Hundreds fall ill after having swine flu jab in Ireland

Run_to_da_hills

"Swine flu vaccine has caused adverse reactions in 619 people to date, varying from seizures and anaphylactic shock to fainting and vomiting.

Two more people have died from the flu but the number of people falling ill with the virus has halved in the past week".

If this is happening in Ireland it must be widespread across the rest of the world, Why are we not hearing more reports about the adverse effects of this jab?

Why Is this thing still being still promoted yet the figures of this illness are on the decline.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/hundreds-fall-ill-after-having-swine-flu-jab-1974224.html

K-9

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Why Is this thing still being still promoted yet the figures of this illness are on the decline.

Maybe one is related to the other?

Run_to_da_hills

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe one is related to the other?

I personally don't know anyone that has got the vaccine. We had choice of giving it to my elderly mum in a nursing home but declined on a family vote.

According to this report only one in five health workers have received it, these people would probably be the most vulnerable people in society to get swine flu.

RoboClam

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe one is related to the other?

This.

Also..

If this is happening in Ireland it must be widespread across the rest of the world, Why are we not hearing more reports about the adverse effects of this jab?

Why Is this thing still being still promoted yet the figures of this illness are on the decline.

I love how you're taking this totally out of any context! You also quoted the parts of the article which make it sound worse than it is.

400,000 vaccinations. Adverse reactions in 619. So that's one person in 646 which had an adverse reaction.

Oh but wait, it gets better. Th majority of the problems were,

"flu-like illness, head-ache, dizziness and fainting, pins and needles, transient weakness of the vaccinated limb and nausea and vomiting"

It says:

"Of the 619 people who showed side effects to the vaccine, 52 had an allergic reaction and three of these went into anaphylactic shock."

One person every 7692 had an allergic reaction (My guess was it was caused by an allergy to eggs or something). One person in every 133333 went into anaphylactic shock.

Six people had seizures, two people reported facial palsy and the IMB was made aware of the death of one patient 10 days after vaccination but says the patient had an underlying condition and there was no evidence of a link between the vaccine and the patient's death.

With events like this, you have to understand that correlation is not causation. These events most likely happened days after the vaccination and were not linked (How many people a day in Ireland have seizures?)

It's unfortunate that these people had to suffer in any way, but the vaccine is really not the problem. You said yourself that spread is decreasing and look, 20 people died from swine flu. I'm sure that thousands of other people with the flu report "flu-like illness, head-ache, dizziness and fainting, nausea and vomiting".

Not being reported in other countries? Have a gander at this article about the swine flu in America. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3029

aurelius79

RoboClam wrote: »

It's unfortunate that these people had to suffer in any way, but the vaccine is really not the problem. You said yourself that spread is decreasing and look, 20 people died from swine flu. I'm sure that thousands of other people with the flu report "flu-like illness, head-ache, dizziness and fainting, nausea and vomiting".

Not being reported in other countries? Have a gander at this article about the swine flu in America. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3029

Wow, sciencebasedmedicine.com eh? You do realize that all those people are family doctors and pediatricians right? You do know they get paid by pharmaceutical companies to push their drugs right? Conflict of interest anyone?

It's like this, "swine" flu is no more dangerous than any other strain of flu that we see every year. The vast majority of people infected are sick for a few days then their bodies produce the antibodies to kill the flu virus, after which they are naturally immune to the virus. Yes, there are deaths reported from "swine" flu just as there are with any other strain of flu. Those deaths are usually people with immune system disorders, the elderly, people with other medical complications, and unfortunately young children.

The vaccine is completely unnecessary. It's only being promoted so Big Pharm can make more money. I personally think it's absolutely disgusting that these vaccines are being pushed out without even being fully tested to determine their lethality and long-term effects. If you are thinking of taking this vaccine, just remember it's being produced by the same company behind the controversial Gardasil vaccine, Merck & Co.

aurelius79

aurelius79 wrote: »

Wow, sciencebasedmedicine.com eh? You do realize that all those people are family doctors and pediatricians right? You do know they get paid by pharmaceutical companies to push their drugs right? Conflict of interest anyone?

