posted 03-22-2002 04:14 PM            

INFLUENZA SUMMARY UPDATE
Week ending March 16, 2002-Week 11
The following information may be quoted:

Synopsis: During week 11 (March 10-16, 2002)*, 276 (19.8%) of 1,395 respiratory specimens tested by World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) laboratories were positive for influenza. The overall proportion of patient visits to sentinel physicians for influenza-like illness (ILI) was 2.0%, which is above the national baseline of 1.9%. The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza was 9.3%, which is above the epidemic threshold of 8.2% for week 11. Five state and territorial health departments reported widespread influenza activity, 26 reported regional activity, 18 reported sporadic activity, and 1 reported no influenza activity **.

U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory And Enteric Virus Surveillance System(NREVSS) Collaborating Laboratory Reports *: During week 11, WHO and NREVSS laboratories reported 1,395 specimens tested for influenza viruses, of which 276 (19.8%) were positive. Forty-five influenza A(H3N2) viruses, 1 influenza A(H1N1) virus, 192 unsubtyped influenza A viruses, and 38 influenza B viruses were identified. During the past 3 weeks (weeks 9-11), 34% of the specimens tested for influenza in the East North Central region were positive. In the East South Central, New England, West North Central, and South Atlantic regions the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza ranged from 24% to 32% and in the Mountain, West South Central, and Mid-Atlantic regions the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza ranged from 16% to 18%. In the Pacific region 7% of specimens tested were positive for influenza.

Since September 30, WHO and NREVSS laboratories have tested a total of 69,323 specimens for influenza viruses and 11,041 (15.9%) were positive. Of the 11,041 isolates identified, 10,741 (97%) were influenza A viruses and 300 (3%) were influenza B viruses. Three thousand eighty-four (29%) of the 10,741 influenza A viruses identified have been subtyped; 3,045 (99%) were H3 viruses and 39 (1%) were H1 viruses. Thirty-eight percent of the influenza B isolates reported this season were identified in the Mid-Atlantic region.

View WHO-NREVSS Regional Bar Charts | View Chart Data

Antigenic Characterization of Viral Isolates: CDC has antigenically characterized 328 influenza viruses collected from U.S. laboratories since October 1: 276 influenza A(H3N2) viruses, 5 influenza A H1 viruses, and 47 influenza B viruses. The influenza A (H3N2) and A H1 viruses were similar to the vaccine strains A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2) and A/New Caledonia/ 20/99 (H1N1), respectively. One of the H1 viruses is an H1N2 virus from a patient specimen collected in Wisconsin in December. Two additional H1N2 viruses have been identified from patient specimens collected during July and September in Texas and Nevada, respectively.

Click here for more information about influenza A(H1N2) viruses

Influenza B viruses currently circulating worldwide can be divided into 2 antigenically distinct lineages, B/Yamagata/16/88 and B/Victoria/2/87. Viruses of the B/Yamagata lineage have circulated widely since 1990. The B component of the current influenza vaccine belongs to the B/Yamagata lineage. Viruses of the B/Victoria lineage had not been identified outside of Asia between 1991 and March 2001. Since March 2001, B/Victoria lineage viruses have been identified in Canada, China, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Oman, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin). CDC has antigenically characterized 47 influenza B viruses received from U.S. laboratories and collected since October 1; 34 belonged to the B/Yamagata lineage and 13 belonged to the B/Victoria lineage. Of the 34 B/Yamagata lineage viruses, 12 were similar to the vaccine strain, B/Sichuan/379/99, and 22 showed somewhat reduced titers to ferret antisera produced against B/Sichuan/379/99. The B component of the current influenza vaccine is expected to provide lower levels of protection against viruses of the B/Victoria lineage.

Composition of the 2002-03 Influenza Vaccine: The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee recommended that the 2002-03 trivalent influenza vaccine for the United States contain A/New Caledonia/20/99-like (H1N1), A/Moscow/10/99-like (H3N2), and B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like viruses. The influenza B component of the 2002-03 season vaccine is a virus of the B/Victoria lineage. The A(H1N1) and A(H3N2) components are the same as those for the 2001-02 season vaccine. This recommendation was based on antigenic analyses of recently isolated influenza viruses, epidemiologic data, and postvaccination serologic studies in humans.

Pneumonia and Influenza (P&I) Mortality: During week 11, the percentage of all deaths due to pneumonia and influenza as reported by the vital statistics offices of 122 U.S. cities was 9.3%. This percentage is above the epidemic threshold of 8.2% for week 11.

