Lubomyr Prytulak       01Mar2021

Perhaps the first step in understanding any new and puzzling phenomenon, say COVID-19, should be to examine historical precedents, on the possibility that what at first glance seems new, may turn out to be history repeating itself.

In the case of COVID-19, we see that a precedent had been proposed at the outset — SpanishFlu-1918.  It was said that the COVID-19 virus resembled the SpanishFlu-1918 killer virus, and COVID-19 had begun killing people in such large numbers that, unless drastic measures were taken, the COVID-19 death toll might end up equalling that of SpanishFlu-1918.

And if one precedent might teach us something about COVID-19, then three precedents might teach us that much more, and so let's throw in a couple more precedents, all three being Type A, Subtype H1N1, abbreviated A(H1N1), which COVID-19 is as well, but which should not be taken to mean that the four of them are identical, as a great deal of variation exists within A(H1N1), as is explained in the CDC's Types of Influenza Viruses.

The four A(H1N1) virus pandemics will be referred to in the instant article by the following names:

First precedent SpanishFlu-1918        
Second precedent    SwineFlu-1976
Third precedent    SwineFlu-2009
The current pandemic    COVID-19

First Precedent    SpanishFlu-1918      

The justification for fearing COVID-19 is that its virus resembles the SpanishFlu-1918 killer virus, said to have killed over 50 million people worldwide (675,000 in the United States alone), though the world-estimates range from 17 million to over 100 million.  The World Health Organization (WHO) typifies the awe in which SpanishFlu-1918 is held:

Director-General of the World Health Organization

Managing epidemics
Key facts about major deadly diseases    © World Health Organization 2018

This year marks the 100th anniversary of Spanish flu, the deadliest outbreak in recorded history.  Up to 50 million people were killed, more than the death toll from the First World War.

Thankfully, we have not seen a public health emergency on that scale since then.  But we may at any time.  Outbreaks are a fact of life, and the world remains vulnerable.  We do not know where or when the next global pandemic will occur, but we do know that it will take a terrible toll, both on human life, and on the global economy.  [...]

SpanishFlu-1918 comes with six characteristics, which until very recently have proven baffling:

  1. Its first wave was extremely mild.
  2. Its second wave came suddenly and was extremely severe.
  3. Victims of the first wave enjoyed significant resistance to the second and later waves, indicating that all were caused by the same virus.
  4. The extreme symptoms of the second and later waves were not influenza symptoms.
  5. It was common for soldiers to arrive at hospital with only a regular flu, but to begin exhibiting extreme symptoms not long after arriving.
  6. The second and later waves killed mainly those who usually exhibit the strongest resistance to influenza — young adults.
Here is a description of SpanishFlu-1918 which illustrates the above characteristics:

The Threat of Pandemic Influenza: Are We Ready?
Workshop Summary.
Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Microbial Threats;   Knobler SL, Mack A, Mahmoud A, et al., editors.   Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2005.

[...]  A letter from a physician at one U.S. Army camp to a colleague puts a more human face on those numbers:

These men start with what appears to be an ordinary attack of LaGrippe or Influenza, and when brought to the Hosp. they very rapidly develop the most vicious type of Pneumonia that has ever been seen … and a few hours later you can begin to see the Cyanosis extending from their ears and spreading all over the face, until it is hard to distinguish the colored men from the white.  It is only a matter of a few hours then until death comes….  It is horrible.  One can stand it to see one, two or twenty men die, but to see these poor devils dropping like flies….  We have been averaging about 100 deaths per day….  Pneumonia means in about all cases death….  We have lost an outrageous number of Nurses and Drs.  It takes special trains to carry away the dead.  For several days there were no coffins and the bodies piled up something fierce….  It beats any sight they ever had in France after a battle.  An extra long barracks has been vacated for the use of the Morgue, and it would make any man sit up and take notice to walk down the long lines of dead soldiers all dressed and laid out in double rows….  Good By old Pal, God be with you till we meet again (Grist, 1979).

That letter reflected a typical experience in American Army cantonments. The civilian experience was not much better.

[...]  But 1918 seems to have been particularly violent.  It began mildly, with a spring wave.  In fact, it was so mild that some physicians wonder if this disease actually was influenza.  Typically, several Italian doctors argued in separate journal articles that this “febrile disease now widely prevalent in Italy [is] not influenza” (Policlinico, 1918).  British doctors echoed that conclusion; a Lancet article in July 1918 argued that the spring epidemic was not influenza because the symptoms, though similar to influenza, were “of very short duration and so far absent of relapses or complications” (Little et al., 1918).

Within a few weeks of that Lancet article appearing, a second pandemic wave swept around the world.  It also initially caused investigators to doubt that the disease was influenza — but this time because it was so virulent.  It was followed by a third wave in 1919, and significant disease also struck in 1920.  (Victims of the first wave enjoyed significant resistance to the second and third waves, offering compelling evidence that all were caused by the same virus.  [...])

The 1918 virus, especially in its second wave, was not only virulent and lethal, but extraordinarily violent.  It created a range of symptoms rarely seen with the disease.  [...].

Symptoms in 1918 were so unusual that initially influenza was misdiagnosed as dengue, cholera, or typhoid.  One observer wrote, “One of the most striking of the complications was hemorrhage from mucous membranes, especially from the nose, stomach, and intestine.  Bleeding from the ears and petechial hemorrhages in the skin also occurred” (Ireland, 1928).  A German investigator recorded “hemorrhages occurring in different parts of the interior of the eye” with great frequency (Thomson and Thomson, 1934).  An American pathologist noted: “Fifty cases of subconjunctival hemorrhage were counted.  Twelve had a true hemotypsis, bright red blood with no admixture of mucus….  Three cases had intestinal hemorrhage” (Ireland, 1928).  The New York City Health Department's chief pathologist said, “Cases with intense pain look and act like cases of dengue … hemorrhage from nose or bronchi … paresis or paralysis of either cerebral or spinal origin … impairment of motion may be severe or mild, permanent or temporary … physical and mental depression.  Intense and protracted prostration led to hysteria, melancholia, and insanity with suicidal intent” (Jordon, 1927).

The 1918 virus also targeted young adults.  In South African cities, those between the ages of 20 and 40 accounted for 60 percent of the deaths (Katzenellenbogen, 1988).  In Chicago the deaths among those aged 20 to 40 nearly quintupled deaths of those aged 41 to 60 (Van Hartesveldt, 1992). A Swiss physician “saw no severe case in anyone over 50.”  In the “registration area” of the United States — those states and cities that kept reliable statistics — the single greatest number of deaths occurred in the cohort aged 25 to 29, the second greatest in those aged 30 to 34, and the third in those aged 20 to 24.  More people died in each one of those 5-year groups than the total deaths among all those over age 60, and the combined deaths of those aged 20 to 34 more than doubled the deaths of all those over 50 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1921).  [...]

The case mortality rate varied widely.  An overall figure is impossible to obtain, or even estimate reliably, because no solid information about total cases exists.  In U.S. Army camps where reasonably reliable statistics were kept, case mortality often exceeded 5 percent, and in some circumstances exceeded 10 percent.  In the British Army in India, case mortality for white troops was 9.6 percent, for Indian troops 21.9 percent.

In isolated human populations, the virus killed at even higher rates.  In the Fiji islands, it killed 14 percent of the entire population in 16 days.  In Labrador and Alaska, it killed at least one-third of the entire native population (Jordan, 1927; Rice, 1988).

But perhaps most disturbing and most relevant for today is the fact that a significant minority—and in some subgroups of the population a majority—of deaths came directly from the virus, not from secondary bacterial pneumonias.

In 1918, pathologists were intimately familiar with the condition of lungs of victims of bacterial pneumonia at autopsy.  But the viral pneumonias caused by the influenza pandemic were so violent that many investigators said the only lungs they had seen that resembled them were from victims of poison gas.  [...]

Bayer Aspirin ad

And what a boon SpanishFlu-1918 has been for Big Pharma, and continues to be!  That is, whenever Big Pharma wants to panic the public with the threat of a devastating pandemic, it points to SpanishFlu-1918, and opines that the contemporary virus resembles that prototypical 1918 killer virus, and that the fifty million who were killed by that ancient killer virus threatens to soon be joined by a new fifty million who can be seen beginning to be killed by the newly-arrived killer virus.

So indispensible is SpanishFlu-1918 to Big Pharma, that if it didn't exist, Big Pharma would have to invent it.

However, as a matter of fact, that's just what Big Pharma did do in 1918 — it invented a story about a killer virus, and repeated it so often that people began to believe it, and has been cashing in on that story ever since.

The reality is that although there had been a virus in 1918, it had not been a killer virus.  The millions who did die, died iatrogenically — most importantly, killed by drug companies selling their wonder-drug, Aspirin.

Yes, drug manufacturers in general, but especially Farbenfabriken Bayer, discovered that when aspirin was given to flu-sufferers in large doses, which at that time were not recognized as large, they died a fast and horrible death, but from which Bayer profitted by endlessly repeating that it was a killer virus which was doing the killing, and it was aspirin that offered the best treatment.

Evidence for the view that the 1918 deaths were caused not by a SpanishFlu-1918 killer virus, but by aspirin overdose, is presented by Dr Karen M. Starko in Clinical Infectious Diseases (2009), which has been widely reviewed, as for example by The New York Times that very same year, whose opening is reproduced immediately below.

Regretably, The New York Times obtrudes its opinion that aspirin deaths amounted to only "a small number", which it does in its second sentence.

However, a reading of Starko (2009), and other relevant literature, invites the view that the NYT would have been more accurate to say not "a small number" but "most", like this: Now it appears that most of the deaths may have been caused not by the virus, but by a drug used to treat it: aspirin.

In 1918 Pandemic,
Another Possible Killer: Aspirin

A nurse took a patient's pulse in the influenza ward at Walter Reed Hospital in 1918.   Credit Corbis

By Nicholas Bakalar     12Oct2009

The 1918 flu epidemic was probably the deadliest plague in human history, killing more than 50 million people worldwide.  Now it appears that a small number of the deaths may have been caused not by the virus, but by a drug used to treat it: aspirin.  [...]

The 1918 public had been taught to trust Bayer Aspirin for relief from a broad range of maladies, and with no warning that exceeding the recommended dosages could be fatal:

By way of introduction to Starko(2009), it will be helpful to examine the "Death Spike of October 1918" which is the outstanding feature of SpanishFlu-1918, and which happens to be vividly reproduced by RFERL (too bad that the error of blaming a killer-virus is repeated):

1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic:
The Virus That Infected One-Third Of The World

The Spanish flu that spread around the world a century ago killing millions puts the coronavirus crisis in perspective.
By Amos Chapple    05Mar2020

By way of further introduction to Starko (2009), it might help to be reminded that "ARDS" is Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, "dyspnea" is difficult or labored breathing, "cyanosis" is a bluish discoloration of the skin due to poor circulation or inadequate oxygenation of the blood, "epistaxis" is bleeding from the nose, and "edema" is an excess of watery fluid collecting in the cavities or tissues of the body.

And the "case-fatality rate" is the percent of people diagnosed with a disease who are killed by that disease over a specified time interval.  For example, if one person out of a hundred diagnosed dies, then the case-fatality rate is 1.0%, and if one out of a thousand dies, the case-fatality rate is 0.1%.

Finally, "salicylates" are a group of chemicals derived from salicylic acid, as for example acetylsalycylic acid, commonly known by its original Farbenfabriken Bayer brand name, Aspirin.  "Salicylicate toxicity", then, is "Aspirin poisoning".

Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality, 1918–1919 Pharmacology, Pathology, and Historic Evidence

Karen M. Starko
Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 49, Issue 9, 15 November 2009, Pages 1405–1410     Footnote numbers omitted below.

[...]  The hypothesis presented herein is that salicylate therapy for influenza during the 1918–1919 pandemic resulted in toxicity and pulmonary edema, which contributed to the incidence and severity of early ARDS-like lungs, subsequent bacterial infection, and overall mortality.  Pharmacokinetic data, which were unavailable in 1918, indicate that the aspirin regimens recommended for the “Spanish influenza” predispose to severe pulmonary toxicity.

A confluence of events created a “perfect storm” for widespread salicylate toxicity.  The loss of Bayer's patent on aspirin in February 1917 allowed many manufacturers into the lucrative aspirin market.  Official recommendations for aspirin therapy at toxic doses were preceded by ignorance of the unusual nonlinear kinetics of salicylate (unknown until the 1960s), which predispose to accumulation and toxicity; tins and bottles that contained no warnings and few instructions; and fear of “Spanish” influenza, an illness that had been spreading like wildfire.

More recently, influenza deaths have been attributed to salicylate.  From the 1950s to the 1980s, thousands of deaths among children following influenza and other infections (eg, Reye syndrome) were unexplained until studies identified aspirin as the major contributor, and aspirin label warnings were followed by a disappearance of the condition.  Reye syndrome toxicity (vomiting, hyperventilation, delirium, and coma, with brain swelling and fat in the liver and proximal renal tubules) develops after ∼4 days of salicylate therapy with reported mean daily doses of 25 mg/kg.  (Adults with salicylate toxicity present mainly with abnormal consciousness and respiratory distress.)  Also, a recent avian influenza A-associated fatality involved Reye syndrome and aspirin use, and several autopsies of persons who had avian influenza revealed hemorrhagic lungs, fatty liver changes, and swollen kidneys consistent with salicylate intoxication.

Four lines of evidence support the role of salicylate intoxication in 1918 influenza mortality: pharmacokinetics, mechanism of action, pathology, and the spate of official recommendations for toxic regimens of aspirin immediately before the October 1918 death spike.  [...]

Aspirin Regimens (Dose and Schedule) Recommended in 1918 Are Now Known to Regularly Produce Toxicity

[...]  In the early 1900s, physicians treating serious conditions (eg, rheumatic fever) generally “pushed” salicylate until the appearance of toxicity and then backed off.  In 1918, dosing recommendations for pandemic influenza were similar to these high-dose, hospital-based regimens, except that the recommendations for influenza generally offered no instruction for dose adjustment if toxicity occurred.  [...]

In 1906, Langmeade observed “great variation in the amount required” for toxicity and reported a hospitalized child (receiving 325 mg every 6 hours) who, on day 4, developed vomiting, fever, dyspnea, cyanosis, and coma and died.  He recommended caution early in treatment so “the personal factor may be estimated."  [...]

They also studied 33 patients who attained levels of 35 mg/dL during the first 7 days of therapy and found the following severe toxicities: hyperventilation (in 33%), vomiting (in 30%), marked sweating (in 12%), headache (in 12%), severe drowsiness (in 12%), confusion (in 6%), severe dyspnea (in 6%), excitement (in 6%), epistaxis (in 6%), vertigo (in 3%), pulmonary edema (in 3%), and hemorrhage (in 3%).  The incidence of these toxicities may be higher, because administration was halted when hyperventilation occurred.  [...]

[...]  Therefore, it is likely that severe salicylate intoxication, including pulmonary edema, developed in some persons who followed the recommended 1918 dosing regimens.  [...]

The Pathology of the Early Deaths Is Consistent with Aspirin Toxicity and Virus-Induced Pathology

[...]  A report from Camp Dix noted, “The disease was a veritable plague.  The extraordinary toxicity, the marked prostration, the extreme cyanosis and the rapidity of development stamp this disease as a distinct clinical entity heretofore not fully described.  …Pneumonia is an important but somewhat secondary factor”.  Salicylate toxicity is often overlooked because another condition is present, the dose is thought to be trivial, and the symptoms (hyperventilation, vomiting, sweating, headache, drowsiness, confusion, dyspnea, excitement [salicylate jag], epistaxis, vertigo, pulmonary edema, and hemorrhage) are nonspecific.  In 1918, differentiating progressive salicylate intoxication from infection pathologically or clinically, “the dyspnea lasts from a few hours to a day…followed by respiratory failure, circulatory collapse, convulsions, and death”, was almost impossible.

Aspirin Advertisements in August 1918 and a Series of Official Recommendations for Aspirin in September and Early October Preceded the Death Spike of October 1918

In May 1918, usual but highly contagious influenza was publicized in Spain (hence, “Spanish influenza”).  In June, after 6 weeks of usual influenza in Europe, serious pulmonary lesions and deaths increased in those “admitted to the special influenza centres,” especially those with an “old-standing renal lesion”.  In July, increased mortality of young Londoners was documented.

Farbenfabriken Bayer's worldwide efforts had left few places lacking aspirin.  In the United States, Bayer's giant factory produced aspirin under “American” management.  After Bayer executives were charged with violating the Trading with the Enemies Act in August 1918, advertisements encouraged confidence in aspirin.  The “Spanish lady” came to the United States and struck 2000 Navy men in Boston in late August.  The majority recovered, but oddly, 5%-10% developed a “very severe and massive bronchopneumonia,” which, in many, lacked an accompanying leukocytosis.  Influenza spread.

Official recommendations for aspirin were issued on 13 September 1918 by the US Surgeon General, who stated aspirin had been used in foreign countries “apparently with much success in the relief of symptoms”, on 26 September 1918 by the US Navy, and on 5 October 1918 by The Journal of the American Medical Association.  Recommendations often suggested dose regimens that predispose to toxicity as noted above.  At the US Army camp with the highest mortality rate, doctors followed Osler's treatment recommendations, which included aspirin, ordering 100,000 tablets.  Aspirin sales more than doubled between 1918 and 1920.

The number of deaths in the United States increased steeply, peaking first in the Navy in late September, then in the Army in early October, and finally in the general population in late October.  Homeopaths, who thought aspirin was a poison, claimed few deaths.  Others may have suspected that aspirin was responsible.  On 23 November, 1918, Horder wrote in The Lancet that, for “intensely toxic cases…aspirin and all so-called febrifuge drugs must be rigidly excluded from the treatment”.

In summary, just before the 1918 death spike, aspirin was recommended in regimens now known to be potentially toxic and to cause pulmonary edema and may therefore have contributed to overall pandemic mortality and several of its mysteries.  Young adult mortality may be explained by willingness to use the new, recommended therapy and the presence of youth in regimented treatment settings (military).  The lower mortality of children may be a result of less aspirin use.  The major pediatric text of 1918 recommended hydrotherapy for fever, not salicylate; its 1920 edition condemned the practice of giving “coal tar products” in full doses for reduction of fever.  The occurrence of Reye syndrome-like illness before the 1950s is debated and consistent with the fact that children's aspirin was not marketed until the late 1940s.  Varying aspirin use may also contribute to the differences in mortality between cities and between military camps.

To determine the proportion of virus-induced pathology, subsequent bacterial infection, and overall 1918 pandemic mortality attributable to salicylate, experimental models and analysis of primary consecutive individual treatment and pathology records are needed.  Prospectively, aspirin should be investigated in countries where aspirin is used for influenza.

Below are demonstrations that the Aspirin-overdose hypothesis is able to explain the otherwise-baffling peculiarities of SpanishFlu-1918 in three locations:  Spain, China, and India.

SpanishFlu-1918 Started Out Mild In Spain

Although there seems to be general agreement that SpanishFlu-1918 did not originate in Spain, the name has stuck.  When SpanishFlu-1918 arrived in Spain, it was mild, reinforcing the hypothesis that there had to be something added to the picture and which really did the killing:

The 1918 "Spanish Flu" in Spain
Antoni Trilla, Guillem Trilla, and Carolyn Daer
Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2008, 47, 668-673.

The first public news of the epidemic appeared in Madrid.  On 22 May 1918, the influenza epidemic was a headline in Madrid's ABC newspaper.  News stated that spread of a strange influenze-like illness, which was very mild, had been ongoing since the beginning of May.

Mortality rates associated with influenza in this first period of the epidemic ranged from 0.04 to 0.65 deaths per 1000 inhabitants.  [which of course is from 0.004% to 0.065%]  The overall mortality rate increased only slightly during this first epidemic period.
However, the first period of the epidemic ended quickly.  Nearly 2 months later, everything seemed to be back to normal.

SpanishFlu-1918 Was Mild In China, And During More Than Just Its First Wave

As the Cheng and Leung paper below was published two years before Starko (2009), the authors were unaquainted with the Aspirin-overdose hypothesis.

What happened in China during the 1918 influenza pandemic?
K.F.Cheng, P.C.Leung
International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2007, 11, 360-364


Influenza has been, and continues to be, a serious threat to human life.  The 1918 influenza pandemic infected nearly one quarter of the world's population and resulted in the deaths of 100 million people.  Most of the countries in the world were heavily impacted.  What happened in China during this period?  Compared with other countries, the severity of infection in China was relatively mild.  Did traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) play any role, either in the prevention or treatment of the epidemics?  This paper explores the situation in China at that particular time.

[...]  If the outbreak in China was just like the situation in Europe and the USA, the death rate in China should have been higher because at that time the economic and healthcare situation in China was very poor.  However the situation appeared different.  According to a statistical report of a Guangdong hospital no person died of influenza in June and only four persons died in October 1918.  The average mortality was 0.1%.  Summarizing the data from Shanghai, Hong Kong and Guangdong, the overall mortality in China was still much lower than other countries and regions in the 1918 influenza pandemic.

Outside China, the mortality of influenza was very high.  Within only three months from September to November 1918, the influenza pandemic swept over Norway, Sweden, Canada, Spain, the UK, France, Germany, Senegal, Tanzania, Algeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa, India and Indonesia.  In the Philippines, the morbidity was 49% [49% of the population caught the disease] and the death rate 2.3% [of those who caught the disease, 2.3% died].  In the USA more than 675 000 people died of influenza.  In India, the number of dead persons was estimated to be more than 100 000.  During those years, modern medicine was undergoing its early phase of development, and a high mortality was expected in cases of viral infections affecting the lungs.  How did patients in China manage to survive better?  The above records indicate that influenza was widespread in China in 1918 to 1919, but although severe in some parts, it was mild in many places compared with elsewhere in the world.  [...]  We think the likely explanation is that traditional Chinese medicine may have played an important role.  [...]

Why was China spared from a more serious impact of the 1918 influenza pandemic?  It is well known that China was an undeveloped and closed-door country at that time, and it is not likely that China's general population used Western medicine as the main means of disease treatment.  Traditional Chinese medicine would have been the only form of treatment that the general public relied on.  [...]

Since literature research on the impact of Spanish influenza does indicate that the Chinese people in China survived much better than people in the USA and Europe, and Chinese people during that period relied invariably on Chinese herbal medicine as the only source of treatment and prevention, we find ourselves encouraged to go further in our attempts to understand more about Chinese medicine and influenza.

Relevant here is the possibility that the chief benefit of Traditional Chinese Medicine may have been its exclusion of Aspirin from SpanishFlu-1918 treatment.

