Flu season VERY volatile this year

[Swordsmyth]

NO .

Funny how they have been studying the 1918 flu in recent years and now a flu pops up that is killing young healthy people, it's almost like they are testing bio-weapons on our own people in order to perfect them before using them on an enemy.

[oyarde]

Funny how they have been studying the 1918 flu in recent years and now a flu pops up that is killing young healthy people, it's almost like they are testing bio-weapons on our own people in order to perfect them before using them on an enemy.

My guess is the young healthy people have less resistance because they have had less exposure.

[oyarde]

Funny how they have been studying the 1918 flu in recent years and now a flu pops up that is killing young healthy people, it's almost like they are testing bio-weapons on our own people in order to perfect them before using them on an enemy.

In 1917 they put in a new road from downtown Indianapolis to Fort Benjamin Harrison . Prior to the war the fort was being constructed to station an Infantry Regiment . At that time Fort Ben was nine miles away . Aug of '18 they turned the Fort into General Hospital # 25 after previously using it for staging units for the war . It was to be used for wounded troops from France that were from the Indiana and Kentucky areas . By Sept the spanish flu was there. by Oct there were 6k cases in the city including the deaf school and Fort Ben had 3k cases being treated in a 300 bed hospital . There were 20 nurses. The night of Oct 6 ten soldiers died at the Ft Ben hospital bringing the weekly toll to 40 . The Lutheran Hospital in Ft Wayne sent nurses . Most Theatres and schools were closed through Oct 30. The state death toll for Oct was given as 3266 , nearly all young . The hospital at Ft Ben treated over 3600 . Indiana was reported as a rate of 290 per 100k by the University of Michigan , or , a very low rate in comparison to other states . In 1918 , only two players on Bloomingtons High School team were young enough to avoid the draft .

[Swordsmyth]

In 1917 they put in a new road from downtown Indianapolis to Fort Benjamin Harrison . Prior to the war the fort was being constructed to station an Infantry Regiment . At that time Fort Ben was nine miles away . Aug of '18 they turned the Fort into General Hospital # 25 after previously using it for staging units for the war . It was to be used for wounded troops from France that were from the Indiana and Kentucky areas . By Sept the spanish flu was there. by Oct there were 6k cases in the city including the deaf school and Fort Ben had 3k cases being treated in a 300 bed hospital . There were 20 nurses. The night of Oct 6 ten soldiers died at the Ft Ben hospital bringing the weekly toll to 40 . The Lutheran Hospital in Ft Wayne sent nurses . Most Theatres and schools were closed through Oct 30. The state death toll for Oct was given as 3266 , nearly all young . The hospital at Ft Ben treated over 3600 . Indiana was reported as a rate of 290 per 100k by the University of Michigan , or , a very low rate in comparison to other states . In 1918 , only two players on Bloomingtons High School team were young enough to avoid the draft .

I know this flu is not as bad but if they were running a test of their research so far they would want to use a watered down strain in order to not damage their subject population too badly or alert anyone to what they were doing.

[Schifference]

I think I have come down with the flu. Sore throat, thick congestion, headache, muscle aches, stomach not feeling well, chills.

I have not had the flu in probably 30 or more years.

I don't feel good at all.

[donnay]

https://draxe.com/flu-natural-remedies/

[Intoxiklown]

Funny how they have been studying the 1918 flu in recent years and now a flu pops up that is killing young healthy people, it's almost like they are testing bio-weapons on our own people in order to perfect them before using them on an enemy.

Honestly, there'd be no reason to test anything. What made the Spanish Flu so deadly was the way it affected people in their lower lungs as opposed to how flu strains we see and are seeing all affect the upper lungs. They know this from recreating the Spanish Flu to see how it is put together. I can't recall the names they stand for offhand but the H and the N in a flu virus' name indicate particular proteins or something that dictate how the virus acts inside the body (For example one protein will make it invisible to your immune system. One will trick your immune system into thinking it is a healthy cell...ect).