View Full Screen

Influenza Morbidity Reports from U.S. Sentinel Physicians*: During week 11, 2.0% of patient visits to U.S. sentinel physicians were due to ILI. This is above the national baseline of 1.9%. On a regional level, the percentage of visits for ILI ranged from 0.7% to 4.8%.*** Due to wide variability in regional level data, it is not possible to calculate region-specific baselines and it is not appropriate to apply the national baseline to regional level data.

View Sentinel Physician Regional Bar Charts | View Chart Data

Influenza Activity as Assessed by State and Territorial Epidemiologists**: Influenza activity was reported as widespread in 5 states (Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia), and regional in 26 states (California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). Eighteen states, New York City, and Washington D.C. reported sporadic influenza activity, and Alaska reported no influenza activity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Reporting is incomplete for this week. Numbers may change as more reports are received.

** Influenza activity is defined as influenza-like illness and/or culture-confirmed influenza.

*** Surveillance Regions: New England (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island); Mid-Atlantic (New Jersey, New York City, Pennsylvania, Upstate New York); East North Central (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin); West North Central (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota); South Atlantic (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, D.C., West Virginia); East South Central (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee); West South Central (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas); Mountain (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming); Pacific (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington)

Report prepared: March 21, 2002
>>>




Top of Page

Home | NCID Home | Contact Us

CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z

Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases
National Center for Infectious Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

posted 03-22-2002 09:19 PM            

"During week 11, WHO and NREVSS laboratories reported 1,395 specimens tested for influenza viruses, of which 276 (19.8%) were positive."

And yet during this same period, DEATHS (mortality) from pneumonia and influenza have exceeded epidemic levels for the first time in two years (even the new and "improved" elevated epidemic levels for the CDC).
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/weekly.htm

Here is the relevant quote:

"Pneumonia and Influenza (P&I) Mortality: During week 11, the percentage of all deaths due to pneumonia and influenza as reported by the vital statistics offices of 122 U.S. cities was 9.3%. This percentage is above the epidemic threshold of 8.2% for week 11."

******************************************

My question: So why now, late in the normal "flu"season are more people dying than at any other time during the past two years?

posted 03-28-2002 02:18 PM            

Is it reasonable that the American public should be concerned about this largest increase in respiratory deaths in a two year period?

Shouldn't there be some, any, press coverage?

posted 03-28-2002 02:40 PM            

thanks

posted 03-28-2002 04:33 PM            

Is Alzheimer's creeping up or are you actually saying you don't remember the CDC's upward adjustment of their "epidemic" levels AFTER the disasterous 1999-2000 "flu" season?

No reams of documents to wade through for you seeker. Let me make it VERY easy and simple.

You can look at pictures.

Here are the "pre-adjusted" epidemic levels of mortality:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/WeeklyArchives1999-2000/99-00summary2.htm

Here are the "post" adjusted levels of epidemic of mortality:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/weeklyarchives2000-2001/bigpi20.htm

Is that clear enough for you seeker?

posted 03-28-2002 05:21 PM            

I think your a nut...

I said explain it for the folks...not I...

I don't see anything wrong with the CDC data, or in how they are presenting it...

I think it's time you made your point about the CDC...

BTW, you might pick up a copy of Pat Buchannan's latest book, seem's the great "cull" you've been dreaming about is happening all by itself without chemicals, and is the result of self-indulgent lifestyles and the lack of religion being practiced by the people...

your friend "pollyanna"

posted 03-28-2002 10:40 PM            

More like a total bullsh*t artist when he isn't being a yappy lapdog.

You did notice that he didn't address the worst epidemic levels of mortality from respiratory deaths in the last two years...

...he chose to belittled it with HIS Buchannan "cull" crap.

He attempted to distract, attributing such theories to me...

...and yet because he is a bullsh*t artist he cannot find a SINGLE POST of mine that discusses a "cull" theory.

He doesn't see a problem with the CDC raising "epidemic" levels.

Big surprise.

He doesn't see any problem with our skies either.

Like I said...

posted 03-29-2002 12:41 AM            

You're not very good at "seeking" are you?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/weeklyarchives2000-2001/weekly40.htm

"Prior to the 1999-2000 season, a new case definition for a pneumonia and influenza death was introduced in the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System. It was recognized that one potential effect of using this case definition was to increase P&I mortality measurement levels in comparison to previous seasons. During the summer of 2000, the P&I mortality data were analyzed to determine if the modified case definition had affected mortality estimates. On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that there was an approximately 0.8% upward shift in 1999-2000 mortality estimates. The 0.8% shift does not represent a true increase in mortality. To adjust for this upward shift in mortality estimates, the 122 cities P&I mortality baseline and epidemic threshold for the 2000-01 season have been adjusted upward as well."