SpanishFlu-1918 Was Severe In India

A challenge to the Aspirin-overdose hypothesis, and an answer:

Questioning the Salicylates and Influenza Pandemic Mortality Hypothesis in 1918-1919
Andrew Noymer, Daisy Carreon, Niall Johnson
Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2010, 50, 1203-1204.

Mortality in India was staggering, with estimates of 18.5 million persons dead and higher.

Given the huge number of deaths in India and the burden among subsistence agricultural workers, it is extremely implausible that salicylates played an exacerbating role in anything other than a trivial percentage of Indian mortality.

Thus, Starko's intriguing hypothesis fails the test of dose-response.  That is to say, in countries such as the United States, where salicylates were more available, mortality was much lower compared with regions where salicylates were less readily available.

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the millions of Indian peasants who were killed by the flu certainly had no access to salicylates whatsoever.  If the salicylate hypothesis only works in the United States and in similar settings, then we question its validity given the worldwide scope of severe mortality in 1918–1919.

Reply to Noymer et al
Karen M. Starko
Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2010, 50, 1203–1204.

[...]  Aspirin was widely used.  In 1905, a British court struck down Bayer's British patent and opened the aspirin market in the entire British Empire.  In 1918, US manufacturers produced 172 million tablets.  During the pandemic, the Indian Surgeon General recommended gargling with diluted potassium permanganate and aspirin, and in Delhi, an eminent Indian surgeon “insisted that [...] doctors in Bombay were recklessly misusing it [...]”.  In New Zealand, 1 Maori village, impressed by aspirin, honored the local health superintendent who had provided it; a baby there was named "Aspirin".  In New South Wales, Aspro was at the top of the list of fixed price wartime commodities.  [...]

The chief lesson taught by the SpanishFlu-1918 precedent, then, is that Big Pharma is capable of merchandizing a killer drug (which aspirin becomes when taken at the high dosages then prescribed), then reaping vast profits by selling that same killer drug as a remedy for the deaths that the killer drug itself is causing.

Another lesson taught is that all the people who from 1918 to the present have pointed to SpanishFlu-1918 as the exemplar pandemic, the return of whose killer virus we must never cease to fear, have been mistaken — people like the Director-General of the WHO, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, as we have already noted above.  And also people like Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr Robert Redfield who shows (especially where emphasized in bold red below) no awareness that Aspirin was in widespread use as a cold remedy and all-purpose analgesic, and that just prior to the October 1918 Death Spike it was proclaimed as the treatment of choice for SpanishFlu-1918 by

  • the US Surgeon General (13Sep1918),
  • the US Navy (26Sep1918),
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (05Oct1918),
and whose combined voices possibly reached and convinced the entire medical establishment, not only in the US but also throughout much of the world.


History of 1918 Flu Pandemic    red emphasis added to the error of failing to recognize the contribution of Aspirin poisoning

The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. It was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin.  Although there is not universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, it spread worldwide during 1918-1919.  In the United States, it was first identified in military personnel in spring 1918.

It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus.  The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.  [...]  The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic.

While the 1918 H1N1 virus has been synthesized and evaluated, the properties that made it so devastating are not well understood.  With no vaccine to protect against influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as isolation, quarantine, good personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limitations of public gatherings, which were applied unevenly.  [...]

The moral to be drawn from our first precedent, SpanishFlu-1918, is to fear not the return of a killer virus, but the return of a Big Pharma killer medication riding on the back of a mild seasonal flu.

Another moral is that when Big Pharma emerges hands covered with blood from one egregious crime (like Bayer's killing 50 million or so during SpanishFlu-1918), but because it continues wealthy and unpunished, it is bound to go on committing further egregious crimes (which Bayer did, as for example by treating prisoners as guinea pigs during WWII), of which the following is but a single instance:


[...]  Helmuth Vetter, an Auschwitz camp physician, SS captain and employee of the Bayer group within IG Farben conducted medical experiments on inmates at Auschwitz and at the Mauthausen concentration camp.  In one study of an anaesthetic, the company paid RM 170 per person for the use of 150 female inmates of Auschwitz.  A Bayer employee wrote to Rudolf Höss, the Auschwitz commandant: "The transport of 150 women arrived in good condition.  However, we were unable to obtain conclusive results because they died during the experiments.  We would kindly request that you send us another group of women to the same number and at the same price."

After the war, the Allied Control Council seized IG Farben for "knowingly and prominently ... building up and maintaining German war potential".  [...]  Bayer was at that point known as Farbenfabriken Bayer AG; it changed its name to Bayer AG in 1972.  Fritz ter Meer, an IG Farben director and Nazi Party member who directed operations at the IG Farben plant at Auschwitz, was sentenced in 1948 to seven years for war crimes during the IG Farben Trial at Nuremberg.  Released in 1950, he was elected chair of Bayer's supervisory board in 1956 and remained in that position until 1964.  [...]

But if two instances, no matter how horrific, are insufficient to establish the existence of an unswerving BAYER mindset, here's a third instance from the 1980s, and which vies for the title of worst drug scandal in history:

Bayer mass murders thousands
with HIV-tainted drugs
Click image for video

Second Precedent    SwineFlu-1976      

As is to be expected, the SwineFlu-1976 panic was excited by reference to the grand precedent of SpanishFlu-1918:

There is evidence there will be a major flu epidemic this coming fall.  The indication is that we will see a return of the 1918 flu virus that is the most virulent form of flu.  In 1918 a half million [Americans] died.  The projections are that this virus will kill one million Americans in 1976.

David Matthews, Secretary of the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 15Mar1976

U.S. President Gerald Ford receiving his vaccine for SwineFlu-1976

The President Gerald Ford press conference of 25Mar1976, featured in the middle video below, shows him announcing that he will ask Congress to appropriate $135 million (which today would equal $617 million) for the production of sufficient vaccine to innoculate every man, woman, and child in the United States.

An estimate that it would be useful to guess right now, without reading further, is what magnitude of pandemic had been sufficient to trigger President Ford's strong reaction?  More specifically, how many lives might we guess that President Ford knew that the pandemic had taken, and how long had it been raging, and how many countries had it penetrated?  Or, what might these three numbers need to reach today to justify spending $617 million to innoculate every man, woman, and child in the United States?

The first two videos below convey what the American public was being told about SwineFlu-1976, whereas Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes report begins to uncover the hidden reality, the revelation unfortunately coming more than three years too late to stop the damage.  (Don't be discouraged by the Mike Wallace video being blank for the first 16 seconds.)

Swine Flu 1976, Public Service Announcements

Swine Flu 1976, President Gerald Ford:  Press conference in Washington DC
25Mar1976   01:14

Swine Flu 1976, Mike Wallace:  60 Minutes.  The Swine flu scare of 1976.  Broadcast
04Nov1979   15:45

After watching the three above videos, it will not be much of a surprise to read a summary of SwineFlu-1976 as scathing as the below (where it is hinted that CDC should stand not for Centers for Disease Control but for Centers for Damaged Credibility:


Centers for Damaged Credibility
Michelle Malkin     13Mar2020

The notorious 1976 swine flu vaccine scandal was catalyzed by mass hysteria whipped up by CDC junk scientists clamoring for more money.  Congress obliged and nearly 45 million Americans were unnecessarily jabbed with a vaccine for a disease that had fizzled by the time the shots were ready.  The vaccine resulted in an increased risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome — leading to muscle weakness and paralysis.

A precise chronology of key SwineFlu-1976 events can be extracted from The Journal of Infectious Diseases where to the excerpts below have been added red emphasis to highlight information conveying that the SwineFlu-1976 virus first appeared in Fort Dix in mid January (the later of the two choices offered), and blue emphasis to highlight information showing that transmission of the SwineFlu-1976 virus was over by the end of the first week of February.

What we refer to as "SwineFlu-1976" is synonymous below with "Swine Influenza A" and "A/swine" and "A/New Jersey".

Journal of Infectious Disease THE JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE • VOL 136, SUPPLEMENT • DECEMBER1977©1977 •

Swine Influenza A at Fort Dix, New Jersey (January-February 1976).
III.  Extent of Spread and Duration of the Outbreak

Richard A. Hodder, Joel C. Gaydos, Richard G. Allen, Franklin H. Top, Jr., Taras Nowosiwsky, and Philip K. Russell

The lack of a rise in titer of influenza A/swine antibody in [military] units formed after February 16, along with the inability to isolate the agent in middle and late February, suggest an end to the transmission of swine influenza virus during the first week of February.  [...]

The last confirmed case of A/New Jersey influenza was admitted on February 9, 1976, and no evidence for further transmission was found after that date.  [p. S373]

Therefore, it appears that the outbreak of A/New Jersey influenza at Fort Dix, N.J., was due to the introduction of the virus sometime in early to middle January 1976.  [p. S374]

The chronology is clarified by being laid out graphically, as below, where the three-week-long SwineFlu-1976 microdemic BEGins in mid-January and ENDs one week into February.  President Ford's Press conference of 25Mar1976, is revealed to have been delivered six weeks after the microdemic had ended.

Milestones in the SwineFlu-1976 Microdemic
  B   E   p                     E   O   J     G
  E   N   r                     X   B   U     B
J   F   M   A   M   J   J   A   S   O   N   D  
a   e   a   p   a   u   u   u   e   c   o   e  
n   b   r   r   y   n   l   g   p   t   v   c  

In that press conference, President Ford announces that he EXPects a vaccine to be ready by September (6¾ months after the microdemic had ended), but in fact it was OBServed being first delivered in October (7¾ months after the microdemic had ended).

JUDY ROBERTS, whom we saw in Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes report above afflicted with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, was jabbed some time in November, at least 8¾ months after the microdemic had ended.

By mid-December, eleven States had reported outbreaks of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), as reported by
Wikipedia, though GBS cases continued to appear well beyond mid-December.  Mid December is also when the vaccination program was suspended, 10¼ months after the microdemic had ended.

This SwineFlu-1976 virus was observed nowhere but within the confines of Fort Dix, NJ.  Observed not anywhere in the neighborhood surrounding Fort Dix, nor anywhere else in the state of New Jersey, nor anywhere else in the United States, and not anywhere else on the planet.

The shocking conclusion that we are forced to is that Big Pharma has no qualms about broadcasting a lie so preposterous, so fantastic, so mind-boggling as to inflate

a single soldier dying during a five-mile forced march


a pandemic so dangerous as to prompt the US President to ask Congress for $135 million ($617 million in today's dollars) to vaccinate every man, woman, and child in the US, and to actually succeed in jabbing 45 million Americans who were told that they were getting a vaccine against SwineFlu-1976 but were not told that SwineFlu-1976 had vanished from the face of the earth 7¾ months ago for the first-jabbed, and 10¼ months ago for the last-jabbed.

In short, a moral arising from our second precedent, SwineFlu-1976, is that when Big Pharma shouts
it may in reality be only a

and when Big Pharma claims to have invented a vaccine, the precedent of SwineFlu-1976 invites us to expect devastating side effects.

And a couple of other morals have to do with the CDC, whose director in 1976, Dr David Sencer, was the Big-Pharma conductor orchestrating the SwineFlu-1976 fraud, and who under questioning by Mike Wallace admits that the SwineFlu-1976 virus had never been observed anywhere on earth other than briefly inside Fort Dix, and pretends not to know that the vaccine actually administered to Americans was X53A which had not undergone safety testing (as reported by 60 Minutes), and who denies having known that the vaccine came with neurological side effects, which denial CDC safety specialist Dr Michael Hatwick is indignantly incredulous to hear, and when asked how he himself knew, answered the it was documented in the medical literature.

