H1N1 Advisors received kickbacks from H1N1 vaccine manufacturers

78 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sun, 2010-06-06 02:18

Tigana

H1N1 Advisors received kickbacks from H1N1 vaccine manufacturers

"Scientists who advised the World Health Organization on its influenza policies and recommendations—including the decision to proclaim the so-called swine flu a "pandemic" had close ties to companies that manufacture vaccines and antiviral medicines like Tamiflu, a fact that WHO did not publicly disclose.

The links between the advisors and the companies that make money from vaccines and flu treatments were detailed in a report published online by the British medical journal BMJ, which investigated the advisors' role in WHO's policy.

The report by Deborah Cohen, features editor of BMJ, and Philip Carter, a journalist with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, acknowledged that flu experts do "need to work with industry to develop the best possible drugs for illnesses," but said that allowing industry experts to have a role in the formulation of public health policy was a slippery slope.

And worse, Cohen and Carter said, was the failure of WHO officials to disclose the conflicts of interest or even identify the members of its advisory committee."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFlu/swine-flu-pandemic-world-health-or...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR201006...

Sun, 2010-06-06 10:24

Tigana

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2947

Published 3 June 2010, doi:10.1136/bmj.c2947
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c2947

Editorials
Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu

WHO must act now to restore its credibility, and Europe should legislate

The world should of course be thankful that the 2009 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic proved such a damp squib. With so many fewer lives lost than had been predicted, it almost seems ungrateful to carp about the cost. But carp we must because the cost has been huge. Some countries—notably Poland—declined to join the panic buying of vaccines and antivirals triggered when the World Health Organization declared the pandemic a year ago this week. However, countries like France and the United Kingdom who have stockpiled drugs and vaccines are now busy unpicking vaccine contracts, selling unused vaccine to other countries, and sitting on huge piles of unused oseltamivir.Meanwhile drug companies have banked vast profits—$7bn (£4.8bn; ${euro}$ 5.7bn) to $10bn from vaccines alone according to investment bank JP Morgan.1Given the scale of public cost and private profit, it would seem important to know that WHO’s key decisions were free from commercial influence.

An investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, published this week (doi:10.1136/bmj.c2912), finds that this was far from the case.2 As reported by Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, some of the experts advising WHO on the pandemic had declarable financial ties with drug companies that were producing antivirals and influenza vaccines. As an example, WHO’s guidance on the use of antivirals in a pandemic was authored by an influenza expert who at the same time was receiving payments from Roche, the manufacturer of oseltamivir (Tamiflu), for consultancy work and lecturing. Although most of the experts consulted by WHO made no secret of their industry ties in other settings, WHO itself has so far declined to explain to what extent it knew about these conflicts of interest or how it managed them.

This lack of transparency is compounded by the existence of a secret "emergency committee," which advised the director general Margaret Chan on when to declare the pandemic—a decision that triggered costly pre-established vaccine contracts around the world. Curiously, the names of the 16 committee members are known only to people within WHO....

Sun, 2010-06-06 10:28

Tigana

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912

(BMJ video at link)

Published 3 June 2010, doi:10.1136/bmj.c2912
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c2912

Feature
Conflicts of Interest
WHO and the pandemic flu "conspiracies"

Deborah Cohen, features editor, BMJ, Philip Carter, journalist, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, London

[email protected]

Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as "conspiracy theories." Deborah Cohenand Philip Carter investigate

Next week marks the first anniversary of the official declaration of the influenza A/H1N1 pandemic. On 11 June 2009 Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization, announced to the world’s media: "I have conferred with leading influenza experts, virologists, and public health officials.In line with procedures set out in the International Health Regulations, I have sought guidance and advice from an Emergency Committee established for this purpose. On the basis of available evidence, and these expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met...The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic."

It was the culmination of 10 years of pandemic preparedness planning for WHO—years of committee meetings with experts flown in from around the world and reams of draft documents offering guidance to governments. But one year on, governments that took advice from WHO are unwinding their vaccine contracts, and billions of dollars’ worth of stockpiled oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza)—bought from health budgets already under tight constraints—lie unused in warehouses around the world.

A joint investigation by the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has uncovered evidence that raises troubling questions about how WHO managed conflicts of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning, and about the transparency of the science underlying its advice to governments. Was it appropriate for WHO to take advice from experts who had declarable financial and research ties with pharmaceutical companies producing antivirals and influenza vaccines? Why was key WHO guidanceauthored by an influenza expert who had received payment for other work from Roche, manufacturers of oseltamivir, and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of zanamivir? And why does the composition of the emergency committee from which Chan sought guidance remain a secret known only to those within WHO? We are left wondering whether major public health organisations are able to effectively manage the conflicts of interest that are inherent in medicalscience.

Already WHO’s handling of the pandemic has led to an unprecedented number of reviews and inquiries by organisations including the Council of Europe, European Parliament, and WHO itself, following allegations of industry influence. Dr Chan has dismissed these as "conspiracies," and earlier this year, during a speech at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, she said: "WHO anticipated close scrutiny of its decisions, but we did not anticipate that we would be accused, by some European politicians, of having declared a fake pandemic on the advice of experts with ties to the pharmaceutical industry and something personal to gain from increased industry profits."...