No they don't.

Brian

aurelius79 wrote: »

I personally think it's absolutely disgusting that these vaccines are being pushed out without even being fully tested to determine their lethality and long-term effects.

Let me give you some perspective. People who have contracted Swine flu have died, which is a pretty strong case for its lethality. Pretty sure death has long-term effects too.

aurelius79

Baza210 wrote: »

Let me give you some perspective. People who have contracted Swine flu have died, which is a pretty strong case for its lethality. Pretty sure death has long-term effects too.

People who have contracted any strain of flu have died. This is nothing new. Why then have there not been vaccines to protect us against flu for years? Because the risk does not warrant mass vaccination.

RoboClam

aurelius79 wrote: »

Why then have there not been vaccines to protect us against flu for years? Because the risk does not warrant mass vaccination.

Right, well this is wrong. Every year there is a seasonal flu vaccine.

aurelius79

aurelius79 wrote: »

People who have contracted any strain of flu have died. This is nothing new. Why then have there not been vaccines to protect us against flu for years? Because the risk does not warrant mass vaccination.

There are vaccines for the seasonal flu.
Lots of people get them.

indough

aurelius79 wrote: »

People who have contracted any strain of flu have died. This is nothing new. Why then have there not been vaccines to protect us against flu for years? Because the risk does not warrant mass vaccination.

must have imagined the old seasonal flu vaccinations then...

indough

aurelius79 wrote: »

You do know they get paid by pharmaceutical companies to push their drugs right?

no, and neither do you

okay, well giving you the benefit of the doubt then, if you 'know' this to be a fact, that requires evidence of such, so let's see it if you dont mind

RoboClam

aurelius79 wrote: »

Wow, sciencebasedmedicine.com eh? You do realize that all those people are family doctors and pediatricians right? You do know they get paid by pharmaceutical companies to push their drugs right? Conflict of interest anyone?

It's like this, "swine" flu is no more dangerous than any other strain of flu that we see every year. The vast majority of people infected are sick for a few days then their bodies produce the antibodies to kill the flu virus, after which they are naturally immune to the virus. Yes, there are deaths reported from "swine" flu just as there are with any other strain of flu. Those deaths are usually people with immune system disorders, the elderly, people with other medical complications, and unfortunately young children.

The vaccine is completely unnecessary. It's only being promoted so Big Pharm can make more money. I personally think it's absolutely disgusting that these vaccines are being pushed out without even being fully tested to determine their lethality and long-term effects. If you are thinking of taking this vaccine, just remember it's being produced by the same company behind the controversial Gardasil vaccine, Merck & Co.

I just linked the article because it was claimed that there were not reports similar to what was posted in the OP. The article I linked references findings from the CDC, but you probably don't think they're accurate either.

You say the vast majority of people don't die from this flu, sure I'll give you that. But people DO die. This is why we vaccinate.

aurelius79

RoboClam wrote: »

Right, well this is wrong. Every year there is a seasonal flu vaccine.

Those vaccinations are relatively new and not many people actually get them. I don't know anyone who has ever had a seasonal flu vaccination and two of my aunts are in the medical profession. One's a nurse and one's an anesthesiologist. Neither have ever taken a flu vaccine and they never will. Seasonal flu vaccinations are completely unnecessary.

aurelius79

RoboClam wrote: »

I just linked the article because it was claimed that there were not reports similar to what was posted in the OP. The article I linked references findings from the CDC, but you probably don't think they're accurate either.

You say the vast majority of people don't die from this flu, sure I'll give you that. But people DO die. This is why we vaccinate.