In short, the CDC can't be trusted, and a doctor carrying the highest medical-administration credentials in the land may in reality be only a drug salesman.  Or, drug super-salesman if his spiel is intimidating enough to steamroll resistance:

[T]he role that Sencer chose, [was] the super-salesman's role.  [...]

Sencer was not President.  Yet as he did his work this may be a distinction without a difference.  For he evidently thought it was his task to make his constitutional superiors do right no matter what they thought (and so he did).  He also made them do it with but little time to think.  [...]

Sencer pushed his bosses without stint.  They were his constitutional superiors but that gave him no pause.  [...]  [T]hey were laymen.  Sencer evidently held the not uncommon premise that the boobs could not be trusted to decide right on their own.

This we believe is what made him a salesman.

Richard E. Neustadt and Harvey V. Fineberg, The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease.  Reprint from the collections of the University of California Libraries, 1978, pp. 98-99

Third Precedent    SwineFlu-2009      

The President and First Lady Get Vacinated 21Dec2009.  The President made clear that the time for adults to get their H1N1 shots is now and that it is safe.

An early complaint to the Council of Europe regarding SwineFlu-2009

Doc. 12110
18 December 2009

Faked Pandemics — a threat for health

Motion for a recommendation
presented by Mr Wodarg and others

This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it

In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide.  They have made them squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.

The "birds-flu“-campaign (2005/06) combined with the "swine-flu“-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health budgets, but also to the credibility and accountability of important international health agencies.  The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers.

The member states of the Council of Europe should ask for immediate investigations on the consequences at national as well as European level.

Signed 1:

WODARG Wolfgang, Germany, SOC
AYVA Lokman, Turkey, EPP/CD
CONDE BAJÉN Agustín, Spain, EPP/CD
CZINEGE Imre, Hungary, SOC
FLYNN Paul, United Kingdom, SOC
GROZDANOVA Dzhema, Bulgaria, EPP/CD
HANCOCK Michael, United Kingdom, ALDE
HUSS Jean, Luxembourg, SOC
MARQUET Bernard, Monaco, ALDE
McCAFFERTY Christine, United Kingdom, SOC
OHLSSON Carina, Sweden, SOC
ÜNAL Mustafa, Turkey, EPP/CD
VOLONTE' Luca, Italy, EPP/CD

EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party
SOC: Socialist Group
ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
EDG: European Democratic Group
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex   |   e-mail:   |   Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000   |   Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 33

Within two months of the above complaint, the truth about SwineFlu-2009 had emerged:

Why The WHO Faked a Pandemic
Michael Fumento  05Feb2010
The agency needed to bounce back after the avian flu embarrassment.

The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying "The sky is falling!" like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig.  The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria.  "The world is going through a real pandemic.  The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible," the agency claims on its Web site.  A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this "description," but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO's motives in declaring a pandemic.  Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the "false pandemic" is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century."

Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax.  "We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [US$18 billion so far] in terms of public health," he said.

They're right.  This wasn't merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment.  The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.

Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu.  It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates.  Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it's far tamer than that.  [...]

Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?

Absolutely, as I wrote at the time.  We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide — the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours.  (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO's own numbers.)  The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.

But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required "simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness."  Severity — that is, the number of deaths — is crucial, because every year flu causes "a global spread of disease."

Easy.  In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor.  You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.

Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest.  In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: "Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic?  The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition."  Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: "Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition."

They did it; but why?

In part, it was CYA for the WHO.  The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to go pandemic and kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its "flu czar" had predicted in 2005.

Around the world nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations.  So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out "avian," inserted "swine," and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, "The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness."  [...]

Chan's dream now lies in tatters.  All the WHO has done, says PACE's Wodart, is to destroy "much of the credibility that they should have, which is invaluable to us if there's a future scare that might turn out to be a killer on a large scale."

The above deals with SwineFlu-2009 being a swindle, but more important in a full reckoning is vaccine damage manifesting as narcolepsy and cataplexy.  To be kept in mind is the possibility that for every extreme case that comes to medical attention and is publicly blamed on the vaccine, there could be hundreds whose symptoms are less extreme, and which go unreported, and yet which are capable of impairing school or work performance, and thus frustrating aspirations and derailing careers, and making unassisted living problematic.

Sleeping Sickness: A W5 investigation into the sudden rise in childhood narcolepsy

Avis Favaro & Elizabeth St. Philip
Published 02Nov2013, Last Updated 27Jan2014

It's a medical mystery.  Why are children all around the world developing severe narcolepsy — a rare sleeping disorder with no known cure?

It is a question that Christine and Ian pondered after their perfectly healthy daughter developed symptoms, shortly after being hospitalized with a flu like infection in 2011.

Makenna was once an alert and active young girl but now she falls asleep without warning.

Her parents took Makenna off her medication temporarily to show W5 the effects of the disorder.  As they play a board game in the kitchen, her head starts to bob and then Makenna's face hits the table.

Then there is a bizarre related symptom called cataplexy, which also affects her.  Makenna suddenly loses muscle control and collapses when she laughs or feels strong emotions, something that happens to the eight-year-old several times a day.

When her mother hugs her, Makenna simply drops.  She's awake but paralyzed.  Her parents make it safe for her to have these symptoms at home, but out in the world, it's a different matter.

"We do a lot to keep her safe, but I worry about her when she is on her own," said her mother, Christine, who asked W5 not to reveal their last name or home town to preserve their privacy.

"We had to take her out of swimming, if she had an episode she would quickly drown.  All of those things you do every day, walking down the stairs, what if she loses her legs and just goes limp?" said her father Ian.

Makenna is now on several medications to keep her alert during the day, so she can take part in school and gymnastics.  But this bright articulate girl wonders what lies ahead.

“What kind of job am I going get?  And if I am going to be able to drive or not, and how will I handle a baby, if I can even have one,” said Makenna.

In Alberta, 11 year-old Matthew also suffers from bouts of extreme sleepiness and cataplexy.  His symptoms suddenly emerged a year ago.

“As a parent our hearts kind of dropped to our stomach we were not prepared for something like that,” said his father Jeff, who did not want the family’s last name used.

“As we started to understand the diagnosis a bit more we started to realize that it wasn’t just something you could cure overnight, it was a lifelong challenge for Matthew and it was going to involve a lot of structure in his life.”

Matthew now takes five pills a day to help control his narcolepsy and cataplexy and must nap at school to stay alert.  His parents still wonder what caused his condition to appear so suddenly.

“We are curious and we wonder why it happened and we like to know where it originated from” said Jeff.

His mother Sherri added, “It would be nice to know how so it can help others from getting it.”

So what caused the illness that has stricken these two children?

Blood tests suggest those who develop narcolepsy have a genetic susceptibility.  But doctors know that narcolepsy needs an environmental trigger — a virus or infection that destroys cells that regulate the wake sleep cycle.

Christine and Ian are looking into how their perfectly healthy daughter developed symptoms of severe narcolepsy, shortly after being hospitalized with a flu like infection in 2011.

Makenna's parents now wonder about two events in her childhood.  She was vaccinated against the H1N1 virus during the pandemic flu outbreak in 2009.  Over a year later she developed a severe flu-like infection.  Her symptoms began four weeks later.

"We thought okay, something happened there and this appears to be a fallout from that," said Ian.

Pediatric sleep medicine specialist Dr. Manisha Witmans told W5 she has seen a baffling spike in cases among patients at her clinic, the Synergy Wellness Centre in Edmonton.  Narcolepsy is a rare condition, and Witmans usually treats only two cases annually.  In the last year and a half, however, she has diagnosed 10 pediatric cases, with four to five more awaiting definitive tests.

"I was shocked," said Witmans.  "I noticed that the cases were more severe and in that most of the children that I see now have cataplexy and that can be unusual in children."

Witmans told W5 that she's not alone in seeing a sudden surge, as colleagues in Toronto, Seattle, Washington and Philadelphia are reporting similar increases in this rare brain disorder.  She is now collecting data and hopes to make her report public in the coming months.

The H1N1 link

The spike in narcolepsy, particularly among children, has also been reported outside North America, with cases in China and across Europe.  The symptoms, like Makenna’s began abruptly and are often severe.

“I was swamped," said Dr. Catherine Crowe, a sleep specialist at the Mater hospital in Dublin.

"There were so many patients coming, normally I would see a few patients a year.  And here I was having young narcoleptic patients every week," she told W5.  "I was just amazed.  Nothing like it obviously, this was terrible seeing all these little children like this."

Dr. Emmanuel Mignot, director of the Stanford Center for Sleep Sciences and Medicine

"For me it has all the elements of a detective story," said Dr. Emmanuel Mignot, director of the Stanford Center for Sleep Sciences and Medicine, and one of the world’s leading experts on narcolepsy.

Dr. Mignot is on the hunt to understand the cause of the phenomenon, collecting blood samples from children with the disorder from around the globe.  In China he reviewed narcolepsy cases following the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.  He discovered that China had a threefold increase in the sleep disorder.  The majority were children.  [...]

But the swine flu virus appears to be only one part of the puzzle.

The disorder, the virus and the vaccine

In 2009, new vaccines had been introduced at the height of H1N1 pandemic when world health officials feared that the swine virus could sicken and kill millions.  By 2010, researchers from Sweden and Finland were reporting a link between narcolepsy and a H1N1 flu vaccine named Pandemrix — a vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline and used in 47 countries.

By 2013, there were 800 children with narcolepsy who had been linked to vaccination against the flu across Europe, with doctors reporting more cases emerging in adults.  The Scandinavian studies were supported by research from France, Norway, Ireland and the UK with some scientists reporting a seven to 13-times higher risk of narcolepsy after vaccination.

Pandremix contained a deactivated part of H1N1 virus.  But it also had a novel adjuvant, or booster, called ASO3 that could induce a powerful immune reaction.  The advantage is that adjuvants allow vaccine doses to be made quickly and with a worldwide pandemic threatened the World Health Organization had asked for speeded up delivery.

Mignot believes the combination may have created a perfect storm — a virus that could trigger narcolepsy, children with a genetic predisposition to the disorder and a vaccine containing a potent adjuvant that may have made those children all the more susceptible.

"What happened is the adjuvant really does its job.  It is something that is supposed to boost the immune response and together with the H1N1 it just produced a too strong immune response and then it increased the risk of developing narcolepsy," said Mignot.

Other researchers are also investigating the sudden increase and the possible vaccine link.  Dr. Jeff Kwong, a scientist with the University of Toronto and the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Studies there, is examining records of children aged four to 19 vaccinated in Ontario during 2009 and 2010 to see if there is an increase in narcolepsy cases.

Glaxo SmithKline is investigating the link between its vaccine and narcolepsy.  But they believe there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions.

In an e-mailed statement to W5 they wrote: “Epidemiological data currently available to GSK suggest an increased risk of narcolepsy following vaccination with Pandemrix (H1N1).

"Further research is needed to determine whether the observed risk is related to the vaccine, environmental effects, genetic factors, other factors or a combination of them."

In Europe, parents of children affected have formed support groups to demand answers and compensation.

W5 traveled to Dublin to meet members of Sufferers of Unique Narcolepsy Disorder (SOUND), a group representing 60 children struggling with narcolepsy and cataplexy.