Sun, 2010-06-06 20:57

ennir

Thanks for posting this Tigana.

Mon, 2010-06-07 19:41

RANGER

What a shocker!

Mon, 2010-06-07 20:13

Tommy_Paine

I wish stories like these were shocking. They've become par for the course.

Remember back to the story that started the panic here in Canada, about the "perfectly healthy" young man who died suddenly? And it turned out that he had an underlying medical condition (asthma, if I recall correctly). This touched off the queue jumping by hospital administrators and others of that ilk, and made for long lines.

One wonders, given the way things work in the media, if this wasn't just bad reporting (which is bad enough) but some deliberate tweek from big pharma via a PR company.

Yes, I'm currently re-thinking my anti-capital punishment position.

Mon, 2010-06-07 23:01

RANGER

This H1N1 thing was similar to SARS and Bird Flu and you know people got rich off of it, one six o'clock news story and people panic, how could "the news" get it wrong? right? I am so glad I didn't have that elixer put into my body or my families. Although my tax dollars said I was crazy! go figure!

Mon, 2010-06-07 23:14

RANGER

Forgot to add "capital punishment rocks" if it's done right.

Wed, 2010-06-09 09:33

pogge

There have been complaints about the World Health Organization's lack of transparency for years*. And that's the issue at the centre of this story. There's nothing actually here about WHO officials receiving "kickbacks" which would be another way to say bribes. Instead the issue is that some of the experts with whom the WHO consults had relationships or business dealings with the pharmaceutical industry that weren't acknowledged, creating a possible conflict of interest. And if you dig, you'll find that at least some of those experts [i]did[/i] disclose those relationships with Big Pharma to the WHO but the WHO chose to keep the members of their advisory committee anonymous which meant those potential conflicts went unreported as well. Meanwhile rebuttals to the BMJ story are surfacing.

[url=http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100608/full/465672a.html]Flu experts rebut conflict claims[/url]

Quote:
"A key question will be whether the pharmaceutical companies, which had invested around $4 bn (£2.8bn, €3.3bn) in developing the swine flu vaccine, had supporters inside the emergency committee, who then put pressure on WHO to declare a pandemic," says the article in the BMJ (D. Cohen and P. Carter Br. Med. J. 340, c2912; 2010). "It was the declaring of the pandemic that triggered the contracts."

This is false. Many countries - including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland - had already placed large orders for H1N1 vaccine weeks before the WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic on 11 June 2009. The United States, for example, ordered US$649 million of pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine antigen and $283 million of adjuvant on 22 May 2009. So the Emergency Committee could not have influenced these in any way.

"You are absolutely right," conceded the authors of the articles in the BMJ when challenged with this timeline.

There's more at the link, including this:

Quote:
Scientists interviewed by Nature early on in the pandemic noted that severity is impossible to pin down until many months after it starts. Also, pandemic viruses can mutate or reassort to become more severe, so initial estimates are in any case of limited use.

Had A/H1N1 mutated into something a lot more lethal, people would have been screaming that the actions taken by the WHO and by public health authorities were totally inadequate instead of complaining that they over-reacted.

* Edited to add: criticisms I agree with whether it involves disclosing the identities of those who influence public health decisions or releasing information on H5N1 sequences from infections in various parts of the world, which was a controversy a few years ago. They tend to be defensive and keep a firm grip on information. That only leads to criticism which leads to more defensiveness which leads to...

Wed, 2010-06-09 13:31

#10

Noah_Scape

Sorry I didn't see this threat first, before I posted a similar one. I was just so focused on the news that I didn't even look. Double sorry. Ignore the other one please.

This news is very troubling, even if not surprising. How should it be interpreted?

It could be that "the WHO took money from vaccine makers and made their declaration of a pandemic based on that payola" .

And, in light of such a crime, it could also reflect on the safety of the vaccine, and non-reporting of bad vaccine reactions. Very possibly, there were more people harmed by the vaccine than were harmed by the H1N1 virus.

I suppose it is likely that there was an H1N1 virus in existence, as opposed to the possibility that they made it all up and any influenza cases were just normal seasonal flu. But we cannot discount that possibility either.

Those of us who doubted the veracity of the pandemic, and who doubted the wisdom of taking a vaccine for it, now have more credibility than our own health authorities who followed the recommendations of the WHO, who are now completely discredited as "fake pandemic perveyors". What will we do when a REAL pandemic hits?

As for our Doctors, the "local GPs", role in this debacle, it certainly reflects badly on them for following along too. They were in a pretty sticky corner though, with patients asking for the vaccine and Health Canada telling them what to do. They could hardly be expected to blow the whistle if they thought something was wrong with this picture... Or should they have? I did, as much as possible, shout about how people are being tricked into taking the vaccine for the fake H1N1 "non-pandemic", but I had little to lose.

So now we see how conspiracies work - people we depend on are trapped into staying silent. Once again- what will we do when a real pandemic hits, and we have NOBODY TO TRUST for information?

Wed, 2010-06-09 14:19

#11

Jingles

Remember when there was a huge, acrimonious debate about getting the vaccine, and those who refused were called stupid for not doing so? Eh? Remember?