Remember that folks...

No "true" increase in mortality. We'll just massage the data a little, raise the levels considered epidemic...and voila!

Now, don't you feel better.

posted 03-29-2002 12:49 AM            

sure I am...

You did notice that he didn't address the worst epidemic levels of mortality from respiratory deaths in the last two years...

death happens throat...get over it...

He attempted to distract, attributing such theories to me...

throat you have posted on the cull theory many many times...by constantly bringing up "mortality rates" you still are doing it indirectly, and I can't believe that you are running from what has driven you all these years...amazing...

He doesn't see a problem with the CDC raising "epidemic" levels.

nope I sure don't...but I'll ask you again to explain why you think it is wrong....

He doesn't see any problem with our skies either.

what are you going to do throat...shut down air traffic, and start using more semi-trucks and trains ?

that would put all that shit down here...and that would be a big problem...so leave it up there...I say...the sunsets are wonderful....

I have avoided you because your arguments are circular...either start discussing why you think things are wrong and cut the *abusive nature* of your posts, or this is our last conversation on the matter...

I addressed all your *relevant* statements...now address mine and grow up...

good evening

posted 03-29-2002 08:34 AM            

I don't see why this is so sinister, Sore Throat. The CDC didn't go out and kill these people--they simply redefined who is classified as having died of pneumonia and influenza. If there was some political agenda at work (e.g. the ever-expanding definition of who has AIDS so that more and more money can be obtained), please let us know about it. If they were simply refining their criteria for scientific reasons, it's no big deal.

posted 03-29-2002 08:14 PM            

Am I the only one who has personally experienced a significant increase in the frequency and severity of respiratory illness since 1999, which coincidentially is the same period that thousands began observing a dramatic difference in the skies above them?

Do I think this is an operation intended to "cull" the population? No, I don't. You do notice that the seeker could not provide a single quote of mine which remotely suggests such. Like I said, a TOTAL BS artist.

What I have said is that ChemTrails are a new and ongoing occurance in the skies of America...that this operation began in 1999 in a dramatic fashion, and has continued since then.

This is a black project...completely hidden by our own government from the very people who are paying for it, and are being affected by it.

Do I think that people are getting sick, and in some cases dying, from ChemTrail spraying?

You BET!

Again, this doesn't mean that I believe that this is a program directed at "culling" the population. From my point of view these lives are being treated as just so much expendable collateral damage. Tough luck.

There is absolutely no way that I would begin to underestimate the sheer incompetence of our government to carry out such an operation, especially when it is held in such secrecy, with NO discussion, NO scientific review, NO consent by those affected.

Their reasons for this program are know to them alone. Presumably they feel justified with the ultimate costs.

As far as the CDC baseline mortality data goes, I resent greatly the following statements:

"It was recognized that one potential effect of using this case definition was to increase P&I mortality measurement levels in comparison to previous seasons."

Please carefully note their use of the word "POTENTIAL" (look it up in the dictionary seeker). Even they admit that this is but one POSSIBLE explination for the increases in mortality.

"we estimate that there was an approximately 0.8% upward shift in 1999-2000 mortality estimates." We ESTIMATE (look it up seeker).
Not only that, but they refer to the 1999-2000 mortality data as "estimates".

Again, BULLSH*T.

This is supposed to be real data, people that lived, went to a hospital and died. Why are data this important referred to as "estimates"?

But then again, if you feel free to play with, to massage, to approximate, to CHANGE data...maybe they are no better than "estimates".

I will point out that if they did feel justified in an abrupt 0.8% rise in the baseline and epidemic levels of mortality from pneumonia and influenza, then there should have been a discrete abrupt upward change in these curves at the same time these reporting procedures went into effect. These elevated curves should not have been extended back into previous years' data.

And no seeker, I don't expect YOU to understand this.

This is a guy that's on the boards daily, hourly, saying the same damn thing..."Everything is OK, Everything is NORMAL".

Hopefully people have figured out that along with a multi-billion dollar black project, our governemnt would certainly cover their asses any way they could. Don't for a minute think that they wouldn't hire perverts of Truth...and that these people would be working full time...

daily....hourly.

