More to H1N1 crisis than we read

In his Oct. 30 column, Daily Herald DuPage editor Jim Davis said he wanted to "tackle a few off-the-beaten-path questions" about H1N1. For sources, he cited his dictionary, the Internet, and other Daily Herald reporters and editors.

I'm not very impressed by using the dictionary and the Internet, but please - a reporter using other reporters as sources? Sounds very reliable. If you would like some really "off-the-beaten-path" information, read on (and I'll even cite actual sources).

First, according to the Journal of the American Medical Academy, in 2001, of the supposed 62,034 flu deaths, 61,777 were actually due to pneumonia, which was linked in many cases to prescription medication. Of the remaining 257 cases, only 18 were actually lab-confirmed as being influenza. Eighteen confirmed flu deaths. What a far cry from the supposed and often-quoted 36,000 - a number which the CDC reached using mathematical models, not actual statistics.

Second, a study by the British Medical Journal suggests that the current H1N1 strain is "the same subtype as seasonal H1N1 that has been circulating since 1977." (It isn't "new," as one of Davis' "sources" said.)

I could go on, but I'd rather encourage readers to do some diligent research of their own. There is more to the H1N1 "crisis" than we see on the daily news, and apparently, than we read in the Daily Herald.

Tyler Benjamin

Wheaton