No, I don't believe the CDC or the FDA. Google "CDC controversy" and let me know what you find.

macshadow

Do any of you know someone who has had swine flu?
I have not met even one person that has had it, and we all need to be vaccinated, yeah right:rolleyes:

indough

aurelius79 wrote: »

Those vaccinations are relatively new and not many people actually get them. I don't know anyone who has ever had a seasonal flu vaccination and two of my aunts are in the medical profession. One's a nurse and one's an anesthesiologist. Neither have ever taken a flu vaccine and they never will. Seasonal flu vaccinations are completely unnecessary.

load of rubbish to be honest, my mother has been advised the last few years to take it due to underlying illness, she also works as a home help to the elderly and they all seem to be getting it as well

indough

macshadow wrote: »

Do any of you know someone who has had swine flu?
I have not met even one person that has had it, and we all need to be vaccinated, yeah right:rolleyes:

my nephew and his entire immediate family have had it

RoboClam

macshadow wrote: »

Do any of you know someone who has had swine flu?
I have not met even one person that has had it, and we all need to be vaccinated, yeah right:rolleyes:

[anecdote]Every single person I've ever met has had the swine flue.[/anecdote]

See, anecdotal evidence counts for nothing. I can say whatever I want even if it's not true!

indough

you could equally say 'ive never known anyone die of cancer, therefore i dont believe cancer is a significant problem and treatment/prevention of it must be a waste of time and a money making tactic for big pharma'

Diogenes

aurelius79 wrote: »

Those vaccinations are relatively new and not many people actually get them.

Hang on. You originally said;

Why then have there not been vaccines to protect us against flu for years?

Shift the goalposts much.

Millions of people get the flu vaccine every year.

I don't know anyone who has ever had a seasonal flu vaccination and two of my aunts are in the medical profession. One's a nurse and one's an anesthesiologist. Neither have ever taken a flu vaccine and they never will. Seasonal flu vaccinations are completely unnecessary.

Thats anecdotal, for example everyone in my friend's department in her hospital took the vaccine. But they're in oncology. Dealing with people with cancer and weakened immune systems.

aurelius79

RoboClam wrote: »

[anecdote]Every single person I've ever met has had the swine flue.[/anecdote]

See, anecdotal evidence counts for nothing. I can say whatever I want even if it's not true!

Ok, let's look at the facts. Of the nearly 5,000 reported cases of swine flu in 30 countries, over half of them were in the U.S., where the vaccine is most widely used. Strange eh? Of the 2,618 reported cases in the U.S., three people have died.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/27/us/20090427-flu-update-graphic.html

indough

perhaps its more used there because more people have been contracting it there

RoboClam

aurelius79 wrote: »

Ok, let's look at the facts. Of the nearly 5,000 reported cases of swine flu in 30 countries, over half of them were in the U.S., where the vaccine is most widely used. Strange eh? Of the 2,618 reported cases in the U.S., three people have died.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/27/us/20090427-flu-update-graphic.html

Really? Well that link seems current and hot off the presses. Actually wait, that was written on the 11th of May.

aurelius79

Diogenes wrote: »

Millions of people get the flu vaccine every year.

If the CDC are to be believed, about 20% of people aged between 18 and 49 took the shot from 1999-2001. The vast majority of people taking it were over 65.

http://www.cdc.gov/ASTHMA/flushot.htm

This widespread annual flu vaccination program did not start until the 1990s. So what did we do before that? Well, we got the flu and stayed home for a few days.

Diogenes

aurelius79 wrote: »

Ok, let's look at the facts. Of the nearly 5,000 reported cases of swine flu in 30 countries, over half of them were in the U.S., where the vaccine is most widely used. Strange eh? Of the 2,618 reported cases in the U.S., three people have died.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/27/us/20090427-flu-update-graphic.html

Perhaps you'd care to get some statistics that aren't months out of date? Those figures are from April, no where near when flu season started.

As of last week there were 20,000 cases of swine diagnosised, in the The UK in December alone.

Just to repeat, 20,000 cases in the UK in December.

:rolleyes:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/04April/pages/swineflulatest.aspx

RoboClam

I thought you might like some updated figures.

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_11_27a/en/index.html

"207 countries and overseas territories or communities have reported laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, including over 7820 deaths."