"Jenna was a perfectly healthy before she ever had her vaccine, and overnight she turned around and slept 75 per cent of her life away," said Mark Haide, whose daughter was three when she was vaccinated.

Tom Matthews' 16-year-old daughter Ellen began having symptoms just weeks after she got vaccinated.

"I would say in our case, the incidence of a healthy child becoming a sick child, the main event was the vaccination.  There was no other measure that took place, said Matthews.

Ray Donovan's eight-year-old son Alex has the sleep disorder.  He now suffers from depression and said he "wishes he was never born".

In Canada, many questions remain.  What is the total number of new pediatric narcolepsy cases since the swine flu?  Are they linked to the virus or the vaccine?

Documents reviewed by W5 reveal that eleven million doses of a GlaxoSmithKline vaccine called Arepanrix — were used in 2009 and 2010 during massive public health inoculation programs.  Arepanrix contained a similar ASO3 adjuvant to that is being studied in Europe.

So far five cases of childhood narcolepsy following vaccination have been officially reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada, which concluded that the data so far "does not suggest a vaccine safety concern."  Furthermore, the vaccine is no longer in use now that the pandemic is over, confirmed by GlaxoSmithKline.

Researchers in Quebec have reported a four-times increased risk of narcolepsy after vaccination, compared to those who did not receive the vaccine.  In that province GlaxoSmithKline is supporting.  According to Dr. Philippe de Wals, an epidemiologist at the Université Laval, it amounts to one case of narcolepsy for every one million doses of vaccine, a very remote risk.  He said the data also suggests that some of the cases are only linked to infection with the H1N1 virus.

"Further research is needed to evaluate the potential association between GSK's adjuvanted H1N1 pandemic flu vaccine and narcolepsy in a country where a similar vaccine to Pandemrix™ (H1N1) was used," the company said in its e-mailed statement.

The preliminary results of this study are anticipated to be published by early 2014.  But doctors interviewed by W5 predicted that this story is just beginning.

Whitmans said some of her patients in Alberta developed narcolepsy symptoms after the vaccination with Arepanrix.  Others recently diagnosed were never inoculated and may have only been exposed to the flu virus.  Many took months to get a proper diagnosis.  Ultimately, she believes there may be many children who are suffering from narcolepsy but have not yet been formally diagnosed.

"I think there are a lot more kids out there that are affected that are out there that we don’t know," said Witmans.  [...]

Two videos on SwineFLU-2009:

Swine Flu 2009:  Drug firms made "false H1N1 claims"
11Jan2010  02:52

Swine Flu 2009:  Arte:  Profiteure der Angst / Profiteers of Fear
(English subtitles)
23Nov2009  56:43


The lesson to be learned from SwineFlu-2009, then, is that on the prompting of Big Pharma, the World Health Organization removed "severity" from its definition of "pandemic" in May 2009, which enabled the WHO to slap the "pandemic" label on just another mild flu, and which enabled Big Pharma to rake in humongous profits from the sale of its inadequately-tested and dangerous products.

The current pandemic    COVID-19      

What all three of the above precedents warn us against is being fooled by Big Pharma dressing up a mild flu as a deadly pandemic, and so frightening people that they believe outrageous lies, to their own loss of wealth and of health and of life itself, and to the enrichment of Big Pharma.

This is a conclusion which our three precedents lead us to expect for COVID-19, but pretty much that same conclusion is evident just by considering contemporary evidence concerning COVID-19, and without consulting any precedents at all.

And what that evidence shows is that the outstanding characteristic of COVID-19 is that every word which is uttered on its behalf is a lie.

Here, for example, is a typical COVID-19
update, in which many of the lies are embedded:


The above NYT Coronavirus Briefing is of "New Reported Cases", but does not tell us what a "case" is.

A "case" calls to mind someone with a fever and respiratory distress who is rolled into a hospital on a gurney, and who might die if untreated.

But what a "case" has been perverted to mean in today's COVID-19 world is a person who tests positive, most often on a PCR test, even though the vast majority of people who test positive feel themselves to be in good health, and have no symptoms, and are surprised to be told that they test positive, and who certainly don't need treatment and so cannot be counted as an additional burden on the health care system.

Almost everywhere that a "case" is spoken of is a lie because the public imagines that it identifies a suffering patient, whereas nothing more has been observed than a "positive test", usually devoid of suffering, and sometimes it's merely a guess unsupported by any test, and sometimes it is even less than that, as will be made evident below.


The NYT Coronavirus Briefing tells us that its reported cases are "new", meaning, we guess, that the people tested have fallen ill very recently, but where in fact we are given no information whatever as to when they first would have tested positive had they been tested earlier.

When a "new" case is announced, say on January 20 in our imaginary example below, then what is actually observed is laid out in the Observed column, showing no tests conducted 01Jan through 19Jan, and so showing no information as to which of the daily tests would have come out positive, and which negative, over those 19 days.

However, despite lack of supportive evidence, what the public is likely to assume "new case" to mean is shown in the Assumed column where it is expected that the testee would have tested negative on days 1 through 19, and then suddenly, and for the first time, acquired positive status on 20Jan.

But among the alternatives that our Observed column data does not rule out is that shown in the Alternative A column where the testee is tested daily, and can be seen to have become positive ten days earlier, on 10Jan.

And also possible is what can be seen happening in the Alternative B column — that the testee might have tested positive every day, 01Jan through 20Jan, and where absence of still earlier data forces us to acknowledge that he may have first become positive before 01Jan, perhaps a week before, or a month before, or a year before, or a decade before.

January Observed Assumed Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
 1 ? Neg Neg Pos Pos
 2 ? Neg Neg Pos Pos
 3 ? Neg Neg Pos Pos
 4 ? Neg Neg Pos Neg
 5 ? Neg Neg Pos Pos
 6 ? Neg Neg Pos Neg
 7 ? Neg Neg Pos Neg
 8 ? Neg Neg Pos Pos
 9 ? Neg Neg Pos Pos
10 ? Neg Pos Pos Pos
11 ? Neg Pos Pos Neg
12 ? Neg Pos Pos Pos
13 ? Neg Pos Pos Pos
14 ? Neg Pos Pos Neg
15 ? Neg Pos Pos Pos
16 ? Neg Pos Pos Neg
17 ? Neg Pos Pos Pos
18 ? Neg Pos Pos Pos
19 ? Neg Pos Pos Pos
20 Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos

What "new cases" announced on 20Jan invites the public to believe is that positive status is newly acquired on 20Jan, as shown in the Assumed column.  However, the only meaning that the Observed data permit "new case" to have is not that positive status has been newly acquired, but that it has been newly noticed, and which is compatible with the date of positive-status onset lying anywhere from the day of the testee's birth right up to the morning of his 20Jan2020 test.

There may even be a worse state of affairs that daily testing would be able to reveal, and that is shown in the Alternative C column, and which calls for the conclusion that the test is unreliable and that trusting it is irresponsible.

Of course the same arguments that we have been making with the help of the above table could also be made if tests had been conducted at intervals other than daily — say weekly or monthly or whatever.

The main thought that should fill our minds when we hear of any "new case" is that a positive test result has been newly noticed, but with nobody having the slightest idea as to whether the testee first became positive on the day of testing or a week earlier or a year earlier.

And when considering not just one, but all of the individuals who may have tested positive on 20Jan, say 100 of them, there is no reason to believe that they all acquired positive status simultaneously.  For example, it is entirely possible that Testee#1 became positive on the morning of 20Jan, and Testee#2 a year earlier, and Testee#3 two weeks earlier, and so on.

The impression that all say 100 testing positive on 20Jan share the same infection history finds no support in the mere obervation that they all tested positive on 20Jan, and speaking of them as constituting a "wave" creates the impression that they were all infected at around the same time, when in fact no evidence supporting such a belief is offered.


No one could have failed to notice how greatly the number of daily COVID-19 tests has been expanding, and is projected to continue expanding, as for example in Ontario on 06Oct2020:

Ontario Surpasses Four Million COVID-19 Tests
Province Leads Nation in Testing and Continues to Add Locations and Capacity
Office of the Premier    06Oct2020

[...]  At the start of the outbreak, Ontario was conducting 4,000 tests per day.  The province is now well on its way to building the capacity to process 50,000 daily tests by mid-October and 68,000 daily tests by mid-November to ensure readiness to effectively respond to any surges in cases or outbreaks.

"Reaching four million tests in Ontario demonstrates clearly that we are a national leader in testing capacity, however there is much more work to be done," said Minister Elliott.  "That's why, as part of our COVID-19 fall preparedness plan, our government is investing $1.07 billion to dramatically expand our testing capacity, launch more testing locations and add more case and contact management resources to trace and isolate new cases.  We want to ensure that everyone who needs a test can get one quickly."

Expanding the province's testing capacity has been imperative to tackling the second wave of COVID-19.  In an effort to expand this access, the province has expanded testing sites to participating pharmacies.  Currently, 77 pharmacies across the province are collecting COVID-19 samples with over 5,800 samples collected since September 25, 2020.

But let us imagine a country in which exactly half the people really are infected and reliably test positive, and that this proportion happens not to change over time.  And let us suppose furthermore that all these people mill around randomly, so that if you test 10 of them in January, then around 5 will test positive, as is shown in the table below.  And if in February you test 100 of them, then around 50 will test positive.  And if in March you test 100,000 of them, then around 50,000 will test positive.

It is evident that the data show the disease making no progress over time — month after month, any group you look at has half its members testing positive.

However, if the press reported only the NUMBER POSITIVE column (misleadingly labelling it the "NEW CASES" column), the impression conveyed would be one of explosive growth of the disease, and it would be said that the number of new cases progressing from 5 to 50 to 50,000 was an "exponential" spread of the disease.

However, it is apparent in our hypothetical example that the exponential growth had been not in the number infected, but only in the number tested.  The evidence presented does not show the disease spreading exponentially, or spreading at all.

And so if "number of cases" (meaning number of test positives) is all that the news reports — and that is all it typically does report — with no mention of number of tests, as in the case of The New York Times "briefing" above, then Big Pharma is able to produce a seeming increase in disease spread merely by increasing the number of tests.  Therefore, it is not the NUMBER POSITIVE that should be reported, as by itself it tells us nothing.  The information broadcast to the public should be PERCENT POSITIVE.

January        5        10 5/10 = 50%
February      50       100 50/100 = 50%
March 50,000 100,000 50,000/100,000 = 50%

Of course if the goal is to spread panic, then reporting that "PERCENT POSITIVE holds steady at 50% month after month" is not the way to go.

Please understand that the above table does not intend to prove that when we observe NUMBER POSITIVE going 5/50/50,000 the correct interpretation is that PERCENT POSITIVE remains steady.  What the above table does intend to prove is that the progression 5/50/50,00 is compatible with everything imaginable in the PERCENT POSITIVE column, among the possibilities being constancy.

To illustrate the breadth of possibilities, it can also happen that even while NUMBER POSITIVE increases "exponentially" 5/50/50,000 just as it did above, the PERCENT POSITIVE can shrink, say 50%/25%/10%, as shown below — which is to say while the disease is vanishing.

January        5        10 5/10 = 50%
February      50       200 50/200 = 25%
March 50,000 500,000 50,000/500,000 = 10%

NUMBER OF CASES, then, is a lie when it is uttered with the expectation that the audience will assume that the NUMBER TESTED remains constant, whereas it never does remain constant.  You will not find NUMBER TESTED data in the NYT Coronavirus Briefing box above, nor on the much longer elaboration which appears beneath it on the page originally published on the Internet.