When we said that the story didn't wash, and that the vaccine was unnecessary and possibly dangerous, we were derided as conspiracy theorists, anti-science quacks, etc, etc, etc. We were told that we [i]needed[/i] to take the vaccine, even if it was a syringe full of maple syrup, [i]just in case[/i]. By not doing so, we were jeopardizing the very survival of humanity.

Looks like the tinfoil hat pulled in the right signals after all.

Wed, 2010-06-09 14:52

#12

contrarianna

When you have an industry in which a single corporation can make billions of dollars a year, it should not be surprising that any, and all, means of product promotion is embraced--backed by many, many millions of dollars: bribes, massive lobbying in government, scientific and professional bodies and media; extensive paid-for-results in refereed academic journals.
Far from "conspiracy theory" this documented reality could hardly play out any other way.

Needless to say, actual concern for public health is far from the concerns of company boards and quarterly projected profits .
Not only are ineffectual or harmful products promoted, when a true epidemic looms there will be a lot fewer people willing to believe it.

Wed, 2010-06-09 15:05

#13

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Jingles wrote:

Remember when there was a huge, acrimonious debate about getting the vaccine, and those who refused were called stupid for not doing so? Eh? Remember?

When we said that the story didn't wash, and that the vaccine was unnecessary and possibly dangerous, we were derided as conspiracy theorists, anti-science quacks, etc, etc, etc. We were told that we [i]needed[/i] to take the vaccine, even if it was a syringe full of maple syrup, [i]just in case[/i]. By not doing so, we were jeopardizing the very survival of humanity.

Looks like the tinfoil hat pulled in the right signals after all.

Actually, it was the reasons given for not taking the vaccine that were based in pseudoscience and based in conspiracy theory that were derided, and rightly so.

I don't recall saying that anyone was jeopardizing "the very survival of humanity", but if your aim is exaggeration and obfuscation, the argument continues true to form.

Wed, 2010-06-09 17:21

#14

Noah_Scape

There are no "pro vaccine" rabble posters on this thread - mercury poisening got your tongue?

About those "postive tests for H1N1" that kept coming out, and eventually were declared unnessessary - I think that was a special test that the vaccine makers came up with for easy identification of H1N1 cases.

Could that test for H1N1 have been BOGUS too? As in, a test designed to show "positive for H1N1", but really just detected any virus?

I am sure you see that such a test would really help them sell vaccines. I hope they investigate that too, to see if the H1N1 test was fake.

How will we ever trust medical authorities again? Even if they were not in on the conspiracy, they were at least FOOLED by it...

The only ones with credibility now are us "whacky conspiracy theory people", as Jingles pointed out [good one!]

Wed, 2010-06-09 18:18

#15

Tommy_Paine

This is false. Many countries - including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland - had already placed large orders for H1N1 vaccine weeks before the WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic on 11 June 2009. The United States, for example, ordered US$649 million of pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine antigen and $283 million of adjuvant on 22 May 2009. So the Emergency Committee could not have influenced these in any way.

WHO tellegraphed their intentions do declare a pandemic well ahead of the actual declaration. And, even if stuff was bought well before that, all the information about H1N1 was coming from WHO. So to say "The Emergency Committee could not have influenced these in any way." is completely false. It may be true that the WHO did not influence nations who bought the vaccine the way their critics laid it out specifically.

But that hardly puts them outside the woods on this issue yet.

I think the media role in all this might have been tweeked by a PR company, but even failing that, the media's attachment to using fear to sell add space is really bad enough.

I remember wrestling with whether to get the vaccine or not, and following the debate here and using the media for information. Not only was the media incompetent in divulging information responsibly, our varous levels of government were abysmal in organizing a vaccine campaign.

All of which is bad, but could be rendered into something good if lessons were drawn and procedures adjusted.

But they haven't been.

Wed, 2010-06-09 22:19

#16

jas

Timebandit wrote:

Actually, it was the reasons given for not taking the vaccine that were based in pseudoscience and based in conspiracy theory that were derided, and rightly so.

Not entirely. I do remember comments from the pro-vaxers/anti-choicers that vaccinations should become mandatory. I do remember jokes from the same about they're all in with "Big Pharma". I do remember the bulk of the debate being about the inappropriate and alarmist use of the term pandemic to describe what were essentially only small, localized outbreaks. So I think your characterization of the debate is largely inaccurate.

And it's interesting you use the term conspiracy theory, because what is it, in fact, right now that we are discussing? Is collusion not conspiracy?

Wed, 2010-06-09 23:27

#17

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

jas, it's not my fault you're reality-challenged. But apparently we're to put up with you regardless.

Thu, 2010-06-10 11:56

#18

ennir

Timebandit wrote:

jas, it's not my fault you're reality-challenged. But apparently we're to put up with you regardless.

LMAO

You might want to look at that, you took a vaccine that has now been shown to exist only for the profit of big pharma.

I am so glad I did not take the vaccine, I am just ever so grateful for my "paranoid conspiracy based thinking", oh wait there was a conspiracy to defraud us with a vaccine that was useless or was it? Perhaps it was loaded with some kind of fucked up shit that is going to make everyone who took it sick, of course that is just my paranoid.... lol

Thu, 2010-06-10 18:04

#19

Maysie

Hey!