And they might constantly claim that they are nothing more than a housewife.

posted 03-30-2002 01:16 AM            

now that's B/S, strictly interpreted *they* don't deal with it at all, *they* gather info from doctors...your a vulgarian aren't you ?

I will point out that if they did feel justified in an abrupt 0.8% rise in the baseline and epidemic levels of mortality from pneumonia and influenza, then there should have been a discrete abrupt upward change in these curves at the same time these reporting procedures went into effect. These elevated curves should not have been extended back into previous years' data.

And no seeker, I don't expect YOU to understand this.

your right, I don't understand your thoughts at all...for some reason you extrapolate data to serve your own convoluted (over lapping) liberal view of things...however, I do understand this below quite well...

from the 99'2000 summary :

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/flu/WeeklyArchives1999-2000/99-00summary2.htm

Whether the higher-than-expected percentage of P&I deaths was due to influenza activity, respiratory illness due to some other pathogen, or reporting changes in the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System is unknown. Because of changes in the reporting case definition that occurred just prior to the start of the 1999-2000 season, the current increase in P&I mortality should be interpreted with caution.

so throat they changed somethings and the data was possibly skewed, by their own admission...

what don't you understand about this statement ?

I would like to see a copy of the e-mail you sent the CDC complaining about their reporting procedures and changes in the 99' / 2000 season...

There is absolutely no way that I would begin to underestimate the sheer incompetence of our government to carry out such an operation, especially when it is held in such secrecy, with NO discussion, NO scientific review, NO consent by those affected.

possibly the dumbest statement you've ever made throat, take note of the words of yours in bold....since when can an incompetent person or government for that matter keep a secret...lol...

now the definitions you wanted me to look up...

potential = Capable of being but not yet in existence (maybe, could, possibly)

estimate = calculating approximatly (a guess)

especially the last one, is what you have been doing for 3 years old man...

thanks for the laugh throat...

3t3, maybe toxdoc could comment on why the graphs look like lie detector tape...I'd ask him but he has not spoke to me since I beat him at horse shoes at the *agency picnic* last year...

posted 03-30-2002 11:21 AM            

"possibly the dumbest statement you've ever made throat, take note of the words of yours in bold....since when can an incompetent person or government for that matter keep a secret...lol..." seeker

Unbelievably transparent disinformation act.

Are we to believe that this "seeker" actually believes that that there is NO INFORMATION that the governments withholds from the citizens of this country?

The debunker refrain that, "This couldn't actually be happening because they couldn't keep it secret" is patently absurd. One must wonder at the mentality that would stoop to such an illogical argument.

By the way seeker, while you're at your dictionary you might want to look up "your" and "you're".

Truly pathetic what's become of the education system in this country.

And if you're up to it, here's some additional light reading about your "selected" Bush administration:

"The Truth Comes Out"
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20020329/1005703.asp

posted 03-30-2002 01:47 PM            

In Saturday, September 11, 1999 edition of New Scientist, in article Operation Eradicate Kurt Kleiner stated that, In April 1999, Jim McDonough, director of Florida's drug control policy, suggested spraying the Everglades with a fungus that would kill off the marijuana but leave other plants untouched. Idea was to use the variant of Fusarium oxysporum that was engineered using viral material at the Montana State University so it would attack only the THC, the active ingredient in Marijuana.

David Struhs, secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), had expressed fears that the fungus would mutate and attack other plant species. According to The Miami Herald, some Peruvian farmers have, in 1999, accused the US of testing an anti-coca fungus that has since spread to bananas, yucca and tangerine crops.

Full article at:
http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/Magazines/operation_eradicate.shtml

Unfortunately, fungus spores have a nasty habit to remain in the terrain for a long time unchanged, waiting for moisture and wind. So, if somebody lights a joint here and there, and, because of this the THC happens to be on human skin or in the lungs or nasal/ sinus passages or in the blood, virulent Fusarium shall attack it, inject mycotoxins and regenerate until it is not done.

Just few days ago I have heard on Croatian radio news that US Military refused to spray the poppy fields in Afghanistan (with what ?) because that was not their mission, they said. Some would say that they did not do it because CIA needs the opium for the domestic market. Maybe so, but I think that this was a decision made by responsible Military professionals.

However, this is not all. Dose anybody remember Major Ed Dames insistence on plant pathogen that, will come from space and kill all plant life on Earth?

