenza vaccination in the 1940s since it wasn’t even available for widespread use until nearly 1980.
Epidemiologists and public health experts have been watching the gradual domestication of the influenza virus. Over time, it has consistently and incrementally trended toward reduced virulence and aggressiveness.
There continue to be small spikes of intermittent increased mortality when strains suddenly mutate, or genetic drift introduces new viral strains, but the overall trend continues toward less and less lethal outbreaks of these viruses.
This downward trend in lethal activity is consistent with the domestication process of most organisms known to man. This process takes place over time as animal, viral, bacterial, and fungal species gradually accommodate to mankind and vice versa.
This pattern occasionally reverses itself, triggered by a number of diverse factors, including mankind’s use of modern chemical agents (antibiotics, antiviral, and antifungal agents), forcing these microorganisms to act more aggressively.
When drugs are used to combat these organisms, they must exhibit more aggressive and virulent tendencies or perish. Ultimately, after the continued application of these drugs, many organisms emerge with drug resistance and improved survival advantages.
This phenomenon is observable in all bacterial, viral, and fungal species. Well-known examples include methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MTB). These examples are by no means exceptions to the rule— they are the rule.
But left to the processes of natural selection, the virulence and aggressiveness of these organisms inevitably trends downward over time as they accommodate themselves to human infection. This behavior seems to be true for the H1N1 flu virus as well.
So far, H1N1 is much less severe than the regular flu. The calculated mortality rate for H1N1 in 2009 is only 0.5 percent. In 2006, the death rate for influenza was 0.77 percent, and in 2005 it was 0.79 percent.
Of course, the CDC and the pharmaceutical industries claim credit for this reduction in death rate, but statistical analysis shows that this trend predated the introduction of the vaccine and is not correlated with either vaccine or antiviral medication use.
New Zealand recently reported that their winter experience with H1N1 was particularly mild, with a death rate of 0.5 percent and a total of only 3,179 cases nationwide.
The U.S. government, backed by the pharmaceutical industry and other health organizations, has launched a vigorous campaign to immunize the country.
In New York State, Commissioner of Health Richard Daines has issued an order requiring all health care workers to become immunized for the seasonal flu and H1N1 before Nov. 30, 2009, or face termination. This order is unprecedented. Furthermore it isn’t even justified by scientific evidence of either exceptional viral risk or reliable vaccine safety.
Neither the worldwide observation of low risk associated with H1N1 nor the track record of influenza vaccines in the past justifies these actions. The current H1N1 vaccine poses even greater risk to personal health since its testing and safety data have been kept secret.
Additionally, analysis of data from prior influenza outbreaks reveals that immunization is totally ineffective in children younger than 2 years and that it has no effect on either hospitalization or death rates in adults.
In addition, vaccines have a longstanding history of safety problems, which include biological contamination, metal preservatives, and adjuvant toxicity. These pharmaceuticals have been associated with numerous reports of neurological and autoimmune side effects.
Safety boards reviewing and recommending these products are staffed by industry-influenced individuals. Vaccine manufacturers are safely protected from product liability while the public is mandated to receive treatment.
The H1N1 vaccine has been “fast tracked” by the U.S. FDA and has bypassed many of the safety checks and balances that normally ensure public safety from these drugs
Antiviral medications have a similarly clouded history. The best that can be expected from any of these antiviral medications, according to the Mayo Clinic, is “shortening the illness by a day or so.”
These antiviral medications have not been sufficiently tested to determine how safe or effective they actually are. [2] They are associated with significant adverse events including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, sinusitis, bronchitis, cough, headache, dizziness, ear, nose and throat infections, oropharyngeal and facial edema, neuropsychiatric events, and delirium.
These medications are not recommended for preventive prophylaxis of the flu because the more they are used, the greater the risk of developing viral resistance. The CDC has already received reports of the H1N1 virus demonstrating resistance to these drugs.
Why has the federal government taken the position of mandating use of these dangerous vaccinations and strongly advocated the use of these ineffective medications when epidemiologists have already agreed that the H1N1 pandemic is expected to be unusually mild? The answer can only be the result of political or financial factors or both.
Commercial interest in the flu is tremendous. Fortunes are made in the preparation and distribution of fear in the form of millions of doses of vaccine, courses of antiviral medications, masks, and hand sanitizers. Industry has a strong interest in inflating public concern over these “pandemics,” even in the face of opposing scientific evidence.
Flu Treatment
The symptoms of novel H1N1 are typical for the flu. They differ only slightly from previous years’ flu epidemics by the appearance of more frequent gastrointestinal symptoms and a milder course. Typical symptoms of H1N1 influenza include fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, chills, myalgias, rhinorrhea, sore throat, headache, vomiting, wheezing, and diarrhea.
General precautions and recommendations for treatment and prevention of the flu include:
· Remaining home to rest when symptoms strike.
· Maintaining adequate hydration.
· Avoiding aspirin, NSAIDs, and other anti-inflammatory, anti-fever medications.
· Avoiding antiviral medications.
· Limiting food intake to small amounts.
· Resting and sleeping adequately.