If everyone could dial down the rhetoric and borderline and over-the-borderline personal attacks that would be simply great.

Timebandit, your post at #16 was over the line. Cut it out.

Ennir, your post at #18 was also over the line. Ditto.

Fri, 2010-06-11 01:06

#20

Tigana

From Sept. 2008

Fri, 2010-06-11 01:07

#21

Tigana

Thanks, contrarianna and all.

Jas wrote,

"I do remember comments from the pro-vaxers/anti-choicers that vaccinations should become mandatory. I do remember jokes from the same about they're all in with "Big Pharma". I do remember the bulk of the debate being about the inappropriate and alarmist use of the term pandemic to describe what were essentially only small, localized outbreaks. So I think your characterization of the debate is largely inaccurate."

Yes, I remember those threads.

The writing was on the wall when bankers - PriceWaterhouseCoopers - chided Pharma for bungling the public's faith in antidepressants and suggested that vaccines were to be the next golden goose. 2007:

http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/pharma-life-sciences/pharma-2020/pharma-2020-vi...

Download without registration here

http://www.choruspharma.com/pharma2020final.pdf

The MSM is carrying this news in Charlotte, NC - close to a big Eli Lilly base. There will be some unhappy drug marketers at Research Triangle clubs tonight.

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

Fri, 2010-08-13 22:28

#22

Tigana

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=4610http%3A%2F%2Fvaccineresistan...

World Health Organization & Vaccine Manufacturers Implicated In Massive H1N1 Financial Scam Involving Kickbacks & Cover-ups
VRM: World Health Organization & Vaccine Manufacturers Implicated In Massive H1N1 Financial Scam Involving Kickbacks & Cover-ups
6th June 2010 - By Joel Lord
A stunning new report reveals that top scientists who convinced the World Health Organization to declare H1N1 a global pandemic held close financial ties to the drug companies that profited from the sale of those vaccines. This report, published in the British Medical Journal, exposes the hidden ties that drove WHO to declare a pandemic, resulting in billions of dollars in profits for vaccine manufacturers.

“For WHO, its credibility has been badly damaged. WHO must act now to restore its credibility.” Fiona Godlee, Editor of British Medical Journal (BMJ)

“The idea that we declared a pandemic when there wasn’t a pandemic is both historically inaccurate and downright irresponsible,” said WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl in a telephone interview. “There is no doubt that this was a pandemic. To insinuate that this was not a pandemic is very disrespectful to the people who died from it.” WHO spokesman Gregory Hartl
http://www.naturalnews.com/028936_WHO_vaccines.htm

“Potential conflicts of interest are inherent in any relationship between a normative and health development agency, like WHO, and a profit-driven industry. Similar considerations apply when experts advising the Organization have professional links with pharmaceutical companies. Numerous safeguards are in place to manage possible conflicts of interest or their perception.” WHO SPIN

“The problem is not so much that communicating uncertainty is difficult, but that uncertainty was not communicated. There was no scientific basis for the WHO’s estimate of 2 billion for likely H1N1 cases, and we knew little about the benefits and harms of the vaccination. The WHO maintained this 2 billion estimate even after the winter season in Australia and New Zealand showed that only about one to two out of 1000 people were infected. Last but not least, it changed the very definition of a pandemic.” Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Centre for Adaptive Behaviour and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute in Germany

Influenza Pandemic Plan: The Role of WHO and Guidelines for National and Regional Planning
http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/A7C42115-DF0F-48CF-82AF-DDE0D734994...

Objectives of Influenza Pandemic Plan: To “take measures to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to plan its vaccine/antivirals production capacity in advance”, to “encourage and support research and development of pandemic vaccine” and to “develop a policy for antiviral stockpiling.” It also added that government representatives needed to know that “influenza vaccination and use of antivirals is beneficial and safe.” It said that the group provided “evidence based, palatable information”; and also “networking/exchange with other stakeholders (eg, with industry in order to establish pandemic vaccine and antivirals contracts).

WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics 2004. The specific guidance on antivirals WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics 2004. (Section of note: The specific guidance on antivirals, Considerations for the Use of Antivirals During an Influenza Pandemic)
http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/influenza/11_29_01_A.pdf

Scientists on the double dipping payroll include:

1) Dr.René Snacken/Belgian Ministry of Public Health, WHO Division of Viral Diseases (1998), Co-author of ‘Influenza Pandemic Plan: The Role of WHO and Guidelines for National and Regional Planning’ (1999), also funded researcher for Roche (Tamiflu)

2) Dr Daniel Lavanchy/Co-author of ‘Influenza Pandemic Plan: The Role of WHO and Guidelines for National and Regional Planning’ (1999), appeared at a Roche sponsored symposium in 1998 while employed at WHO Division of Viral Diseases.

3) Professor Karl Nicholson/Leicester University, UK, Member of The European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI) which collaborated with WHO on ‘Influenza Pandemic Plan: The Role of WHO and Guidelines for National and Regional Planning’, co-author of ‘WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics 2004′ (author of the third annex, Pandemic Influenza), also on Roche pharmaceutical Company Payroll, conducted a randomised controlled trial on oseltamivir (Tamiflu) supported by Roche and also received travel sponsorship and honorariums from GlaxoSmithKline and Roche for consultancy work and speaking at international respiratory and infectious diseases symposiums.