The COVID-19 test held in highest esteem is the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), which tries to ascertain whether the testee is carrying particles that might have been shed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  However, the tests are carried out in hundreds of different labs working independently, and none of these tests have had their accuracy verified, and none have been approved by the FDA — the use of unproven and unapproved tests being excused by mankind finding itself in the throes of an emergency.

ROBERT SHMERLING.  The Robert H. Shmerling Harvard Medical School report below details why it is that nobody can vouch for the credibility of COVID testing, and which for the public is unwelcome news because absent the ability to detect COVID-19, no evidence exists that there is a pandemic, let alone how best to respond to it, or whether to respond at all.  Big Pharma, on the other hand, welcomes the absence of credible measurement because it leaves itself free to crank out whatever "new case" numbers support its narrative.

Which test is best for COVID-19?
Robert H. Shmerling, MD, Senior Faculty Editor

[...]  The FDA has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for hundreds of COVID-19 diagnostic tests.  This allows makers to market tests without receiving formal FDA approval because there is a public health emergency.

Because this novel coronavirus is indeed novel, and COVID-19 is a new disease, information about available tests is incomplete and testing options keep changing.  Tests vary in terms of accuracy, cost, recommended use for people of various ages, and convenience.  [...]

The true accuracy of tests for COVID-19 is uncertain

Unfortunately, it’s not clear exactly how accurate any of these tests are. There are several reasons for this:

  • We don’t have precise measures of accuracy for these tests — just some commonly quoted figures for false negatives or false positives [...].  False negative tests provide false reassurance, and could lead to delayed treatment and relaxed restrictions despite being contagious.  False positives, which are much less likely, can cause unwarranted anxiety and require people to quarantine unnecessarily.

  • How carefully a specimen is collected and stored may affect accuracy.

  • Because these tests are available by EUA, the usual rigorous testing and vetting has not yet happened, and accuracy results have not been widely published.

  • A large and growing number of laboratories and companies offer these tests, so accuracy may vary.

  • All of these tests are new because the virus is new.  Without a long track record, assessments of accuracy can only be approximate.

  • We don’t have a definitive “gold standard” test with which to compare them.     [...]

ANDREW COHEN.  In contrast to Shmerling asserting above that false positives "are much less likely", Andrew N. Cohen shows false positives soaring to dizzying heights when test positivity (percent of those tested who score positive) is low, as can be seen in the graph below whose red line estimates that around the end of August 2020, more than 65% of those testing positive were in reality false positives.  How that percentage-false-positives-among-positives red line was calculated is explained in the original article, whose link appears just below the title:

False Positives in PCR Tests for COVID-19
Andrew N. Cohen, PhD   09Nov2020

The prevalence of misinformation coming from the most trusted form of coronavirus test may be more significant than previously thought.

[...]  Medical and public health professionals have generally treated positive results from PCR-based tests for COVID-19 as if they are completely reliable.  We're told that if we test positive, then we are infected with the virus, and that positive results in PCR tests are rarely if ever inaccurate.  In fact, however, false positives occur in PCR tests for COVID-19 often enough to be a significant problem.  [...]

So, how often is the infection rate low enough for false positives to be a problem?  The [graph below] shows the test positivity (what fraction of people tested received a positive result) in New York State from late March to September, and the percentage of positive results that would be wrong, assuming the same false-negative and false-positive rates of 25 and 0.5 percent.  As you can see, when the disease was spiking, at the beginning of this period, there would have been very few false positives, and positive results could be trusted.  However, as the infection rate and test positivity fell, in May, an increasingly large portion of the positive results would be wrong.  [...]

However, this data, doesn’t tell the whole story.  [...]

[...]  [P]eople who do not have symptoms will be less likely to be infected and will have a lower test positivity.  For these people, positive results will be more likely to be wrong than the averages indicate.  Thus, even during a major outbreak, there may be portions of the test population consisting of individuals that are mostly or entirely asymptomatic — individuals tested in nursing homes, homeless shelters, prisons, or other congregate living situations; patients tested automatically upon hospital admission or prior to surgeries; athletes tested as a requirement for participation in sports activities; etc. — for whom positive PCR results may likely be false.

ANDREW KAUFMAN.  A line of thinking pointing to a similar conclusion is put forward by Dr Andrew Kaufman in the video titled "Operation Moonshot — Leaked Government Document Reveals Mass False Positive Test Rollout for UK Population in 2021", at the very beginning of which video he works through an example in which of the 250 people testing positive, 230 were in fact false positives.

Kary MULLIS explaining PCR

KARY MULLIS.  Who better to disclose a weakness in the use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) procedure in COVID-19 testing than the man who shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing it — American biochemist Kary Mullis, who would have been of inestimable worth in steering mankind from its COVID-19 folly, but who unfortunately passed away 07Aug2019.  My paraphrase of Mullis's explanation included in Spiro Skouras's video We Are Being Lied To! is that almost every virus on earth is present in most human bodies in the form of at least one dead fragment (let's call it a DNA strand) from a virus that was alive maybe years ago, but whose DNA-strand remains are incapable of multiplying or causing harm, or even being detected, there being so few of them.

What the PCR procedure accomplishes is the duplication of such DNA strands through successive amplification cycles, so that the first cycle turns the original single strand into 2, and the second cycle turns the 2 into 4, and so on, which despite the multiplication seeming insubstantial, if continued quickly mounts into the billions and trillions, whose presence does become detectable.  The Spiro video has someone claiming that if a laboratory performed as many as 60 amplification cycles, then everybody would test positive for everything.

As the number of amplification cycles used to produce test results usually goes unreported, and as each country, or each laboratory, may use a different number, and countries or laboratories can change that number over time, then the PCR-reliant testing lab is able to produce whatever results the people paying for the test want to see, and testing loses all value as a diagnostic tool.

The expectation of chaotic test results which the four above consultants (SHMERLING, COHEN, KAUFMAN, and MULLIS) lead us to expect turns out to be everywhere observed.

For example, President Magufuli of Tanzania, suspicious that all was not as it should be in his Western-imported testing program, snuck in non-human samples to be tested along with the human blood samples, and found not only a goat and a Kware bird testing positive, but also Jackfruit and PawPaw fruit.  His reaction: "So when you notice something like this, you must know there is a dirty game played in these tests, that there are unbelievable things happening in this country."  COV-VIDEO-040

If anyone cared about the accuracy and validity of COVID-19 tests, then every batch of human blood samples submitted for testing would include samples of non-human materials like goat blood and PawPaw fruit juice, and also human blood samples whose correct diagnosis was known.

Back in the US, Shaun Smith ran into a bit of chaos when he tested positive at one testing center, but negative four hours later at a different testing center:  COV-VIDEO-042

Chaos reigned when a group of 77 all tested positive, but which results were displeasing and unwelcome, and so at the snap of the fingers all 77 retested negative:

All 77 false-positive COVID-19 tests come back negative upon reruns

Kevin Patra    24Aug2020

Testing irregularities at one of the labs used by the NFL led to 77 positives for COVID-19 among players and staff members from multiple teams Saturday.

NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport and NFL Network's Tom Pelissero reported that all 77 original tests were rerun Sunday night, and every single one came back negative, per sources informed of the situation.

All 77 individuals also underwent additional point-of-care tests.  Each came back negative as well.  [...]

And chaos reigned supreme when 383 positive results were later declared to be false positives, and tens of thousands of tests conducted by the same testing company, Orig3n, were left without retest:

Coronavirus testing at Boston lab suspended after nearly 400 false positives

An investigation by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that there were at least 383 erroneous positive results.

By Minyvonne Burke    09Sep2020

The health department said roughly 60 nursing homes either still are or have been clients of Orig3n.  [...]

The scale of Orig3n's erroneous testing remains unclear, according to The Boston Globe, since state health officials did not re-test every sample the facility processed.  The lab's chief executive, Robin Smith, told the outlet that Orig3n processed "tens of thousands" of coronavirus tests over the past 90 days for clients across the country.

And it is not just that results may be in error, or manipulated.  Sometimes it can happen that the testing kit itself is known to be defective, but is released for use anyway:

CDC Report: Officials Knew Coronavirus Test Was Flawed But Released It Anyway

Dina Temple-Raston    06Nov2020

On Feb. 6, a scientist in a small infectious disease lab on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention campus in Atlanta was putting a coronavirus test kit through its final paces.  The lab designed and built the diagnostic test in record time, and the little vials that contained necessary reagents to identify the virus were boxed up and ready to go.  But NPR has learned the results of that final quality control test suggested something troubling — it said the kit could fail 33% of the time.

Under normal circumstances, that kind of result would stop a test in its tracks, half a dozen public and private lab officials told NPR.  But an internal CDC review obtained by NPR confirms that lab officials decided to release the kit anyway.  [...]

In short, testing for COVID-19 is a joke, a farce, and a fraud, and cannot in good conscience be relied upon to arrive at scientifically-sound identification of an infection, or guide medical treatment or government policy.


A "death" is a lie because it is understood to mean a COVID-19-caused death, whereas the reality is that no laboratory confirmation that the deceased tested positive is required, and even when a positive test result exists, in the overwhelming majority of cases the deceased is very old and suffering from serious comorbidities, and so that singling out COVID-19 as the cause is gratuitous.  And in any case, we have just finished noting that COVID-19 testing is unproven and unapproved and chaotic, so that identifying someone as having died from COVID-19 is lying because nobody really knows if that person had it.

An early complaint of such mis-attribution of cause of death was voiced by Dr Annie Bukacek, as can be watched in her 06Apr2020 address.


The headline of the Woolf, Chapman, and Lee (2020) paper could not be more startling — that COVID-19 has become the leading cause of death in the US!  However, they don't actually say "COVID-19 is the Leading Cause of Death", they say "COVID-19 as the Leading Cause of Death" thus stripping their title of its verb, and leaving it saying nothing, though we will see shortly that they are widely interpreted to have said is, which they must have known would happen.

   COVID-19 as the Leading Cause
   of Death in the United States

    Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH1;
    Derek A. Chapman, PhD1,2;
    Jong Hyung Lee, MS2b

The current exponential increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is reaching a calamitous scale in the United States, potentially overwhelming the health care system and causing substantial loss of life.  The news media dutifully report each day’s increase in new cases and deaths, but putting these numbers in perspective may be difficult.  The daily US mortality rate for COVID-19 deaths is equivalent to the September 11, 2001, attacks, which claimed 2988 lives, occurring every 1.5 days, or 15 Airbus 320 jetliners, each carrying 150 passengers, crashing every day.  [...]

Age Category COVID-19
<1 7.4 8/11
1-4 1.0 7/9
5-14 1.0 8/9
15-24 9.9 7/9
25-34 38.6 7/9
35-44 109.9 5/9
45-54 294.8 3/9
55-64 683.3 3/9
65-74 1574.6 3/9
75-84 3832.4 3/9
≥85 10699.7 2/9
Total 698.8 3/9

The first-glance impression of this article is that the proof of its title is to be found in its data table.  Must be so, as there has to be data presented somewhere, and there is no other table that could be presenting it, and no graph.

Closer examination, however, reveals that the above table does not at all contain the sought-for evidence.  In fact, it contradicts the title claim, as COVID-19 fails to be the leading cause of death in every one of its twelve rows.

For example, in the top row which covers children "<1" years of age, the COVID-19 Mortality Rate (per Million) is 7.4, which is not the highest among the 11 causes of death in that row, but in fact is only the 8th highest cause of death.

