We all know how the H1N1 began as an unknown disease in Mexico and then spread to all over the world and ever since has been called by WHO as a Worldwide Pandemic There is a H1N1 virus, its can spread with swift speed. But does it really have a potential to kill millions of people and become a pandemic? Or maybe it just a scam from those pharmaceutical companies that have their influence within the WHO and thus using that influence to rip-off the whole world?
I qoute the following from various press:
The European Union is set to investigate the World Health Organization’s swine flu campaign this month over allegations of improper influence from pharmaceutical companies in declaring the H1N1 “pandemic” and the promotion of “inefficient” and potentially dangerous vaccination strategies.
The resolution to launch the emergency inquiry was approved by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and passed through the health committee unanimously. It states in part that “in order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies, and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.”
Leading the charge for the probe is German epidemiologist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, the chairman of the PACE health committee and a medical doctor specializing in lung disease. “The victims among millions of needlessly vaccinated people must be protected by their states and independent scientific clarification should provide evidence and transparency for national and — if necessary — European courts,” Wodarg said in a statement.
Wodarg called the “false pandemic” one of the greatest medical scandals of the last century and said that pharmaceutical companies influenced the whole process and needed to be held accountable. They were willing to "inflict bodily harm in their pursuit of profits," he said. Articles in the European press, starting in Denmark and spreading, have repeatedly called into question the myriad ties between vaccine manufacturers and decision makers in the United Nations' global health body.''
I dont know about this, but really, if this is the scam made by pharmaceutical companies in order to make profit. They should all be bought to justice. If true, this is very very wrong.
I thought it was obvious that this was a scam for the longest time. Hopefully if these pharmaceutical companies are actually brought to justice, maybe we'll also see an improvement in healthcare technologies because people looking to do something other than make money will be put in charge. Then again i just expect to keep getting ripped off.
it's a possibility, but the prospect of a deadly worldwide swine flu "pandemic" was a serious issue until they discovered it's rather low mortality rate.
however i do agree that pharmaceutical companies have some sort of influence over organizations like the WHO based on the fact that we have not seemed to have any sort of medical progress toward curing major diseases. pharmaceutical companies make a killing, quite literally, over the expensive prescription drug cocktails that combat the effects of cancer treatment and the retrovirals HIV positive individuals depend on to survive.
With global warming there's no one that's going to be making any money. In fact, it will reduce economic growth.
The vaccine actually ended up having little side effects. But yeah it's a big problem to know beforehand how the virus will mutate and how dangerous it will actually become. But it's also true people demand from governments to do something even if it doesn't make a difference.
Raise your hand if you had the possibility to get a vaccine easily but decided not to because you knew it was bullshit and nothing really to be affraid of!
On January 11 2010 20:50 NonFactor wrote: Raise your hand if you had the possibility to get a vaccine easily but decided not to because you knew it was bullshit and nothing really to be affraid of!
On January 11 2010 20:50 NonFactor wrote: Raise your hand if you had the possibility to get a vaccine easily but decided not to because you knew it was bullshit and nothing really to be affraid of!
On January 11 2010 20:50 NonFactor wrote: Raise your hand if you had the possibility to get a vaccine easily but decided not to because you knew it was bullshit and nothing really to be affraid of!
o/
o/ I didn't have the chance and if i had, i wouldn't do it 200%. From the beginning i knew it is bullshit and also didn't trust the vaccine at all.
I couldn't agree more. I have thought the same thing about the swine flu and the medical companies for a long time, and the flu is just so blown out of proportion. It's ridiculous, people get a feeling that this is a super-dangerous flu that will kill a big part of the earths population. This picture is fueled by medical companies influencing health organizations on a governmental level, and when official sources say that the swine flu is very dangerous people believe that.
Medical companies are so problematic, I don't know why they aren't discussed more. Everything from anti-depressants to flu vaccins serve one purpose mainly; money. I chose not to take vaccine shots for the flu and I'm glad I didn't. I haven't become ill, and no one I know has become ill, so wtf.
On January 11 2010 20:50 NonFactor wrote: Raise your hand if you had the possibility to get a vaccine easily but decided not to because you knew it was bullshit and nothing really to be affraid of!
o/
\o I'll high five you on that one. Our kids were invited to the vaccination program but we refused that. Fear mongering is way popular.
How could you know it's bs beforehand? What we actually heard from scientific institutions was a consensus that the virus was potentially dangerous especially to certain groups of people, so wouldn't it make sense to take the vaccine as recommended, if not to protect yourself then perhaps in order to protect small children, diabetics etc?
Roche bought TAMIFLU from Gilead Sciences, whose President was Donald Rumsfeld. Then, the bird flu threatens to kill 150 million people old news. The sales they got back then look not enough, then they manage to get another "market" with the swine flu.