4) Professor Abe Osterhaus/Erasmus University, Netherlands, Member of The European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI) which collaborated with WHO on ‘Influenza Pandemic Plan: The Role of WHO and Guidelines for National and Regional Planning’, also conducted a randomised controlled trial on oseltamivir (Tamiflu) supported by Roche.

5) Professor Fred Hayden, University of Virginia, co-author of ‘WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics 2004′ (Section titled ‘The specific guidance on antivirals, Considerations for the Use of Antivirals During an Influenza Pandemic’), was being paid by Roche for lectures and consultancy work for the company at the time the guidance was produced and published, also received payments from GlaxoSmithKline for consultancy and lecturing until 2002.

6) Dr. Arnold Monto, University of Michegan, co-author of ‘WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics 2004′ (annexe dealing with vaccine usage in pandemics), while simultaneously receiving honorariums, consultancy fees, and research support from Roche, consultancy fees and research support from GlaxoSmithKline ($3000 speakers fees in 2009) and also research funding from ViroPharma.

British Medical Journal: Original Article
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c291

Fri, 2010-08-13 23:04

#23

Tigana

Al Jazeera investigates pharma fraud

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/08/201081110...

Sat, 2010-08-14 09:46

#24

ennir

The link above to the BMJ didn't work for me but the link to the Al Jazeera program worked and thanks, excellent coverage of an issue that needs to be understood as one of the greatest threats to our health and well being that we are facing.

Sat, 2010-08-14 12:00

#25

remind

You know this truly sickening, that governments spent billions of tax payer dollars enriching others, and it was quite evident, even to the regular person's eye, that no pandemic was occuring.

Moreover, playing the indignant card is a kick in the face after the slap to the face they gave while enriching themselves.

Sat, 2010-08-14 17:01

#26

jas

Oh, but hey! I heard the pandemic was over now!

Quote:
The World Health Organization has declared that the H1N1 pandemic, which killed more than 0.000003% of the world's population and sparked mass vaccination programs, is over.

Phew! That was a close one!

Sat, 2010-08-14 18:59

#27

oldgoat

Well you can't sell the same pandemic twice, andf it's time to gear up for the new season. We've had swine flu, avian flu, I woder which species will get the nod for the next one.

Golden Retriever flu, now that would sell some vaccine!

Sat, 2010-08-14 19:50

#28

ennir

I think we can forget species, it sounds to me like we have hit colours with blue flu being the first new flu to hit the market. If you haven't heard of it yet it is named for the colour we turn when we are deprived of oxygen and it is what people in the gulf are calling the sickness that is overtaking them. Please excuse what is obviously a thread drift as it is not the flu and there is no way to vaccinate someone against poison.

Mon, 2010-08-30 16:11

#29

Tigana

Vaccine Zombie - tune and animation

http://www.naturalnews.com/vaccine_zombie.html

People are getting wise to Pharma and natural good health is catching on!

Mon, 2010-08-30 23:33

#30

jrootham

The doctor in my last mummer's play could cure the bird flu, the swine flu, and the chimney flu.

Tue, 2010-09-07 07:46

#31

Tigana

jrootham, that's droll :)

But... who can cure such a doctor?

Tue, 2010-09-07 13:24

#32

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

oldgoat wrote:

Well you can't sell the same pandemic twice, andf it's time to gear up for the new season. We've had swine flu, avian flu, I woder which species will get the nod for the next one.

Golden Retriever flu, now that would sell some vaccine!

Cat scratch fever flu...

Tue, 2010-09-07 20:37

#33

remind

Tigana wrote:
People are getting wise to Pharma and natural good health is catching on!

I think so too,and see that more get it all the time!

Thu, 2010-09-09 08:25

#34

jrootham

I just saw that clip. I'm speechless.

OK, Big Pharma wants to make lots of money, and isn't the most ethical group out there.

But damn right you should be afraid of your kids chicken pox.

And what is this, I can't see germs, so they won't hurt me?

Also, the CDC is not Big Pharma, it is operating under an entirely different set of institutional imperatives.

Do you really want to go back to this?

Mon, 2010-12-13 11:48

#35

Tigana

It's amazing what science is doing these days.

Want genetically modified warm fuzzy teeth?
http://intraspec.ca/avoid-GMO-products.php

jrootham, these are not our parents' vaccines.

A recombinant (reverse engineered) trivalent (3 viruses) Hemaggluten protein-based (cloned vectors/sections of DNA) Influenza vaccine will replace the current egg based Flu shot in 2011-12 in the US, likely worldwide. Frankenstein science? "high density of repeats... ...spontaneous recombination of plasmid." Your baby's DNA will be turned inside out, as will yours. Time to wake up folks.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra1002842

A recombinant trivalent HA protein–based influenza vaccine is in the late stages of clinical development in the United States (Fig. 2A). As soon as the influenza vaccine strains are selected, the genes encoding the HA proteins are cloned in...to baculovirus vectors. Insect cells infected with these vectors express HA proteins, which are then further purified and formulated into a trivalent vaccine.41

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMra1002842

Speaking at a Senate committee hearing today, US Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said a cell-based seasonal influenza vaccine from Novartis could be on the US market in time for the 2011-12 flu season.