Point being, they've learned enough about how these different markers affect how the virus works there would be no need to test it as they know exactly how to create one as nasty as they wanted. Also this nasty strain we're seeing isn't new although it isn't seen very much...which means it wasn't on anyone's radar to look out for.

What has the younger people at risk is their immune systems aren't as "battle hardened" as an average adult which means their immune systems go into "Oh $#@!!" mode trying to fight the infection and go overboard and also attack healthy tissue/organs. Which leads to sepsis, and sepsis causing the bodies organs to shut down.

I know this is an unpopular topic, but I'd wager that almost all of the young people who've died didn't get a flu shot, which would have at least given their bodies some antibodies and their immune system a "practice match" to help prevent overreaction.

[specsaregood]

I think I have come down with the flu. Sore throat, thick congestion, headache, muscle aches, stomach not feeling well, chills.
I have not had the flu in probably 30 or more years.
I don't feel good at all.

So you claim that you never got the flu the entire time you were raising your kids? I find that hard to believe, kids are virus mongers. My immune system is stronger than it has ever been just because I got everything my kid got the first 5years or so. This makes the 2nd year now that I haven't even gotten a sniffle and neither has he.

[Danke]

I think I have come down with the flu. Sore throat, thick congestion, headache, muscle aches, stomach not feeling well, chills.

I have not had the flu in probably 30 or more years.

I don't feel good at all.

30 fricken years?! What is wrong with you?

[oyarde]

30 fricken years?! What is wrong with you?

My secret is the Elderberry wine . Since the 90's I have only had the flu once .

[euphemia]

I have never had the flu, either. I get sick from time to time, but I have never had flu.

[Danke]

My secret is the Elderberry wine . Since the 90's I have only had the flu once .

I have never had the flu, either. I get sick from time to time, but I have never had flu.

[oyarde]

I survived the Hong Kong Influenza in '68 . There was no flu here in The Land of Indians before the trespassers came from the other side of the ocean . None of my family got the Spanish Flu in '18 .

[donnay]

Tamiflu and Abnormal Behavior

By: Kelly Brogan, M.D.

It’s a particularly nasty flu season, right – what should we do??

Last week, a student in my daughter’s elementary school died. An apparently healthy, active, and vital 10-year old child suddenly departed. Despite an initial announcement of “cause unknown,” the administrators followed up with a suddenly clear pronouncement that he died “from the flu.” Looking beyond the fact that now even school administrators feel entitled to give clinical advice (“if you haven’t yet received your flu shot, please do”), I was interested to see that this child’s flu vaccine status was not mentioned. I wondered if he had received the flu shot or taken Tamiflu – especially since both have been associated with sudden death in the pediatric population.1

It’s a “deadly” flu season, and the pharmaceutically-funded media would have you believe that you must head on over to CVS and get your flu shot to make it through the year. And if the flu shot doesn’t work – even the CDC estimates its effectiveness around 39%2 – well then, just head to your doctor and get treated with Tamiflu!

But is it really that simple? Is it possible that we are bumping up against the glass ceiling of the Simple Solution for Sickness? Many of us are rolling our eyes at the “10% off your shopping order!” flu shot incentives, and our sniffles don’t send us running to the doctor for antibiotics “just in case.” As our own memories tell a different story from the scary stories on TV (wait…the chicken pox and the flu are deadly? Mom, Dad…didn’t you both have Measles and live to tell the tale?), we are becoming less and less susceptible to fabricated lore. We are harder to scare into action. We are beginning to accept that the magic pill is a fantasy, and that this crisis of confidence in our medical system is no small hurdle to overcome. It is an initiation into a new belief system.

I believe that this initiation begins with information and understanding. This understanding leads to informed choices. These empowered choices lead to a new experience of trust in your body and in the natural world.

Let’s bring this back to earth with an example. Let’s look at the Simple Solution for the flu: Tamiflu.

Conventional medicine tells us that you can pull one thread of the spider web without impacting the whole design. So, is it possible that Tamiflu can enter your system, kill those nasty flu germs, and quietly exit without harming any innocents?