Maybe he was wrong about the source. Only.

posted 03-30-2002 01:52 PM            

oh gonna pick on spelling are ya ? here's a few of yours from above...

coincidentially , occurance, explination, governemnt....

people who live in glass houses should not throw stones....throat....

your a sick man, and when and if ever you can admitt your wrong and discuss issues honestly...give me a call...we'll do lunch...

posted 03-30-2002 07:22 PM            

I think my main problem is that I find your posts absolutely disgusting.

Your statements such as:

"what are you going to do throat...shut down air traffic, and start using more semi-trucks and trains ?

that would put all that shit down here...and that would be a big problem...so leave it up there...I say...the sunsets are wonderful...."

display an appalling ignorance and a gluttonous, ethical bankruptcy that is a fundamental cause for the downward spiral in the quality of life in this country. In fact, it would appear that as long as you can satisfy your pig consumerism you're content to let the environment we're leaving our future generations simply go to hell in a handbasket.

I hope that I have been sufficiently abusive so that you'll follow up on your promise:

"I have avoided you because your arguments are circular...either start discussing why you think things are wrong and cut the *abusive nature* of your posts, or this is our last conversation on the matter..."

By the way, there's no one here keeping score. I've been posting my concerns about ChemTrails spraying for three years. Internet sites discussing this issue have continued to expand as more and more Americans find this becoming a critical issue in their lives.

No sustained effort on your part, or those of your fellow debunkers, can stem this growing tide of outrage and revulsion.

Beware the fury of the people of this country when Truth be known.

posted 03-31-2002 12:39 AM            

....."throat you have posted on the cull theory many times....."

Not true. As usual, you and your ilk continue to deliberately misrepresent the very CONSISTENT orientations of long-time posters involved with this issue and twist their positions to suit your pathologically malicious agenda.

Seeker wrote:

....."What are you going to do throat... shut down air traffic and start using more semi-trucks and trains?

that would put all that shit down here...and that would be a big problem...so leave it up there...I say...the sunsets are wonderful....."

This delightful couplet says it ALL about you and what you're made of. Of course, you don't give 2 sh-ts what I think - and that's fine with me. But this sort of mentality would be repugnant coming from ANYBODY.

I find it curious that someone who has been so endlessly fascinated with *heterogenous chemistry* at the tropospheric boundary layer could MAKE such a disgusting comment. It is INEXCUSABLE.

Your tactics are nothing more than the same old crap from the same old worn-out bag of it.

posted 03-31-2002 05:02 AM            

Of course, you don't give 2 sh-ts what I think

If he runs into any colored eggs left over from last year, he will be... He’ll just keep going and going and going...

_____________________________

posted 04-01-2002 02:43 AM            

This delightful couplet says it ALL about you and what you're made of. Of course, you don't give 2 sh-ts what I think - and that's fine with me. But this sort of mentality would be repugnant coming from ANYBODY.

wow...happy easter to you deborah...what's the deal with all the hate and anger ? first of all you don't know me...so don't judge me...and as far as what you think...I DO read your posts...if it means anything...

you and throat seem to be preoccupied with my "shit up there" statement...think for a minute...have you ever been in a vehicle that was behind a diesel powered one ?

it stinks...travel and commerce depend on diesel powered epuip...to clarify for you, a big problem down here is a small one up there now, but getting bigger with each passing day...it irritates me that you 3 seem to think you have a patent on environmental concerns...

Like I told your pal in Indiana, you're not dealing with idiots.

listen...I don't have any friends...OK !!! and I don't recall calling anyone an idiot, a nut maybe ...I am an idependent thinker...and if you don't like it...well...that's tough...go ask the *collective* for help.....

and lastly :

display an appalling ignorance and a gluttonous, ethical bankruptcy that is a fundamental cause for the downward spiral in the quality of life in this country

throat I call it living...I like to live and have things...I like for my children to have opportunity...I completely and totally rebuke anyone who says I can only have so much...

current study of mine involves old civilizations...and in this study, on the surface does indictate that the earth not man has dictated what happens environmentally...

are the two of you trying to tell me that a hundred years of industry or 30 years of serious aerospace is dictating millions of years of planetary evolution and cycle ?

soon I believe evidence of people existing before the currently accepted norms will be evident...and show that the earth can swallow up entire civilizations in relatively short periods of time in different ways...all by itself...

naturally this would throw a wrench in the machinery of the anti-industrial green agenda...especially if the mother earth and sun is the sole cause of of glacial melting and separation, drought, flood etc...

chew on that for a while...and look at a few interesting pictures from around the web...

http://www.grahamhancock.com/intro.php