CamperMan

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"Swine flu vaccine has caused adverse reactions in 619 people to date, varying from seizures and anaphylactic shock to fainting and vomiting.

Two more people have died from the flu but the number of people falling ill with the virus has halved in the past week".

If this is happening in Ireland it must be widespread across the rest of the world, Why are we not hearing more reports about the adverse effects of this jab?

Why Is this thing still being still promoted yet the figures of this illness are on the decline.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/hundreds-fall-ill-after-having-swine-flu-jab-1974224.html

those fuc*kers Glaxo are behind the swine flu jab and look what they did with Seroxat / Paxil... supposed to cure depression... loads of people topped themselves after taking it... it's all down to greed, Glaxo do not care what happens to people, so long as they make their billions :mad:

You know what, I don't think the "swine flu" existed, I think the drugs companies manufactured the idea so they could sell the vaccine and make a fortune

Diogenes

aurelius79 wrote: »

If the CDC are to be believed, about 20% of people aged between 18 and 49 took the shot from 1999-2001. The vast majority of people taking it were over 65.

http://www.cdc.gov/ASTHMA/flushot.htm

This widespread annual flu vaccination program did not start until the 1990s. So what did we do before that? Well, we got the flu and stayed home for a few days.

The Flu vaccine has been in use sine the second world war

aurelius79

RoboClam wrote: »

Really? Well that link seems current and hot off the presses. Actually wait, that was written on the 11th of May.

Oh sorry, here's a more recent article..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml

By the way, regardless of when the figures were taken, the fact still remains that only 3 people out of 2,618 reported cases in the U.S. died.

Diogenes

aurelius79 wrote: »

If the CDC are to be believed, about 20% of people aged between 18 and 49 took the shot from 1999-2001. The vast majority of people taking it were over 65.

http://www.cdc.gov/ASTHMA/flushot.htm

This widespread annual flu vaccination program did not start until the 1990s. So what did we do before that? Well, we got the flu and stayed home for a few days.

Sigh.... Look the reason the vast majority of young people don't take the vaccine is because if you're young and healthy the worst thing the flu will do is put you to bed for a few days.

If you're old, sick, have an underlying health problem (like say asthma) or pregnant then they advise getting the vaccine. Because they're vulnerable, and getting the flu could be serious for them.

I honestly don't understand what your point is...

indough

20% is not exactly a small amount either, i expected it to be a bit lower than that

aurelius79

aurelius79 wrote: »

Oh sorry, here's a more recent article..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml

By the way, regardless of when the figures were taken, the fact still remains that only 3 people out of 2,618 reported cases in the U.S. died.

You're saying that an out of date report is still valid?

The actual number is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table
Confirmed Cases
103,132

Hospitalisations
22,565

Deaths
2,765

Firewalkwithme

I believe that the people here who scaremonger about the swine flu vaccine are being highly irresponsible. For the most part, you seem to rely on anecdotal evidence, half truths and rumour to spread fear about this vaccine. I see no evidence that you are qualified to speak so authoritatively as you do on this matter.

Have you ever considered that by spreading rumours such as these, you could influence someones decision to not take the vaccine, perhaps someone who is in a risk category such as an asthma sufferer, a preganant woman or an elderly person and that person could die as a result of not having taken the vaccine?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We had choice of giving it to my elderly mum in a nursing home but declined on a family vote.

No doubt that vote was heavily influenced by your own fears about the vaccine. I hope that for your sake and for your Mothers sake she doesn't contract the virus and die as a result because you would always have to live with the guilt that your paranoia was one of the primary causes of her death.

This is not some silly game people - real lives are being lost here and some of you need to wake up and start to realize that.

aurelius79

King Mob wrote: »

You're saying that an out of date report is still valid?