I'm glad somebody is clean enough to investigate this but I'm also sure that if this is true, they will erase the truth in a blink of an eye.
EDIT: I can't find any source for this other than "alternative news sources". The Europarl site has no info either.
Why the hell would I wait hours in line at a clinic for a vaccine that's supposed to protect me from a bug that's weaker than the normal flu virus floating around?
On January 11 2010 21:42 hifriend wrote: How could you know it's bs beforehand? What we actually heard from scientific institutions was a consensus that the virus was potentially dangerous especially to certain groups of people, so wouldn't it make sense to take the vaccine as recommended, if not to protect yourself then perhaps in order to protect small children, diabetics etc?
Because the same thing has happened with the bird flu for instance where there were to be an estimated 150 million deaths worldwide according to UN chief. There are about 250 people who've died from bird flu worldwide so far...
I think you fail to understand the key point discussed here: the fact that medical companies influence scientific institutions ALOT, creating panic and alarms that are blown out way out of proportion. And that is actually an understatement.
Also, 99% of the people who get the flu and don't have a very serious underlying illness just get a regular flu and then become healthy again. Why the hell should we get expensive flu shots for that?
lol even if it's BS you can't know that. Especially not beforehand, wtf.
And all these people raising hands are irrelevant. If you weren't at risk there's no need for a vaccine as flu normally doesn't kill you. The thing was everyone getting it. The people that need to get flu shots also got this special flu shot. And the side effects were almost non-existent.
Now the question about the money made and the industry paying the ad visors, that's something else.
Same thing didn't happen with the bird flu. And these estimates are very specific ones. They didn't predict 100% that 150 million people were going to die. That's stupid. We just know that a virus comes by every once in a while and kills a lot of people. It has happened before and modern society is only more susceptible to it. A virus can travel the planet super fast too. That somehow it gets turned into a media hype is odd. Maybe the industry is behind that. Blame it on the media and the people watching. Not on the scientists.
[B] Same thing didn't happen with the bird flu. And these estimates are very specific ones. They didn't predict 100% that 150 million people were going to die. That's stupid.
The chief of the UN said that up to 150 million people can die from the bird flu. How is that not throwing a half-assed prediction that people are gonna catch up on, out there?
On January 11 2010 21:42 hifriend wrote: How could you know it's bs beforehand? What we actually heard from scientific institutions was a consensus that the virus was potentially dangerous especially to certain groups of people, so wouldn't it make sense to take the vaccine as recommended, if not to protect yourself then perhaps in order to protect small children, diabetics etc?
Well i have a crystal ball, so i know pretty much everything. By the way Movie will 3-1 Flash in the OSL finals.
On the serious note: History, experience and brain helping me to distinguish bs from the real thing. Sorry but i am not a sheep to do everything what is recommnded, especially if i find it stupid. Not even protecting small children and heavy diagnosed people gonna make me to do so...sorry
On January 11 2010 21:42 hifriend wrote: How could you know it's bs beforehand? What we actually heard from scientific institutions was a consensus that the virus was potentially dangerous especially to certain groups of people, so wouldn't it make sense to take the vaccine as recommended, if not to protect yourself then perhaps in order to protect small children, diabetics etc?
Because the same thing has happened with the bird flu for instance where there were to be an estimated 150 million deaths worldwide according to UN chief. There are about 250 people who've died from bird flu worldwide so far...
I think you fail to understand the key point discussed here: the fact that medical companies influence scientific institutions ALOT, creating panic and alarms that are blown out way out of proportion. And that is actually an understatement.
Also, 99% of the people who get the flu and don't have a very serious underlying illness just get a regular flu and then become healthy again. Why the hell should we get expensive flu shots for that?
As far as I know the bird flu hasn't mutated to a state where it is contagious among human beings, still there's a possibility that at one point it might. That strain of flu has actually proven to be both very virulent and deadly, so while I agree that media and other institutions might have blown it out of proportion it's a completely different scenario than this one.
I don't really see why you'd automatically assume that due to one strain of flu not turning out to be a pandemic, there is no reason to fear any subsequent ones. Surely you've read of the 1918 flu pandemic etc?
The reason why I personally would take a flu shot (although I haven't had the opportunity) is in order to protect not only myself but especially those who are in actual danger of dying, and none of us are really in a position to say whether a relatively recently sprung up flu strain might mutate into something worse.
Imo people who trust and base their decisions on conspiracist internet blogs rather than scientific institutions don't get to say 'haha told ya'.
edit: of course I completely support this investigation, if it turns out medical companies have had a big influence on our perception/measures of this flu then I agree that's completely fucked up.