With the help of a $487 million HHS contract, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics recently built a facility in Holly Springs, N.C., to make cell-based flu vaccines and vaccine adjuvants. No cell-based flu vaccine has yet been licensed in the United States, though such vaccines have been approved in Europe.

Referring to the Novartis facility, Sebelius said, "It's scheduled to be online to apply for licensing early in 2011 for cell-based seasonal vaccine, and a licensed vaccine is expected to be marketed for the 2011-112 flu season." http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/general/news/sep2910hearing.html

Analysis of DNA repeats in bacterial plasmids reveals the potential for recurrent instability events -

In natural plasmids, we observed an overrepresentation of close direct repeats in comparison to inverted ones and a preferential location ...of repeats with high recombination potential in intergenic regions, suggesting a highly plastic and dynamic behavior. In plasmid vectors, we found a high density of repeats within eukaryotic promoters and non-coding sequences. As a result of this in silico analysis, we detected a spontaneous recombination between two 21-bp direct repeats present in the human cytomegalovirus early enhancer/promoter (huCMV EEP) of the pCIneo plasmid.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20496146

Mon, 2010-12-13 13:20

#36

jrootham

You will notice that the url for the problem report is the NIH. I am not saying we should not scrutinize the licensing process closely, I am saying a blanket evasion of vaccination is a bad thing.

Mon, 2010-12-13 13:46

#37

Noah_Scape

First off, I just have to say this is excellent reportage, Tigana.

jrootham wrote:

Do you really want to go back to this?

"This" being a list of illnesses that are commonly vaccinated against.

Taken a look at one at a time, and then deciding which illnesses we and our kids should be vaccinated against, is the way to go, methinks.

We should be asking "which illnesses do we suffer least from, and possibly benefit from by stimulating our immune systems?" If it doesn't kill us, it just might make us stronger.

Quote from Link: "Before 1963, more than 3 million cases of measles and 500 deaths from measles were reported each year. More than 90% of children had measles by age 15. In 2002, there were 44 cases of measles" end quote

I say "let them eat measles!!". Its good for the kids. They almost never don't die from it, and it makes the immune system stronger in a natural way. Along the same lines, I have a belief that I have "innoculated" myself against Salmonella by eating lots of raw eggs [nobody is telling me different, but I am listening...].

Perhaps an illness that should be considered for vaccination is Polio. It is very destructive in many cases {right? or is that just an historical innaccuracy?}

Such a debate, about which diseases to endure and which to vaccinate against, is not about to be proposed as the Health Authorities campaign to vaccinate against every germ and virus on the planet. This tastes a lot like the human race's absurd idea of controlling nature - we have a LOT to learn before we can assume to know how to do that, including the lesson that nature has been working pretty damn well on it's own [it produced humans, possibly it's worst mistake but nature will recover eventually].

Mon, 2010-12-13 14:33

#38

Noah_Scape

And then 10 minutes after posting the above, I came across this article at HitmanUSA - Quote:

"A remarkable study published in the Cochrane Libary found no evidence of benefit for influenza vaccinations and also noted that the vast majority of trials were inadequate.

The authors stated that the only ones showing benefit were industry-funded. They also pointed out that the industry-funded studies were more likely to be published in the most prestigious journals...and one more thing: They found cases of severe harm caused by the vaccines, in spite of inadequate reporting of adverse effects.

The study, "Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults", is damning of the entire pharmaceutical industry and its minions, the drug testing industry and the medical system that relies on them."

- end quote -

Links -

Whole Article, with Study notes:

> http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/myths-and-facts-study-veri...

USAHitman:

> http://usahitman.com/myths-and-facts-study-verifies-that-there-is-no-val...

Mon, 2010-12-13 14:49

#39

polly bee

http://www.cochranejournalclub.com/vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-cli...

(link to original study)

Mon, 2010-12-13 16:23

#40

jrootham

I could believe that. Flu is tough. It keeps changing. You will notice that recommendations for getting flu shots are a lot more optional than other vaccines.

Cost benefit analyses are done for vaccines. And, yes, the ones out of the industry should be taken with a grain of salt.

If I had my druthers I'd shot down for profit drug makers and replace them with academic co-ops, starting by resurrecting Connaught Labs.

Thu, 2010-12-16 12:30

#41

Tigana

jrootham, I think vaccines are a wicked lie - and now with DNA mutations, likely to be fatal.

Our universities take huge sums of money from Pharma. So Pharma tells them who shall be chairs, what shall be researched, what shall be taught - perfect miseducation.

Update from the creator of http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/

In 2 recent landmark Canadian Studies researchers found that seasonal flu vaccination was associated with a 68 percent increased risk of getting swine flu (a 1.4- to 5.0-times greater risk of having swine flu). CONCLUSION? THE "HERD" IS BEING RE-ENGINEERED IN PREPARATION FOR A PLANNED PANDEMIC CIRCA 2012. THE ELITES HAVE THEIR VIRUS/BACTERIUM BIOWEAPON IN PLACE.