· Avoiding excessive intake of refined sugars, carbohydrates, and sweets.
· Getting exposure to sunlight when possible.
Homeopathic medicines to consider for the flu include:
Oscillococcinum. Placebo-controlled studies indicate that this medicine can help prevent the flu and shorten duration of flu symptoms. It can be used preventatively throughout the flu season or at the first sign of flu symptoms.
Aconitum napellus. This medicine can be helpful at the first sign of flu symptoms or after exposure to the flu. It can reverse the symptoms of the flu within the first few hours of onset.
Gelsemium sempervirens. A helpful medicine in flu syndromes marked by weakness, muscle aches, and lack of thirst. This was one of the most helpful medicines in the Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918.
Bryonia alba. This medicine is indicated in cases of the flu marked by aching in joints, immobility due to pain, frontal headache, a dry, painful cough, and thirst for large quantities of cold water.
Eupatorium perfoliatum. This medicine is helpful for cases of flu accompanied by severe bone pain. Symptoms include severe restlessness, insomnia, and thirst for cold water.
Arsenicum album. So far, this medicine is the most commonly indicated remedy for the H1N1 virus outbreak of early 2009. Symptoms include severe fatigue, high fever, headache, and gastrointestinal upset.
Prevention of the flu means taking care of one’s health, eating properly, and getting adequate sleep. This year’s flu season looks like it may be milder than most despite the alarming public media campaign and extreme precautions mandated by departments of public health. Maintaining a firm grasp of the scientific evidence is essential in any rational program public health. Avoiding the epidemic of fear is also important.
It is interesting that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently reports that deaths from the flu are actually lower this year than in previous years. Numbers are even below what’s known as the “epidemic threshold” for similar time periods in previous, non-pandemic years.
In the 2007–2008 flu season, the CDC reported that the peak death rate (for pneumonia and influenza) was 9 percent. The highest death rate since the novel H1N1 pandemic began in early 2009 has only been 6.0 percent.
The CDC estimates that most people who contract the virus are expected to recover without medical attention or any significant consequences. Ninety percent of those who suffered complications from H1N1 since early 2009 also had either asthma or a seizure disorder. Those with preexisting or underlying medical conditions (asthma, seizure disorder, diabetes, heart disease, and pregnancy) are at increased risk of suffering complications, which is typical for influenza.
Epidemiologists have found that not only is the H1N1 virus associated with milder and less-lethal cases of the flu but also is less easily transmitted from person to person than the regular flu strains. Therefore, less of the population is at risk for this flu pandemic, and those that do contract it are less likely to suffer complications leading to hospitalization or death.
If the death rate in this year’s pandemic novel H1N1 outbreak is lower than previous non-pandemic years, what is all the media fuss about? Why are authorities mandating health care workers and others receive immunizations for H1N1?
To understand this we need to look back at the death rate from influenza in the last century. These numbers have been carefully tracked by Public Health Organizations like the CDC.
The 1917–1918 flu epidemic was one of the worst on record. Various theories exist explaining why this epidemic was worse than all others, but several facts are clear. First, this epidemic took place at the end of the World War I, and it took root in military facilities that were overcrowded.
Second, areas most heavily affected by the flu were suffering from lack of adequate food, medical care, and basic hygiene. Third, this was the first time that aspirin had ever been recommended as treatment for the flu.
Since the great Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918, death rates from the flu have been steadily falling. This decline was initially quite steep, but it leveled off in the mid-1950s. The drop in death rate could not be correlated with the introduction of the influenza vaccination in the 1940s since it wasn’t even available for widespread use until nearly 1980.
Epidemiologists and public health experts have been watching the gradual domestication of the influenza virus. Over time, it has consistently and incrementally trended toward reduced virulence and aggressiveness.
There continue to be small spikes of intermittent increased mortality when strains suddenly mutate, or genetic drift introduces new viral strains, but the overall trend continues toward less and less lethal outbreaks of these viruses.
This downward trend in lethal activity is consistent with the domestication process of most organisms known to man. This process takes place over time as animal, viral, bacterial, and fungal species gradually accommodate to mankind and vice versa.
This pattern occasionally reverses itself, triggered by a number of diverse factors, including mankind’s use of modern chemical agents (antibiotics, antiviral, and antifungal agents), forcing these microorganisms to act more aggressively.
When drugs are used to combat these organisms, they must exhibit more aggressive and virulent tendencies or perish. Ultimately, after the continued application of these drugs, many organisms emerge with drug resistance and improved survival advantages.
This phenomenon is observable in all bacterial, viral, and fungal species. Well-known examples include methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MTB). These examples are by no means exceptions to the rule— they are the rule.
But left to the processes of natural selection, the virulence and aggressiveness of these organisms inevitably trends downward over time as they accommodate themselves to human infection. This behavior seems to be true for the H1N1 flu virus as well.
So far, H1N1 is much less severe than the regular flu. The calculated mortality rate for H1N1 in 2009 is only 0.5 percent. In 2006, the death rate for influenza was 0.77 percent, and in 2005 it was 0.79 percent.
