#4754
Anonymous
Guest

Henry, regarding the Minnesota case and the CDC claim.

The first point to make is that the CDC report that you mention does not explain precisely how the samples were taken from the diseased patient e.g. did they come from fresh uncultured plasma or something else? The CDC states that it used a ‘functional assay’ test to ‘confirm’ that specimens obtained from the other collaborating organizations proved positive for the alleged (tr) H3N2 influenza viruses. This is not a direct test for virus. If pathogenic viruses allegedly use cells to reproduce billions of copies and release their progeny into the extracellular fluid, then it should soon become loaded with virions. Therefore no misleading INDIRECT functional methods of virus detection would be necessary. That is because the virus would be so abundant that it could be easily and directly isolated from the plasma by centrifugation techniques free from all contaminants.

To arrive at what the CDC alleges to ‘confirm’ presupposes such an isolated virus free from contaminants. However, correct me if I’m wrong, but the CDC does not claim that anyone actually isolated the virus, or confirm that any of the organizations did so that conducted the initial testing! In that case, if the CDC used an indirect functional method to confirm the alleged virus we would need to know exactly if any of the other organizations involved ‘structurally’ isolated ‘the virus’. However, there is no reference to any such claim, and if there was, electron micrographs are certainly required of anything that is claimed to be a complete isolated virus particle.

Further, there is nothing in the CDC FluView report that warrants the conclusion that the CDC or anybody else has effectively isolated a complete viral genome, or that the alleged ‘virus’ was THE CAUSE of any ‘infection’. At best it’s all speculation and poor science until proven otherwise. What is worse, those who should know better are going along with the charade.

Dr Tom Lankering made a recent comment in The Aspen Times (24.12.10)

In my recent studies I have been enlightened by some interesting information about the flu vaccines. A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in that group.

A JAMA study showed the incidence of clinical influenza in the vaccinated group was 2 percent but in the un-vaccinated group it was only 3 percent. This means that out of 100 people, one person was attributed with avoiding the flu because of the vaccine.

If it turns out that there really are no ‘pathogenic’ flu viruses then why are people being vaccinated?????????$$$$$$$$$$$$

Regards,

Tony