The actual number is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2009_US_swine_flu_outbreak_table
Confirmed Cases
103,132

Hospitalisations
22,565

Deaths
2,765

Well in late July, the CDC advised states to stop testing for H1N1, so how exactly are the numbers in this wiki page correct? The CDC discontinued reporting of individual confirmed and probable cases of novel H1N1 infection on July 24, 2009.
These numbers mean absolutely nothing.

aurelius79

aurelius79 wrote: »

Well in late July, the CDC advised states to stop testing for H1N1, so how exactly are the numbers in this wiki page correct? The CDC discontinued reporting of individual confirmed and probable cases of novel H1N1 infection on July 24, 2009.
These numbers mean absolutely nothing.

As opposed to the completely out of date figures and anecdotes you posted?
These are up to date estimates from officials.

Fantastic double standards you have.

**Timbuk2**

I received the swine flu jab last week.

I was fine. My arm was a little stiff, but other than that I was perfectly ok!

aurelius79

King Mob wrote: »

As opposed to the completely out of date figures and anecdotes you posted?
These are up to date estimates from officials.

Fantastic double standards you have.

"While we waited for CDC to provide the data, which it eventually did, we asked all 50 states for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml

aurelius79

aurelius79 wrote: »

"While we waited for CDC to provide the data, which it eventually did, we asked all 50 states for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml

So your 6 month old figure is more accurate because.......?

But since you're insisting on confirmed cases, can you provide any cases at all of the vaccine being harmful?

aurelius79

King Mob wrote: »

So your 6 month old figure is more accurate because.......?

But since you're insisting on confirmed cases, can you provide any cases at all of the vaccine being harmful?

.....because those 6 month old figures are the most recent figures regarding H1N1 infection.

Ever heard of GBS?

http://thebirdflupandemic.com/archives/h1n1-swine-flu-vaccine-insert-admits-it-causes-guillain-barre-syndrome-vasculitis-paralysis-anaphylactic-shock-and-death

Run_to_da_hills

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

No doubt that vote was heavily influenced by your own fears about the vaccine. I hope that for your sake and for your Mothers sake she doesn't contract the virus and die as a result because you would always have to live with the guilt that your paranoia was one of the primary causes of her death.
.

No 8 family member decision, 2 for 6 against plus a GP's advice to accept a standard seasonal flu vaccine as opposed to the more potent Swine flu jab. My 87 year old man is also refusing it after reading up about the subject himself.

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

This is not some silly game people - real lives are being lost here and some of you need to wake up and start to realize that.

Real lives like my Mother a stroke victim who is thankfully is still alive today. She would have been one of the weaker of society that statistically suffer the adverse effects of this jab.

aurelius79

aurelius79 wrote: »

.....because those 6 month old figures are the most recent figures regarding H1N1 infection.

So you think they are an accurate representation of the current numbers?
Get real.

aurelius79 wrote: »

Ever heard of GBS?

http://thebirdflupandemic.com/archives/h1n1-swine-flu-vaccine-insert-admits-it-causes-guillain-barre-syndrome-vasculitis-paralysis-anaphylactic-shock-and-death

I have.
I also know that in 1976 there where 500 cases of GBS out of 40 million vaccinations. And of those only 25 people died.

I also know that GBS can be caused by any immune reaction, not just vaccines.

I also notice that this is about a warning label not confirmed deaths.
Looks like double standards again.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

statistically suffer the adverse effects of this jab.

You know that statistics you make up are statistical.
Or is there any fear you'll back this up?

aurelius79

King Mob wrote: »

So you think they are an accurate representation of the current numbers?
Get real.

So what data do you suggest we use? The data that the CDC is just making up as it goes along? Please point out any real data that has been collected about H1N1 in the past 3 months. Data that can be backed up by independent sources, not the CDC.

aurelius79

aurelius79 wrote: »

So what data do you suggest we use? The data that the CDC is just making up as it goes along? Please point out any real data that has been collected about H1N1 in the past 3 months. Data that can be backed up by independent sources, not the CDC.

So I have to supply clear independent data to support the swine flu figures, but don't have to show anything about the supposedly deadly effects of vaccines?
Why can't you show any cases where the swine flu vaccine killed someone?
Double standards pure and simple.

