2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Numbers based on unsound statistical methods
During the Great Swine Floozie pandemic hoax of 2009, having working in the IT department for a university medical clinic for students, I discovered just how biased the process for reporting influenza numbers is.
First of all, there was no obvious increase in the number of cases of what they call “Influenza Like Illness” (ILI) in 2009 among students, based on my frequent walks through the lobby where sick students wait. Compared to the 4 other years I worked in this place, the waiting room appeared about the same during flu season. But even if there was some change in Influenza Like Illness numbers, they would have no valid scientific data to report, because the way doctors, clinics, hospitals and the CDC count the flu numbers is a joke.
What they do is take a small number of cases of “Influenza Like Illness” and test those for actual H1N1 Swine Flu. Then they use that sampled number to attempt to statistically extrapolate what portion of all cases of ILI would be Swine Flu.
The big problem here is that constitutes ILI is based on subjective opinion of clinicians, an opinion which may have changed between the time the initial sample was taken, and the rest of the ILI numbers were counted. The number of ILI cases is subject to fluctuations with to the spread of “Influenza Like” (but not flu) diseases, which could confound the sampling process over time in a number of ways.
Additionally, the psychology of being exposed to corporate propaganda and scare mongering regarding flu is going to bias all but the most rigorous clinical testing methods. Using statistical sampling with subjective data, and small N (number of data points) per clinic is highly questionable.
Without performing a real antibody or genetic test for each and every case, or at least having a good method of sampling, there is no point in even entertaining numbers like these, published in the Lancet. Look at the methods- They’re multiplying by made up factors, and they even say these deaths are just “associated with” H1N1, not “as a result of” or “caused by” This is virtually meaningless except as vaccine-pushing propaganda in the hands of the whore media, where “associated with” means “caused by.”
Just look at this mess:
We calculated cardiovascular disease mortality rates associated with 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 infection with the ratio of excess deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases during the pandemic in five countries and multiplied these values by the crude respiratory disease mortality rate associated with the virus. Respiratory and cardiovascular mortality rates associated with 2009 pandemic influenza A H1N1 were multiplied by age to calculate the number of associated deaths.
Crude, indeed. What they’re saying is, “we took all the unexpected heart disease deaths in 2009 and associated them with Swine Flu, without actually testing for the flu.” The Lancet continues to discredit itself, but what else can we expect from Elsevere Publishing, which runs international arms dealer trade shows?
Everyone I know who got the vaccine also got the flu. I didn’t get the vaccine, and I didn’t get the flu.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.