The traditional seasonal flu vaccine may have increased the risk of infection with pandemic H1N1 swine flu, according to the results of four new studies by Canadian researchers.
Click here to find out more!

In one study, the researchers used ...an ongoing sentinel monitoring system to assess the frequency of prior vaccination with the seasonal flu vaccine in people diagnosed with H1N1 swine flu in 2009 compared to people without swine flu. The researchers found that seasonal flu vaccination was associated with a 68 percent increased risk of getting swine flu.

The other three studies included additional case-control investigations in Ontario and Quebec, as well as a transmission study in 47 Quebec households that were hit with swine flu. In these studies, the researchers found that seasonal flu vaccination was associated with a 1.4- to 5.0-times greater risk of having swine flu.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/infectious-diseases/articles/2010/04/06/did-regular-flu-shot-up-risks-for-h1n1-flu.html

Estimates from the sentinel and three other observational studies, involving a total of 1,226 laboratory-confirmed pH1N1 cases and 1,505 controls, indicated that prior receipt of 2008–09 TIV was associated with increased risk of medically attended pH1N1 illness during the spring–summer 2009, with estimated risk or odds ratios ranging from 1.4 to 2.5.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000258

Research on the H1N1 Virus/Bacterium hybrid traces back even further however to 1942,

ROCKEFELLER CONNECTION – Always follow the money

‘Synergistic Action Of Hemophilus Influenzae Suis And The Swine influenza Virus On The Chick Embryo’ By Fre...derik B. Bang, M.D. *Department of Animal and Plant Pathology of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey – Received for publication, August 20, 1942

“We have found that the combined infection of embryos with swine influenza virus and H. infl~nzae suis produces a highly lethal infection, while neither one alone kills many embryos. Infection with the virus allows the Hemophilus to persist longer than it does in normal embryos. Finally the combined infection has a selective destructive effect on the embryo lungs.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2135289/pdf/7.pdf

BIO WEAPON COCKTAIL: H1N1 (Swine) + H1N2 (Swine) + H5N1 (Bird) + H3N2 (Human) + BACTERIA = PANDEMIC
http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=884

USC Sec. 1524/TITLE 50 – WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE: CHAPTER 32 (CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM)

‘The Secretary of Defense may enter into agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide support for vaccination programs of the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the United States through use of the excess peacetime biological weapons defense capability of the Department of Defense.’
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t49t50+1902+0++%28%29++AND+%28USC+w%2F10+%281524%29%29%3ACITE

Excerpt from recent Rockefeller study/Scenario Narratives: LOCK STEP - A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback,

'In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults.'
http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=5102

Thu, 2010-12-16 18:45

#42

jrootham

I have nothing to say to anyone who thinks vaccinations are a wicked lie, except to throw them in jail if they try to avoid vaccinating their children.

Thu, 2010-12-16 19:31

#43

Noah_Scape

jrootham wrote:

I have nothing to say to anyone who thinks vaccinations are a wicked lie, except to throw them in jail if they try to avoid vaccinating their children.

to jrootham:

Oh, my. That is just so "the propaganda got to me". You obviously read Tigana's post just above your comment, and you STILL say that?

I was told that I was putting other people at risk by not getting the H1N1 flu shot - that was purely propagandist and it was spread throughout our local communities by people like you.

You would throw me in jail for my stance. That shows an authoritarian slant that is typical of people who are swept up by government and corporate propaganda.

But, I guess you have "nothing to say" to me because I believe "vaccines are a wicked lie". I suppose that is just as well, but go ahead anyhow.

Thu, 2010-12-16 19:37

#44

jrootham

Damn right I still say that. yes, Big Pharma is corrupt, but childhood vaccinations are still critical. I am not in favour of killing children.

Flu shot is not what I was talking about, that's optional and should be.

Fri, 2010-12-17 05:18

#45

remind

jrootham wrote:
Damn right I still say that. yes, Big Pharma is corrupt, but childhood vaccinations are still critical. I am not in favour of killing children.

Flu shot is not what I was talking about, that's optional and should be.

Wow, "killing children" is pretty far fetched. So how about you slap up some stats on how many children have been killed by their parents by their not having childhood vaccinations?

Personally, I am more worried about the real and actual killing of children, by parents, mainly men, than I am about choosing not to vaccinate your children for diseases they will not normally die from in the first place.

Fri, 2010-12-17 17:04

#46

Noah_Scape

Right, there are other issues, but this thread is specifically about the H1N1 vaccine.

More of the same I suppose, but FYI I found another article here > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/fastTrackSwineFluVaccineUnderFire.php

Quotes and Notes from that link:

the mass vaccination programmes governments are putting in place to combat the emerging pandemic could well be worse than the pandemic itself.

Critics point out that the ‘vaccination experts' are dominated by the vaccine makers standing to gain from the enormously lucrative vaccine and antiviral contracts awarded by governments. But the decisive argument against mass vaccinations is that flu shots simply don't work and are dangerous [9].

Fri, 2010-12-17 17:20

#47

jrootham

Killing children is not far fetched. It is exactly what vaccinations are about. Here is polio fatalities in Canada, you really want to go back to 1953?

Here is some stuff on measles.

