“it’s available through the CDC site, and more detailed study reports are databased in PubMed. The methodology is also available through those agencies. Nothing is deliberately hidden about methodologies or disease rates; the CDC wants that information to be available because very few researchers or medical professionals actually work for the CDC, but they need that information.”
In fact, it is NOT available. To anyone. By any means. The 36000 number was NOT made available via ANY information in anything databased in pubmed. You can get the number, 36000. Nothing more. No background information. No raw data, no epidemiological methodology information. Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
People who HAVE asked are told ‘national security’ prohibits their getting ahold of this information.
That number, 36000, was pulled out with the rest of her toe jam.
In short, the criteria used for ‘flu death’ is a matter of ‘national security’ and no one is able to discern exactly what the criteria was. So you just have to trust them. In spite of the fact that the head of the CDC when that ‘study’ was done is now the head of Mercks vaccine division.
Um. yeah.
In fact, it is NOT available. To anyone. By any means. The 36000 number was NOT made available via ANY information in anything databased in pubmed. You can get the number, 36000. Nothing more. No background information. No raw data, no epidemiological methodology information. Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
People who HAVE asked are told ‘national security’ prohibits their getting ahold of this information.
That number, 36000, was pulled out with the rest of her toe jam.
In short, the criteria used for ‘flu death’ is a matter of ‘national security’ and no one is able to discern exactly what the criteria was. So you just have to trust them. In spite of the fact that the head of the CDC when that ‘study’ was done is now the head of Mercks vaccine division.
Um. yeah.
Oy.
The methodology of disease reporting to the CDC can be found in the links posted on this page. I don't know what more you want--access to every single phone/email/internet report of flu cases? And just because the database containing those individual reports isn't generally available to the public, but only to researchers, means that some "national security" issues are involved? What, exactly, is the "national security" interest in misrepresenting the number of deaths from infectious disease? I'm really curious to know that.
While you seem completely accepting of the reported number of WNV cases, you're extremely suspicious of the reported number of flu cases--even though the cases are reported through the exact same surveillance network to the exact same people using the exact same methodology. What logical, verifiable reason can you provide for that discrepancy?
Also, I'm not concerned about the fact that a former CDC employee went on to work for Merck. At my level of education, people do tend to move to better opportunities, if that's what they want out of their career. As long as he did not violate any ethics laws (which are taught to all federal employees at least annually), I don't see a problem with him moving from federal to private employment. I also do not know what "study" you were referring to in that paragraph. With thousands of studies underway at any given time, you can't just refer to a "study" and expect anyone to know what you're talking about without providing more information (like subject of study, links to the published report, links to the filed protocol, etc.).