What is Tamiflu, and how does it work?

Tamiflu (oseltamivir) is prescription medication that is FDA-approved for anyone 2 weeks of age and older.3 It is designed to prevent the influenza virus from replicating and invading other cells. The pharmaceutical company that developed Tamiflu, Roche (also called Hoffmann–LaRoche), claims that Tamiflu can protect against getting the flu and reduce the severity of flu symptoms. Roche cites studies like a 1999 article in JAMA, in which authors write that Tamiflu “…provided significant antiviral, biochemical, and clinical effects in experimental human influenza virus infection. Prophylactic administration either once or twice daily completely protected against viral recovery in the upper respiratory tract and against infection-associated respiratory tract illness.”4

Well that sounds good, right? In 1999, Roche presented this study, along with two clinical trials involving 1,358 patients,5 to an FDA committee of medical advisors – but the committee declined to approve Tamiflu due to a lack of convincing data.

Let’s dive a bit deeper to see if the data are indeed unconvincing (the full-text of this article is free!). This study involved 117 young adults (median age was 21), split into several groups that ranged from 11 to 64 subjects. Any scientist or statistician will immediately warn you that those group sizes (called sample sizes) are too small to draw statistically significant conclusions. With that in mind, let’s continue unpacking this study…



To measure the prophylactic effects of Tamiflu, researchers gave 12 people a placebo pill, and they gave 21 people various doses of Tamiflu before they stuck influenza virus into their noses. Flu-like symptoms were measured after viral inoculation, and people who had received Tamiflu were rated to exhibit lower symptom scores. From this experiment (based on a paltry 33 subjects), researchers concluded that Tamiflu indeed protects against getting the flu.

Next, to determine if Tamiflu reduced the severity of flu symptoms, researchers infected 80 people with the influenza virus (again in their noses). They gave Tamiflu to 56 people and a placebo to the rest. Then, researchers washed out people’s noses and measured the number of virus particles in their mucus. They reported that Tamiflu treatment reduced the number of viral copies in people’s nasal passages.

Quantifying the number of viral particles in people’s noses – after the flu virus was stuck into people’s noses – does not tell us anything about how the flu virus is spreading throughout the body. Anyway, for whatever reasons (you can use your imagination), FDA administrators overruled the medical expert committee’s suggestion and approved Tamiflu in October 1999.6 But the FDA hedged a bit and required the drugmaker to issue the following statement:

Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences (such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact) of seasonal, avian, or pandemic influenza.7
Since its FDA approval, clinical trials touting the effectiveness of Tamiflu have been published – though a look at the authors and footnotes of these studies may give you pause. For example, Penelope Ward, MD has authored dozens of scientific studies that support Tamiflu,8 including the 1999 JAMA study we just deconstructed, a 2001 JAMA study with similar methods and conclusions,9,10 and an oft-cited 1999 study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) entitled ‘Use of the Selective Oral Neuraminidase Inhibitor Oseltamivir to Prevent Influenza’ – and she served as the Head of Clinical Development for Hoffman-LaRoche.11 Actually, let’s look at the footnote of the 1999 NEJM study:12



Interesting…

Overall, it appears that all the studies that support the efficacy of Tamiflu are funded by the pharmaceutical companies that stand to profit from its sales.

Fortunately, a group of unbiased medical experts at the US Cochrane Center13 re-analyzed data from 20 clinical trials like these, reporting their results in a 2009 BMJ article. Their meta-analysis showed that there was no significant evidence that Tamiflu reduced influenza symptoms or complications – the only possible positive association was that Tamiflu might decrease the length of time people exhibited symptoms by a few hours.14 Further, the reanalysis found that Tamiflu increased nausea.

As an interesting aside, Cochrane Center researchers noted that it took years-long concerted efforts to obtain clinical data from drugmakers.15 Along these lines, investigative articles published in The Atlantic in 200916 and 201317 suggest that political and financial motivations (to the tune of billions of dollars) underpin this Tamiflu delusion.