As for other figures, how about any of the other agencies listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_by_country

And what evidence do you have to accuse the CDC of making up data?
Or are you basing it solely on the idea that it disagrees with your view and therefore must be wrong.

aurelius79

King Mob wrote: »

So I have to supply clear independent data to support the swine flu figures, but don't have to show anything about the supposedly deadly effects of vaccines?
Why can't you show any cases where the swine flu vaccine killed someone?
Double standards pure and simple.

As for other figures, how about any of the other agencies listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_by_country

And what evidence do you have to accuse the CDC of making up data?
Or are you basing it solely on the idea that it disagrees with your view and therefore must be wrong.

A Wikipedia article does not qualify as an independent scientific investigation into the so-called "swine-flu pandemic".

Please show me definitive evidence that H1N1 has justifiably reached pandemic status, not just a Wikipedia article.

indough

the whole point of the vaccine is to stop it becoming a pandemic, so how can you expect anyone to prove whether the vaccine program was successful or whether the virus was just not that dangerous to begin with

or maybe noone should be vaccinated and youd get your answer but the population of the world will be left at maximum risk?

Duiske

aurelius79 wrote: »

Please show me definitive evidence that H1N1 has justifiably reached pandemic status, not just a Wikipedia article.

Weekly update

18 December 2009 -- As of 13 December 2009, worldwide more than 208 countries and overseas territories or communities have reported laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, including at least 10582 deaths.

Link

aurelius79

aurelius79 wrote: »

A Wikipedia article does not qualify as an independent scientific investigation into the so-called "swine-flu pandemic".

Please show me definitive evidence that H1N1 has justifiably reached pandemic status, not just a Wikipedia article.

And again double standards.
You give out to me for using wikipedia, but seemingly have no problem using biased sites like thebirdflupandemic.com.
Seriously this hypocrisy is getting old.

The term pandemic has a very specific definition that most people (and seemingly including you) don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

A pandemic (from Greek πᾶν pan "all" + δῆμος demos "people") is an epidemic of infectious disease that is spreading through human populations across a large region; for instance a continent, or even worldwide.

The WHO declares a pandemic when there is human to human transmission in many countries.
Are you claiming that this isn't happening?

Also I think it bares mentioning something I just noticed, that you've dismissed the swine flu as dangerous because only "3 people out of 2,618 reported cases in the U.S. died."
But then you brought up GBS as a legitimate danger even thought only 25 people out of 40 million died from it in 1976.
Do you not see the contradiction here?

indough

indough wrote: »

the whole point of the vaccine is to stop it becoming a pandemic, so how can you expect anyone to prove whether the vaccine program was successful or whether the virus was just not that dangerous to begin with

or maybe noone should be vaccinated and youd get your answer but the population of the world will be left at maximum risk?

No the swine flu has already become a pandemic by definition, see above.

You stop a pandemic by quarantining a country.

The point of the vaccine is to limit the spread to protect vulnerable people.

aurelius79

Since the beginning of the pandemic in 19 April 2009 to 5 December, a total of 82 countries reported to FluNet. The total number of specimens reportedly positive for influenza viruses by NIC laboratories was 351,047. Of these, 258,698 (73.7%) were pandemic H1N1, 8,358 (2.4%) were seasonal A (H1), 23,777 (6.8%) were A (H3), 54,162 (15.4%) were A (not subtyped) and 6,047 (1.7%) were influenza B.

For this reporting week (15 November to 5 December 2009); a total of 21 countries reported to FluNet. The total number of specimens reportedly positive for influenza viruses by NIC laboratories was 11,159. Of these, 10,286 (92.2%) were pandemic (H1N1) 2009, 111 (1.0%) were seasonal A (H1), 97 (0.9%) were A (H3), 580 (5.2%) were A (not subtyped), 85 (0.8%) were influenza B.

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/laboratory18_12_2009/en/index.html

258,658 confirmed cases in 82 countries since 19 April 2009. Of these 258,658 we are meant to believe that 10,582 have died? That's about 1 in 26 cases. Really?