In the second row, which covers ages "1-4", the COVID-19 Mortality Rate is 1.0, which again is not the highest among the 9 causes of death in that row, but in fact is only 7th highest.

Our table opposite shows the results for all 11 Age Group rows and for the Total row at the bottom.  The authors' claim that COVID-19 is the "Leading Cause of Death" is disconfirmed in all 12 rows.

Where, then, is the evidence which supports the title?  It is scattered in the text, and consists of opinions that the number of cases has been rising so rapidly that it is bound to put COVID-19 in first place any day now, or that COVID-19 deaths are badly under-estimated, or that they had already broken through to first place here and there.

No awareness is shown of exponentially-increasing testing can look like exponentially-increasing infection, or that testing is plagued with false positives, or that all COVID-19 testing is of unproven accuracy and remains unapproved by the FDA.

And yet what an outpouring of credulity follows the publication of the JAMA article, of which the table opposite shows but a sample!  The uppermost cell shows the word string what was Googled, and the second cell refers to the very JAMA article we are examining.  That the JAMA article is shown post-dating the articles below it suggests that it could be read earlier than its official publication date, perhaps in the form of a pre-publication news release, reminiscent of the sort of public-relations move that is permissible in advertising and is employed in pseudo-science, though unethical in real science.

And is what we are witnessing not shameful and unconscionable?  The JAMA publishing a pathetic excuse of a scientific paper is unconscionable, and the mainstream media passing along a title where they have replaced "as" with "is" ("COVID-19 is now the leading cause of death"), or sometimes removing "as" and replacing it with nothing, which leaves a headline in which every reader will be sure to insert his own "is" ("COVID-19 now leading cause of death").

We are seeing here not the work of scientists and journalists but of Big Pharma mouthpieces and more Big Pharma mouthpieces.


We do not see "COVID-19 IS A MEDICAL PHENOMENON" printed in the NYT Coronavirus Briefing above, but it is clearly implied and understood to consist of a suffering patient seeking treatment for his illness, and his doctor working to relieve the patient's pain and cure his illness.  That's how COVID-19 is viewed and discussed.


However, as money trades hands, it is also an economic activity, or one might say a business or financial activity, and not a nickel-and-dime one either.  According to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in 2019 US health care costs reached $3.8 trillion or $11,582 per person, which was 17.7% of the US Gross Domestic Product.

And so it may be said that the patient not only gets his ailment treated, but also pays money, either directly to the doctor or through his taxes or payroll deductions, and the doctor and the hospital not only try to assuage and cure, but also get paid, and so their decisions must inevitably be partly medical and partly business, and which business becomes more lucrative whenever the magic words "COVID-19" are uttered.

Please note what has been emphasized in bold red toward the bottom of the USA TODAY box — that COVID-19 benefits roll in even if the COVID-19 infection is only "presumed", meaning in the absence of laboratory confirmation, which amounts to an invitation to inflate COVID-19 death statistics, an invitation noticed long ago by, among others, Dr Annie Bukacek in her video, and by the two Bakersfield doctors, Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, in theirs, and Minnesota Senator Dr Scott Jensen in his video linked on the right just below.

Fact check: Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators

Michelle Rogers   USA TODAY Network    Published 24Apr2020, updated 27Apr2020

The claim: Hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19, and on ventilators

[Senator Scott Jensen, R-Minn., a Minnesota physician] said, "Hospital administrators might well want to see COVID-19 attached to a discharge summary or a death certificate.  Why?  Because if it's a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for — if they're Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000.  But if it's COVID-19 pneumonia, then it's $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000."

Our ruling: True

We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE.

Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it's considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases.

Click image to view video of Senator Jensen disclosing not only the $13,000 and $39,000 payments, but also that the CDC was pressuring doctors to inflate COVID-19 death statistics.

On top of COVID-19 being both a medical and an economic phenomenon, the business aspect can become so corrupted as to qualify as crime, so that for COVID-19 to be fully understood requires the insights not only of doctors and economists, but also of criminologists.


The following information is of the sort that is rarely reported in the mainstream press, in order to keep the public from viewing COVID-19 as an economic phenomenon, and perhaps still more to keep the public from viewing COVID-19 as capable of including transactions so seemingly improper as to justify wondering whether they are legal:

When Dr. Zachary Sussman went to Physicians Premier ER [Emergency Room] in Austin for a COVID-19 antibody test, he assumed he would get a freebie because he was a doctor for the chain.  Instead, the free-standing emergency room charged his insurance company an astonishing $10,984 for the visit — and got paid every penny, with no pushback.  [...]

He knew the materials for each antibody test only amounted to about $8, and it gets read on the spot — similar to an at-home pregnancy test.  [...]

What the above examples suggest is that vast amounts of money are trading hands, and which the mainstream press conceals from the public, and which encourages the public to view COVID-19 as an almost-purely-medical phenomenon, and not as also (or only) an economic one, and certainly not as also (or only) a robbery.

If the NYT Coronavirus Briefing above were not deceptive, it would report not only "New Cases" but the amount of money that doctors and hospitals had raked in for reporting those "New Cases" and the same goes for "Deaths" and for "Hospitalized".

The boxed snippets below do not touch on COVID-19 directly, but serve to delineate the characteristics of medical workers generally, and which characteristics are taken to be similar whether they're working on COVID-19 or some other malady.

The first example illustrates how medical crimes need not be committed by solitary medical criminals, but may involve a mob of hundreds:

More Than 100 Medical Professionals Charged in Telemedicine Fraud

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is charging 345 individuals — including more than 100 physicians, nurses, and other licensed medical professionals — with submitting more than $6 billion in false and fraudulent claims to federal health programs and private insurers.

The lion's share of the fraudulent claims — $4.5 billion from 86 defendants — was for telemedicine services.  Almost $900 million was for substance use disorder treatment in so-called sober homes.

Another $800 million in false claims was connected to illegal opioid distribution and other types of healthcare fraud  [...].

The sums of money illicitly trading hands above were so large, and the possible medical benefit might have been so negligible, or even harmful, that one might judge that the activity approached 0% medical and 100% criminal.

And just as the three historical precedents discussed above taught us to beware Big Pharma offering dangerous treatments for non-existent diseases, what we see below is individual doctors exactly following suit — conjuring up imaginary diseases, treating them with harmful concoctions, and pocketing vast profits:

Doc Guilty in 'Heinous' $325M Fraud Case Involving False Diagnoses

A rheumatologist from Mission, Texas, has been found guilty for his role in a $325 million healthcare fraud scheme in which he falsely diagnosed patients as having rheumatoid arthritis and then treated them with toxic medications.

Many patients, including those as young as 13 years, suffered physical and emotional harm as a result of the false diagnoses, chemotherapy injections, long sessions of intravenous infusions, and other "excessive, repetitive and profit-driven medical procedures," the DOJ said.

Physician Who Gave Unneeded Chemo Gets 45 Years in Prison

Farid Fata, MD, the oncologist who got rich administering excessive or unnecessary chemotherapy to hundreds of patients, including some who did not have cancer, was sentenced to 45 years in prison today by a federal judge in Detroit, Michigan.

Former patient Maggie Dorsey testified that Dr Fata deliberately misdiagnosed her with a type of blood cancer called multiple myeloma and treated her with the chemotherapy agent bortezomib.  She tearfully described living with the adverse effects, which include severe osteoporosis and neuropathy.

"I have days where I cannot stand," the Detroit Free Press quoted Dorsey as saying.  "Most nights, the pain is too great to allow me to sleep."

Still another patient said all his teeth but one fell out after Dr Fata administered zoledronic acid for multiple myeloma he never had.

The most outrageous of Dr Fata's offenses was telling healthy patients they had multiple myeloma and other cancers.  In addition to enduring needless chemotherapy, they suffered mental anguish at the thought of dying.

Family members suffered, too.

"From the beginning of his horrible diagnosis, which was presented to us as terminal, I begin to feel a sense of hopelessness," the husband of one such patient said in a victim impact statement.  "I'm going to lose my soul mate."

The US Department of Justice asked the court to sentence Dr Fata to 175 years in prison.  One of many aggravating factors it cited was the loss of faith in the medical profession his actions produced.

CEO Sentenced After Fraudulently Enrolling Patients in Hospice

Henry McInnis, CEO of the Texas-based Merida Group of hospice and home health entities, has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for telling patients with long-term, incurable illnesses that they had less than 6 months to live so that the company could enroll them in hospice.  The company collected more than $150 million in fraudulent Medicare payments, according to the US Department of Justice (DOJ).

In addition to the cruelty of telling patients they had months to live, there were medical consequences as well.  When the patients were enrolled in hospice, curative measures stopped.

Eye Surgeon Found Guilty of Bogus Diagnoses and Surgeries

A federal jury in Jacksonville, Florida, convicted Dr Pon on 20 counts of healthcare fraud.  He faces a maximum of 10 years in prison for each count.

Federal prosecutors said that the 57-year-old Dr Pon lied to more than 500 Medicare patients that they had age-related wet macular degeneration and then billed the government for laser photocoagulation that was never performed.  He indeed aimed a laser at patients' eyes, but he set the energy at such a low level that nobody's leaky blood vessels were ever sealed.  The scam lasted from the mid-2000s through at least September 2011 and netted Dr Pon more than $7 million, according to the Department of Justice.

Dr. Christopher Duntsch deserves particular attention for being the first physician in American history to receive a life sentence for his medical malpractice.  When you read some of the things he did, you will not think his punishment was harsh.

A Surgeon So Bad It Was Criminal

Christopher Duntsch’s surgical outcomes were so outlandishly poor that Texas prosecuted him for harming patients.  Why did it take so long for the systems that are supposed to police problem doctors to stop him from operating?

by Laura Beil,   special to ProPublica    02Oct2018

In the roughly two years that Duntsch — a blue-eyed, smooth-talking former college football player — had practiced medicine in Dallas, he had operated on 37 patients.  Almost all, 33 to be exact, had been injured during or after these procedures, suffering almost unheard-of complications.  Some had permanent nerve damage.  Several woke up from surgery unable to move from the neck down or feel one side of their bodies.  Two died in the hospital, including a 55-year-old schoolteacher undergoing what was supposed to be a straightforward day surgery.

The pain from the pinched nerve in the back of Jeff Glidewell’s neck had become unbearable.  [...]

Glidewell was the last patient Duntsch operated on before being stripped of his license to practice medicine.

According to doctors who reviewed the case, Duntsch mistook part of his neck muscle for a tumor and abandoned the operation midway through — after cutting into Glidewell’s vocal cords, puncturing an artery, slicing a hole in his esophagus, stuffing a sponge into the wound and then sewing Glidewell up, sponge and all.

Glidewell spent four days in intensive care and endured months of rehabilitation for the wound to his esophagus.  To this day, he can only eat food in small bites and has nerve damage.  “He still has numbness in his hand and in his arm,” said his wife, Robin.  “He basically can’t really feel things when he’s holding them in his fingers.”

Nonetheless, Duntsch still had privileges at Baylor-Plano, and on Dec. 30, 2011, he operated on a man named Lee Passmore.  [...]

Vascular surgeon Mark Hoyle assisted with the operation.  In later testimony, he said he watched in alarm as Duntsch began to cut out a ligament around the spinal cord not typically disturbed in such procedures.  Passmore started bleeding profusely, so much so that the operating field was submerged in a lake of red.  Duntsch not only misplaced hardware in Passmore’s spine, but he stripped the screw so it could not be moved, Hoyle testified.  At one point, Hoyle said, he either grabbed Duntsch’s scalpel or blocked the incision — he could not remember which — to keep Duntsch from continuing the procedure.  Then Hoyle said he left the operating room and vowed never to work with Duntsch again.

