Fact or Fiction

Honestly, we are nothing but a nation of copy-cats. Someone who we deem credible puts forth a statement and it becomes cast in stone. Other media without question pass it along and we take in hook line and sinker. Some people question everything while some take everything as a grain of salt.

When it come to stories which cause panic among the populations, watchful consideration should be given not to upset the applecart. Lately we see what comes as a result of human panic.

Linda wrote a comment which made a lot of sense, reminding us that this is the flu, and that is all it is. Some media are today saying that it looks like it is a fizzle. Who knows? Relax.

Here is some interesting information that is being passed around that kind of corrects our thinking about the numbers that have been given us through the media. (This is in an effort to keep things fair and balanced, so you can decide what is fact and what is fiction). The following is taken from NaturalNews.com and the link has been provided for the entire read.

"Infectious disease double standard I find it interesting that when talking about swine flu, the criteria for inclusion in statistics is positive identification in a rigorous laboratory. But when talking about regular flu, the criteria for inclusion is -- technically speaking -- anybody's wild guess.The 36,000 number, it turns out, was pulled out of thin air. It has no scientific validity whatsoever, even according to the CDC's own standards. I tracked down the origins of this number on CDC.gov, by the way. Turns out it was an estimate derived by the CDC in 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r030107.htm).It's an estimate, mind you, not a "confirmed" number of deaths. And that estimate has stayed exactly the same through 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Not a budge. Before the number was 36,000, it was 20,000 for many years. That tells you right off the bat this isn't some confirmed laboratory number -- it's a guesstimate!I'm not disagreeing with the number. It's probably a fairly accurate guess (the CDC folks are a smart bunch). But it doesn't meet the criteria by which these infectious disease organizations report influenza deaths.As the CDC even says on their own website, "This estimate came from a 2003 study published in the Journal of the American Medication Association (JAMA), which looked at the 1990-91 through the 1998-99 flu seasons [10]. Statistical modeling was used to estimate how many flu-related deaths occurred among people whose underlying cause of death on their death certificate was listed as a respiratory or circulatory disease. During these years, the number of estimated deaths ranged from 17,000 to 52,000."In other words, they took a look at how many people died from respiratory or circulatory disease, and from that they extrapolated "flu-related deaths."
Go here to read the rest of the above, a counter opinion, which leaves us to question statistics being thrown in our direction on a daily basis.

Now do you see what I mean? Let's not make media our God. We need to look to Him and that is where we should place our trust.