The CBC is showing about 400 solved child and youth homicides per year, and in family, a relatively even split between fathers and mothers who kill.

So, yeah, at this point dealing with homicide is more important. No reason not to do vaccinations though.

Fri, 2010-12-17 18:24

#48

polly bee

jrootham wrote:

I have nothing to say to anyone who thinks vaccinations are a wicked lie, except to throw them in jail if they try to avoid vaccinating their children.

If you were responding to the comment right above yours, and it would appear you were, it is pretty obvious that it referred to H1N1 vaccinations...........not all childhood vaccinations.

Sat, 2010-12-18 03:08

#49

Tigana

Vaccine garbage?

VRM: H1N1 Vaccine Surplus From 2009 Reveals Growing Distrust of Gov’t & WHO – Cost To Taxpayers Exceeds 2.5 Billion
VRM: H1N1 Vaccine Surplus From 2009 Reveals Growing Distrust of Gov't & WHO - Cost To Taxpayers Exceeds 2.5 Billion

10th July 2010 - By Joel Lord

VACCINE SURPLUS FROM 2009 – Canada: $200,000,000+ worth of unused H1N1 vaccine. United States: $455,000,000+ worth of unused H1N1 vaccine. France: approximately $750,000,000 worth of unused H1N1 vaccine supply. Britain: $250,000,000 worth of unused H1N1 vaccine supply (3.8 million doses). Germany: $300,000,000 (approximately 48 million doses wasted). Italy: $260,000,000 worth of H1N1 vaccine supply unused (40 million doses). Netherlands & other Euro countries: comparable waste.

$200,000,000 (Canada)
$455,000,000 (United States)
$750,000,000 (France)
$250,000,000 (Britain)
$300,000,000 (Germany)
$260,000,000 (Italy)
$150,000,000 (Netherlands)
$250,000,000 (Europe misc.)
—————————————————-
$2,500,000,000+ (Conservative total)

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=4969

And as for vaccines for childhood diseases - parents have pox parties -

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

Sat, 2010-12-18 14:28

#50

Tigana

edited - double post

"SLIGHT" CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Dr. Arnold Monto, University of Michigan, co-author of ‘WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines & Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics 2004′, simultaneously received honorariums, consultancy fees & research support from Pharma giants GlaxoSmithKline, Roche & ViroPharma.

Prominent Scientists, Professors & Doctors on the double dipping payroll include:

1) Dr.René Snacken/Belgian Ministry of Public Health, WHO Division of Viral Diseases (1998), Co-author of ‘Influenza Pandemic Plan: The Role of WHO and Guideli...nes for National and Regional Planning’ (1999), also funded researcher for Roche (Tamiflu)

7) Arnold Monto, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, has declared current and past consultancies in the field of pandemic and/or seasonal influenza for GSK, Novartis, Roche, Baxter and Sanofi. The remuneration for each of these consultancies is below US$10 000. In addition, his research unit at the University of Michigan has received a grant from Sanofi Pasteur for a clinical trial conducted in 2007-2008 on the comparative efficacy of inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccines.

8) John Wood, a principal scientist in the virology division of the UK’s National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, has performed contract research for Sanofi Pasteur, CSL, IFPMA, Novartis and Powdermed in the field of influenza vaccine research and development.

9) Maria Zambon, who heads the respiratory virus unit in the virus reference department at the Health Protection Agency, Centre for Infection in London, receives funding from vaccine manufacturers, including Sanofi, Novartis, CSL, Baxter and GSK, for contract work in her laboratory.

10) Neil Morris Ferguson, a chair in mathematical biology in the department of infectious disease epidemiology at the Imperial College Faculty of Medicine in London, has acted as a consultant for Roche and GSK Biologicals (ceasing in 2007), with total remuneration from all such work being under US$7 000 in 2007.

11) Nancy Cox, the director of the influenza division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, disclosed that her public health and surveillance research unit at the US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) receives financial support from IFPMA for activities of CDC as a WHO Collaborating Centre in the field of influenza vaccine research and virus isolation work.

VRM: World Health Organization & Vaccine Manufacturers Implicated In Massive H1N1 Financial Scam Involving Kickbacks & Cover-ups

http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=4610

The WHO have issued a measured statement in conjunction with this release; deflecting attention away from the obvious conflicts of interest while back-peddling away from any further investigation into suspicious corporate alliances: “The in...terests summarized above do not give rise to a conflict of interest such that the experts concerned should be partially or totally excluded from participation in the Emergency Committee. However, following WHO’s policy, they were disclosed within the Committee so that other members were aware of them. All other Members of the Emergency Committee declared no relevant interests.”

http://www.who.int/ihr/emerg_comm_members_2009/en/

Sat, 2010-12-18 19:12

#51

jrootham

I will apologize to the extent that it applies only to the flu vaccine. When I read it I assumed it was a blanket objection to vaccination.

polly bee wrote:

jrootham wrote:

I have nothing to say to anyone who thinks vaccinations are a wicked lie, except to throw them in jail if they try to avoid vaccinating their children.

If you were responding to the comment right above yours, and it would appear you were, it is pretty obvious that it referred to H1N1 vaccinations...........not all childhood vaccinations.

Pages

Topic locked