The next patient Duntsch operated on was Barry Morguloff.  [...]

His surgery, an anterior lumbar spinal fusion, took place on Jan. 11, 2012.  At the request of a head-and-neck surgeon also on the case, the vascular surgeon assisting Duntsch was Kirby.  Kirby said it should have been a routine case.

“In the spectrum of what a neurosurgeon does for a living, doing an anterior lumbar fusion procedure’s probably the easiest thing that they do on a daily basis,” he said.

But Duntsch quickly got into trouble.  Instead of using a scalpel, he tried to pull Morguloff’s problem disk out with a grabbing instrument that could damage the spine.  Kirby said he argued with Duntsch, even offering to take over, but Duntsch insisted he knew what he was doing.  Kirby left the room.

Morguloff awoke in excruciating pain.

His previous surgeon testified at Duntsch’s trial that the procedure had left bone fragments in Morguloff’s spinal canal.  The surgeon said he repaired what damage he could, but Morguloff still walks with a cane.  As scar tissue builds up, his pain will worsen and his range of motion will decrease.  One day, he will likely be in a wheelchair.

Soon after the Morguloff surgery, Duntsch took on a patient who was also an old friend.

Jerry Summers had played football with Duntsch in high school and helped with logistics at the research lab during his residency.  When Duntsch took the job in Dallas, he asked Summers to move in with him and help set up his practice.  They lived in a downtown luxury high-rise while Duntsch shopped for a house.  [...]

According to doctors who later reviewed the case, Duntsch had damaged Summers’ vertebral artery, causing it to bleed almost uncontrollably.  To stop the bleeding, Duntsch packed the space with so much anticoagulant that it squeezed Summers’ spine.

For days after the operation, Summers lay in the ICU, descending into a deep depression.  “Jerry was calm with Chris,” said Jennifer Miller, then Summers’ girlfriend, “but all Jerry would say to me is: ‘I want to die.  Kill me.  Kill me.  I want to die.’”  [...]

In February, I visited Summers, Duntsch’s old football buddy-turned-patient, in his small apartment in downtown Memphis.

He remains in much the same condition as he awoke in after Duntsch operated on him, unable to move from the neck down.  He requires 24-hour caregivers and sat, tipped back, in his power wheelchair, as I talked to him about Duntsch.

Summers seemed resigned to his injuries, to his friend’s role in them and to the systemic weaknesses that allow problem doctors to keep practicing.  He said he tries not to think about Dallas anymore.

I asked him why he’d trusted Duntsch to be his doctor.  He couldn’t say.  He looked out the window.

He knew his friend could barely drive a car without getting lost, he said.  He just assumed he had been better trained for neurosurgery.

His first patient after his return was elementary school teacher Kellie Martin, who had a compressed nerve from falling off a ladder as she fetched Christmas decorations from her attic.  During the surgery, records show, Martin’s blood pressure inexplicably plummeted.

As she regained consciousness after the surgery, the nurses tending to Martin testified that she began to slap and claw at her legs, which had turned a splotchy, mottled color.  She became so agitated the staff had to sedate her.  She never reawakened.  An autopsy would later find that Duntsch had cut a major vessel in her spinal cord, and within hours, Martin bled to death.

On July 24, 2012, Duntsch operated on Floella Brown, 64, a banker about to retire after a long career.  She had come to Duntsch for cervical spine surgery to ease her worsening neck and shoulder pain.

About a half hour into Brown’s surgery, Duntsch started to complain that he was having trouble seeing her spine.

“He was saying: ‘There’s so much blood I can’t see.  I can’t see this,’” said Kyle Kissinger, an operating room nurse.  He kept telling the scrub tech “’suck more, suck more.  Get that blood out of there.  I can’t see.’  That’s really concerning to me because, not only that he can’t do it correctly when he can’t see that but, why is it still bleeding?”

Brown bled so much that blood was saturating the blue draping around her body and dripping onto the floor.  The nursing staff put down towels to soak it up.

After the operation, Brown woke up and seemed fine, but early the next morning she lost consciousness.  Pressure was building inside her brain for reasons that were unclear at the time.  [...]

[...]  Duntsch turned to Kissinger and told him to let the front desk know he would be performing a procedure on Brown called a craniotomy, cutting a hole in her skull to relieve the pressure in her brain.  Problem was, Dallas Medical Center did not perform those, or even have the proper equipment to do them.

[...]  Duntsch quarreled first with Kissinger and later with his supervisors, insisting on a craniotomy for Brown, according to court testimony.  [...]

In the end, Duntsch did not perform a craniotomy on Brown.  She was moved to another hospital but never regained consciousness.  In court, her family said they withdrew life support a few days later.  A neurosurgeon hired to review her case would later determine that Duntsch had both pierced and blocked her vertebral artery with a misplaced screw.  The review also found that Duntsch misdiagnosed the source of her pain and was operating in the wrong place.

Duntsch took another patient into surgery.

The patient’s name was Mary Efurd.  She was an active 71-year-old who’d sought Duntsch’s help because back pain was keeping her off her treadmill.

Duntsch arrived at the hospital about 45 minutes after Efurd’s surgery had been set to start, Kissinger said.  He spotted a hole in Duntsch’s scrubs.  “It’s on the butt cheek of his scrubs.  He didn’t wear underwear.  That’s why it really shined down to me,” Kissinger said.  The nurse realized he’d seen that hole for three straight days — Duntsch apparently hadn’t changed his scrubs all week.  Kissinger also noticed that Duntsch had pinpoint pupils and hardly seemed to blink. [...]

As he operated on Efurd [...] the operating room staff questioned whether Duntsch was putting hardware into Efurd in the right places and noticed he kept drilling and removing screws.  [...]

The day after her surgery, Efurd awoke in agony.  She couldn’t turn over or wiggle her toes.  Hospital administrators called Dr. Robert Henderson, a Dallas spine surgeon, to try to repair the damage.

Shortly after he arrived at the hospital, Henderson pulled up Efurd’s post-operative X-rays.  When he saw them, he said, “I’m really thinking that some kind of travesty occurred.”  That impression only grew when Henderson reopened Efurd’s freshly made incisions the next day.  “It was as if he knew everything to do,” Henderson said of Duntsch, “and then he’d done virtually everything wrong.”

There were three holes poked into Efurd’s spinal column where Duntsch had tried and failed to insert screws.  One screw was jabbed directly into her spinal canal.  That same screw had also skewered the nerves that control one leg and the bladder.  Henderson cleaned out bone fragments.  Then he discovered that one of Efurd’s nerve roots — the bundle of nerves coming out of the spine — was completely gone.  For some inexplicable reason, Duntsch had amputated it.

The operation was so botched, Henderson recalled thinking Duntsch had to be an impostor passing himself off as a surgeon.  Even after Henderson’s repairs, Efurd never regained her mobility and now uses a wheelchair.  (In an email, Efurd said that discussing what happened to her again would take a toll on her health.)

Then, in December 2012, Kirby was asked to help Jacqueline Troy, a patient suffering from a severe infection.  [...]  Troy was being transferred to a Dallas hospital from a surgery center in the suburb of Frisco.  She’d had neck surgery, but the surgeon had cut her vocal cords and one of her arteries.  When Kirby learned the details, he asked the doctor who referred the case to him about the surgeon: “Is it a guy named Christopher Duntsch?”

It was.

The question now is, "So what?"  Individual instance of wrongdoing do not tell us much about the state of the entire profession.  Above were cited five erring doctors, plus around 100 "medical professionals" in the Telemedicine Fraud case, so let's guess that 95 of that 100 were doctors, giving us the easy-to-work-with figure of 5+95 = 100 erring doctors that have been pointed to above.

And so what?  Given that there are approximately one million practicing doctors in the US, what our 100 delinquent doctors have indicated is that one doctor out of ten thousand is erring, which is most unfortunate, but hardly justification for distrusting doctors collectively, as each malpracticing doctor is balanced by 9,999 others who have not been implicated in major malpractice.

However, there are three considerations painting a darker picture.

First, the 100 erring doctors noted above were discovered during a glance at the Internet.  A thorough search would have turned up a vastly larger number.

Number Surgeons Botching
20 7 3 1
20%-39% 40%-59% 60%-79% 80%-99%
Percent Surgeries Botched

Second, it would appear that only outliers are being prosecuted.  To consider imaginary data surrounding the Duntsch case, as Duntsch botched 33/37 surgeries, which is approximately 89% botched, he falls into the 80%-99% category in the frequency distribution opposite, and we imagine that he finds himself the sole occupant of that interval, as no other surgeon scoring that high has come to our attention.

What is to be expected as we move leftward toward less extreme botching categories is a growing number of occupants in each category: something like 3 surgeons botching in the 60%-79% category, 7 surgeons botching in the 40%-59% category, and 20 surgeons in the 20%-39% category.

Even though the performance of all 31 surgeons appearing in the table may be considered to be intolerable and in need of vigorous remedy, the profession would balk at taking such action because of the loss of trust in medical care that would result from the disclosure of such a large volume of malpractice.

Because this graph typifies what is almost certainly the case in all professions, resulting from the petering-out of the right-hand tail of the frequency distribution, it may be supposed that the ratio of (malpracticing outliers being outed, as for example Duntsch) to (malpracticing physicians less extreme and going unnoticed, like the 30 other erring doctors in the table) could be anything if the whole nation was searched, as for example could be the ratio of 1 to 30 displayed in the table, or could be much large ratios, as of 1 to 100, or of 1 to a 1000.

In short, the problem of malpractice may be much greater than the occasional prosecution of only the most extreme outlier may suggest.

And a third reason for wondering if the malpractice problem is greater than is commonly recognized is the demonstration of inaction on the part of professional bodies, even when the malpractice has been as dependably gut-wrenching and prolonged as has been described in the above examples.

But where the crimes are thefts, they stick out in statistical compilations so that it is possible to jump on a doctor not after he has stolen his hundredth million, but after his first.  But no, that's snail-pace reform.  He should have been tagged for close scrutiny while stealing his first thousand, and should lose his license for stealing his second thousand.

And it is possible to jump on a doctor after he kills his first patient, and not after he has killed his tenth or hundredth.  But again, that's too lenient.  Irregularities signalling incompetence should have been noticed and responded to long before that first patient was killed.

Duntsch should have been stopped not after he had mutilated his 33rd patient, but after he had mutilated his first.  But no again, that is too lenient — he should have never been allowed near his first patient, he should have never been licenced to practice, he should have never made it through med school.  His level of incompetence was so extreme that one may reasonably wonder whether he obtained both diploma and licence illicitly.  The question of why he wasn't stopped earlier needs to be extended backward in time to how he ever got into med school in the first place?  The evil began that far back, and scrutiny of those in whose hands we place our lives should extend that far back.  The safety of the public depends on stopping machinations that took place in the long ago before the machinator acquired the power to harm.

And the relevance of the above discussion of medical malpractice generally to COVID-19 is that if medical practioners can be as incompetent and money-grubbing as we have just now seen them being, then we should recognize that the doctors explaining to us what the COVID-19 research shows and advising us what measures we should take, may be as incompetent and untrustworthy in the field of COVID-19 as Duntsch was in performing surgery.