Of course, the CDC and the pharmaceutical industries claim credit for this reduction in death rate, but statistical analysis shows that this trend predated the introduction of the vaccine and is not correlated with either vaccine or antiviral medication use.
New Zealand recently reported that their winter experience with H1N1 was particularly mild, with a death rate of 0.5 percent and a total of only 3,179 cases nationwide.
The U.S. government, backed by the pharmaceutical industry and other health organizations, has launched a vigorous campaign to immunize the country.
In New York State, Commissioner of Health Richard Daines has issued an order requiring all health care workers to become immunized for the seasonal flu and H1N1 before Nov. 30, 2009, or face termination. This order is unprecedented. Furthermore it isn’t even justified by scientific evidence of either exceptional viral risk or reliable vaccine safety.
Neither the worldwide observation of low risk associated with H1N1 nor the track record of influenza vaccines in the past justifies these actions. The current H1N1 vaccine poses even greater risk to personal health since its testing and safety data have been kept secret.
Additionally, analysis of data from prior influenza outbreaks reveals that immunization is totally ineffective in children younger than 2 years and that it has no effect on either hospitalization or death rates in adults.
In addition, vaccines have a longstanding history of safety problems, which include biological contamination, metal preservatives, and adjuvant toxicity. These pharmaceuticals have been associated with numerous reports of neurological and autoimmune side effects.
Safety boards reviewing and recommending these products are staffed by industry-influenced individuals. Vaccine manufacturers are safely protected from product liability while the public is mandated to receive treatment.
The H1N1 vaccine has been “fast tracked” by the U.S. FDA and has bypassed many of the safety checks and balances that normally ensure public safety from these drugs
Antiviral medications have a similarly clouded history. The best that can be expected from any of these antiviral medications, according to the Mayo Clinic, is “shortening the illness by a day or so.”
These antiviral medications have not been sufficiently tested to determine how safe or effective they actually are. [2] They are associated with significant adverse events including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, sinusitis, bronchitis, cough, headache, dizziness, ear, nose and throat infections, oropharyngeal and facial edema, neuropsychiatric events, and delirium.
These medications are not recommended for preventive prophylaxis of the flu because the more they are used, the greater the risk of developing viral resistance. The CDC has already received reports of the H1N1 virus demonstrating resistance to these drugs.
Why has the federal government taken the position of mandating use of these dangerous vaccinations and strongly advocated the use of these ineffective medications when epidemiologists have already agreed that the H1N1 pandemic is expected to be unusually mild? The answer can only be the result of political or financial factors or both.
Commercial interest in the flu is tremendous. Fortunes are made in the preparation and distribution of fear in the form of millions of doses of vaccine, courses of antiviral medications, masks, and hand sanitizers. Industry has a strong interest in inflating public concern over these “pandemics,” even in the face of opposing scientific evidence.
Flu Treatment
The symptoms of novel H1N1 are typical for the flu. They differ only slightly from previous years’ flu epidemics by the appearance of more frequent gastrointestinal symptoms and a milder course. Typical symptoms of H1N1 influenza include fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, chills, myalgias, rhinorrhea, sore throat, headache, vomiting, wheezing, and diarrhea.
General precautions and recommendations for treatment and prevention of the flu include:
· Remaining home to rest when symptoms strike.
· Maintaining adequate hydration.
· Avoiding aspirin, NSAIDs, and other anti-inflammatory, anti-fever medications.
· Avoiding antiviral medications.
· Limiting food intake to small amounts.
· Resting and sleeping adequately.
· Avoiding excessive intake of refined sugars, carbohydrates, and sweets.
· Getting exposure to sunlight when possible.
Homeopathic medicines to consider for the flu include:
Oscillococcinum. Placebo-controlled studies indicate that this medicine can help prevent the flu and shorten duration of flu symptoms. It can be used preventatively throughout the flu season or at the first sign of flu symptoms.
Aconitum napellus. This medicine can be helpful at the first sign of flu symptoms or after exposure to the flu. It can reverse the symptoms of the flu within the first few hours of onset.
Gelsemium sempervirens. A helpful medicine in flu syndromes marked by weakness, muscle aches, and lack of thirst. This was one of the most helpful medicines in the Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918.
Bryonia alba. This medicine is indicated in cases of the flu marked by aching in joints, immobility due to pain, frontal headache, a dry, painful cough, and thirst for large quantities of cold water.
Eupatorium perfoliatum. This medicine is helpful for cases of flu accompanied by severe bone pain. Symptoms include severe restlessness, insomnia, and thirst for cold water.
Arsenicum album. So far, this medicine is the most commonly indicated remedy for the H1N1 virus outbreak of early 2009. Symptoms include severe fatigue, high fever, headache, and gastrointestinal upset.
Prevention of the flu means taking care of one’s health, eating properly, and getting adequate sleep. This year’s flu season looks like it may be milder than most despite the alarming public media campaign and extreme precautions mandated by departments of public health. Maintaining a firm grasp of the scientific evidence is essential in any rational program public health. Avoiding the epidemic of fear is also important.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.