So where does this leave us? Perhaps Tamiflu doesn’t work that well, but is there any harm in taking it anyway, just to be safe?

Is Tamiflu safe?

A 2007 scientific report18 suggests that Tamiflu is in fact exceedingly dangerous. In the 6 years that Tamiflu was marketed in Japan, the Japanese Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare received 1377 reports of adverse reactions. Approximately half of these reactions were serious neuropsychiatric cases, including delirium, convulsions, and encephalitis. Eighty deaths were reported, and 71 were considered to be directly related to Tamiflu. Two of the most alarming deaths were suicides by 14-year-old teens on Tamiflu.19

A 2011 Japanese study found that those diagnosed with influenza had an almost six fold increased risk of deteriorating and dying within twelve hours of receiving Tamiflu.20

They conclude:

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.
As such, Japanese authorities have advised against Tamiflu for adolescents, and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (the UK’s version of the FDA) recommends against Tamiflu as a preventative strategy in healthy people.21 Yet, American agencies like the CDC and FDA continue to push Tamiflu in spite of its documented side effects of hallucinations.22

Several recent news stories have highlighted these side effects of Tamiflu. For example, on January 15, 2018 a 6-year-old Texan girl took Tamiflu, hallucinated, and tried to jump out of a window.23 About a week later, another Texan child, this time a two-year-old boy, suffered from hallucinations that caused him to repeatedly slap his mother.24

In a news article from January 24, 2018, the mother of a five-year-old girl who experienced severe hallucinations and seizure-like symptoms stated, “The flu is bad, it’s horrible, you feel helpless your child’s sick…I would take that a hundred times over the reaction she had to the Tamiflu.”25 Perhaps most telling is an article in Time entitled ‘Tamiflu Made My Kid Hallucinate. I Think the Flu is Preferable to Delirium.’26

Very sadly, a 6-year old girl named Emily Muth from North Carolina died this week – three days after being given Tamiflu.27 According to her mother, Emily suffered from labored breathing (a known side effect of Tamiflu) right before her tragic passing.


Emily Muth

Unfortunately, Tamiflu is neither safe nor effective. I hope that presenting the terrible experiences of the children and families mentioned in this article will serve as a warning to prevent more tragedies.

Fighting won’t win this fight

When you understand that the preschool analogy of foreign invaders (germs) fighting your inner soldiers (immune system) has been rendered obsolete by our awareness of the microbiome (including the virome!), and the poetic reality that we are made up of the very organisms we thought that we were fighting…well, then pharmaceutical medicine seems something like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This is when you can graduate to a deeper sense that illness is purposeful, that the body recalibrates through fever, and that we are simply here to support the body’s innate wisdom…the less fear, the better.

There are many evidence-based tools for supporting your body’s detoxification process including vitamins A and D, herbs like ginseng, elderberry, and ginger, and food-derived compounds like AHCC and beta glucan, and, my favorite in this case, homeopathy (Oscillococcinum).28 Take the cue to stop, rest, and just be – while your body does its wise work.

References

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...lly-brogan-md/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season...-2017-2018.htm
https://www.tamiflu.com/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...article/191957
https://tenpennyimc.com/2013/01/12/w...avoid-tamiflu/
http://www.gilead.com/news/press-rel...f-influenza-ab
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...eption/273167/
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...amivir&oq=pene
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11176912
https://link.springer.com/article/10...99937060-00003
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/s...vcapId=2529483
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99910283411802
http://us.cochrane.org/about-us
http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b5106.full
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/exp...ve-against-flu
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...amiflu/307801/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...eption/273167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...0/#!po=4.54545
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892497/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22156085/
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta1...d-and-practice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540039/
http://www.newsweek.com/six-year-old...tamiflu-781830
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...llucinate.html
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/37343508/...ion-to-tamiflu
http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/1...e-to-delirium/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/si...ws/ar-AAv4OL9? li=BBnba9O
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796675

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/tam...ormal-behavior

[donnay]

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

By: Sayer Ji

"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]"

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22156085/


"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]"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5201449/

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.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/cdc...l-side-effects