|
What's Behind the False Flag Flu Emergency?
Bill Sardi
Lew
Rockwell.com
Tuesday, Oct 27th, 2009
On Friday I stood before an audience in Phoenix,
Arizona and attempted to shock them with something similar to
a repeat of Orson Welles' War Of The Worlds radio broadcast,
a 1938 Halloween night radio announcement that said, in a series
of news bulletins, Martians had landed on the earth. The public
cowered in fear then, even when Welles announced it was just
a radio drama, not reality.
The contrived crisis I created was the President of the United
States had just announced a national emergency because of a
massive number of deaths attributed to a fast-spreading strain
of flu virus that had combined with a mortal form of flu virus.
My hand was shaking as I read the announcement. People in the
audience thought it was real. The audience began to squirm and
wonder, before I finished my melodrama, just how they were going
to return home without having to undergo forced vaccination
at the airport.
They were relieved when I told them this crisis was purely
fictional. I added the announcement for just such a contrived
crisis was probably already programmed into the President's
teleprompter. Little did I know how true these words were to
become.
To my surprise, on the afternoon of the following day (Saturday),
the President of the United States had indeed declared a national
emergency due to 1000 reported flu deaths, 100 of them among
children. These deaths had occurred over the past eight months.
But 1000 accumulated deaths would be far fewer than the mortality
figures the Centers for Disease Control distributes –
estimated at 36,000 annual flu deaths. Federal health authorities
lump pneumonia deaths among the elderly with flu-related deaths
to falsely inflate flu mortality figures. My own guesstimate
is that only about 6000 flu-related deaths actually occur each
year, but even using this figure for comparison, this year's
flu outbreak appears weak. An estimated 20,000 hospitalizations
have been reported since this pandemic flu strain began in March
of 2009, which amounts to only about 625 hospitalizations per
week spread among more than 5 thousand hospitals.
Earlier in the week CBS News reported that, five months after
this unique strain of the flu had begun to spread in Mexico
in March of 2009, the H1N1 pandemic flu strain only comprised
1–2% of the flu viruses in circulation by July. Yet there
were massive preparations being made for a major flu pandemic
without sufficient justification. Today the Centers for Disease
Control says the H1N1 pandemic flu strain represents 99% of
the flu cases that are typed laboratory confirmed. Just exactly
which numbers are correct, if any, now come into question.
According to CBS News, only 11 million doses of flu have been
administered, with millions more to arrive late, sometime in
mid-November. Time Magazine reports about 30 million available
doses, so that could mean up to two-thirds of the currently
available vaccine is going unused.
A reimbursement crisis, not a health crisis
A follow-up report, published in the Sunday edition of the
San Francisco Chronicle, says the emergency declaration issued
by The White House has more to do with Medicare and Medicaid
regulations dealing with hospitals. With the national emergency
declared, hospitals have more flexibility to set up separate
or even outdoor treatment areas.
The emergency appears to deal more with hospitals and their
ability to get paid by federal health authorities. An article
in the New York Times confirms that federal rules do not allow
hospitals to establish treatment areas more than 250 yards from
emergency rooms. "Tents are 300 yards or more away, typically
federal dollars won't go to pay for treatment."
So the emergency appears to be financial – making sure
hospitals meet federal requirements so they can get paid by
Medicaid or Medicare, rather than any true health crisis.
The San Francisco Chronicle article said "White House officials
were quick to note that the emergency declaration does not signify
an increase in severity of the national H1N1 outbreak."
But the article kept referring to all the deaths, when there
appear to be fewer mortal cases of the flu in the past 8 months
than prior flu seasons.
Journalists and health officials sound more duplicitous as
they attempt to explain the need for the emergency declaration.
Here is how the San Francisco Chronicle described it:
"Art Reingold, head of epidemiology at UC Berkeley, said
the declaration doesn't mean that the national outbreak is 'any
worse than it was yesterday or last week'."
"It's difficult to get the right message across to people,"
Reingold said. "There's this balance between the flu is
important and people should be vaccinated, but you don't want
an overreaction."
But once again, according to federal officials, there is little
or no vaccine available.
Civil liberties threatened?
An article in the Christian Science Monitor (ASM) was more
concerned that such a contrived emergency could be a veiled
way to overrun civil liberties. The ASM article quoted Harold
Relyea, a specialist in national government with the Congressional
Research Service, who said:
"When the President formally declares a national emergency,
he may seize property, organize and control the means of production,
seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute
martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication,
regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel
and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States
citizens."
Few news sources were critical of the declared emergency, but
expect more reporters to express skepticism over its need and
to question its intent.
An article in the New Hampshire Union Leader said: "But
the way the U.S. government has been handling the new flu strain,
technically named H1N1, has been less than reassuring."
What to do now?
Misdirection, overreaction and lack of preparedness by public
health officials is a clear indication to the public that they
cannot totally rely upon potentially problematic vaccines or
anti-viral drugs to defend themselves against the flu.
An ignored approach to controlling infectious disease is to
address the immune status of the population. The public should
utilize bona fide immune boosters such as vitamin D and vitamin
C, and take nutrients that are documented to reduce the duration
and severity of the disease which include vitamin E, the trace
mineral selenium, the sulfur compound NAC, and elderberry.
In 2005 researchers in Rome, Italy wondered what backup treatment
could be used in the event vaccines were unavailable or were
ineffective against a fast mutating flu virus that had developed
resistance to vaccines or anti-viral drugs like Tamiflu or Relenza.
Flu viruses require a host cell to replicate. The Italian researchers
report that resveratrol, known as a red wine molecule, completely
blocks entry of flu viruses into the cell nucleus in animals
at a human equivalent dose of ~70 milligrams. [Journal Infectious
Disease 2005 May 15; 191(10):1719–29] So the virus would
enter the lungs, antibodies would still be generated to produce
long-term immunity, but the virus could not duplicate into millions
of daughter virions as it normally does. Resveratrol works on
closing the cellular doorway rather than destroying the virus
itself. Therefore it is a totally non-toxic approach to control
of influenza viruses. Furthermore, resveratrol does not provoke
viral resistance.
In contrast, anti-viral drugs like oseltamivir (Tamiflu) allow
viruses to enter cellular machinery to produce copies of the
flu virus and then inhibits their exit from the cell via inhibition
of the enzyme neuraminidase. So host cells are flooded with
copies of the virus. This approach is not ideal as it can lead
to drug-induced side effects which have been widely reported.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