You're right about the fact that the bird flu isn't as easily spread as the swine flu.
I'm also not denying the fact that people have died from swine flu and while the number of deaths isn't large in a bigger picture, there still are some deaths. The problem is that the swine flu is portrayed as a flu that you DON'T want to get. But the thing is that the risk of dying of swine flu is pretty damn small unless you have some serious medical condition beforehand.
So why all the fuss about the dangers of bird flu when it isn't more deadly than the annual flu? This is where medical companies come in, directly influencing and manipulating the information that media puts out regarding the swine flu. Well it's more second-hand information, but it's the same message: Swine flu is a horrible and deadly flu and you must take every precaution possible to avoid getting it. Quite laughable imo
i dont know how much money they make off the vaccine shots but ever since swine flu came around, i havent been able to go into any public place without seeing hand sanitizer everywhere.
Christ, so you guys just run to your personal labs and test the swine flus lethality?
I don't understand how you can say you were sure that this virus was nothing to be worried about when so many scientists worldwide recommended governments to buy a reserve of the vaccine..
Yea i know you were right in the end, but not listening to the advice of medical experts because your 'brain' tells you not to, will get you killed someday. What worries me most is the 'cry wolf' effect where alot of people will not get the vaccine because "The last 2 times they told me to, nothing happened" and die from a real bad ass pandemic (Goat flu!!)
I didnt get the vaccine either, but that's mostly because it was made with mercury and i know a whole lot about mercury. I would have gotten vaccinated if it had been made without heavy metals.. ( I mean, why not?)
On January 11 2010 22:28 onewingedmoogle wrote: i dont know how much money they make off the vaccine shots but ever since swine flu came around, i havent been able to go into any public place without seeing hand sanitizer everywhere.
Maybe this is all one big conspiracy of the hand sanitizer production companies.
On January 11 2010 21:42 hifriend wrote: How could you know it's bs beforehand? What we actually heard from scientific institutions was a consensus that the virus was potentially dangerous especially to certain groups of people, so wouldn't it make sense to take the vaccine as recommended, if not to protect yourself then perhaps in order to protect small children, diabetics etc?
Because the same thing has happened with the bird flu for instance where there were to be an estimated 150 million deaths worldwide according to UN chief. There are about 250 people who've died from bird flu worldwide so far...
I think you fail to understand the key point discussed here: the fact that medical companies influence scientific institutions ALOT, creating panic and alarms that are blown out way out of proportion. And that is actually an understatement.
Also, 99% of the people who get the flu and don't have a very serious underlying illness just get a regular flu and then become healthy again. Why the hell should we get expensive flu shots for that?
As far as I know the bird flu hasn't mutated to a state where it is contagious among human beings, still there's a possibility that at one point it might. That strain of flu has actually proven to be both very virulent and deadly, so while I agree that media and other institutions might have blown it out of proportion it's a completely different scenario than this one.
I don't really see why you'd automatically assume that due to one strain of flu not turning out to be a pandemic, there is no reason to fear any subsequent ones. Surely you've read of the 1918 flu pandemic etc?
The reason why I personally would take a flu shot (although I haven't had the opportunity) is in order to protect not only myself but especially those who are in actual danger of dying, and none of us are really in a position to say whether a relatively recently sprung up flu strain might mutate into something worse.
Imo people who trust and base their decisions on conspiracist internet blogs rather than scientific institutions don't get to say 'haha told ya'.
edit: of course I completely support this investigation, if it turns out medical companies have had a big influence on our perception/measures of this flu then I agree that's completely fucked up.
I think there might be a difference between people with common sense and "people who trust and base their decisions on conspiracist internet blogs". I am actually against any flu shots, not just H1N1. All the people around me are going to be sick........*cough*bullshit*cough*
This whole investigation will be a complete joke. The EU behaves in the same way as WHO; e.g. recently they have banned the traditional bulbs in favour of compact fluorescent lamps just because few of the German (I think) manufacturers have spend billions of dollars on building factories that could supply them. Unfortunately those "new" bulbs are multiple times more expensive than the traditional ones, give much different light and... seem to be inferior to LED bulbs, that will probably become popular during next 10 years. Few companies have invested in wrong technology - and everyone in the EU will pay. I frankly believe that this institution will do anything, because not only it is as corrupted as WHO, but also it simply too big and too divided with all the member countries. The governments/EU dont really do anything for average people; but the general hatred towards the waste of public spending is so high that they have to pretend to be doing something.
On January 11 2010 21:42 hifriend wrote: How could you know it's bs beforehand? What we actually heard from scientific institutions was a consensus that the virus was potentially dangerous especially to certain groups of people, so wouldn't it make sense to take the vaccine as recommended, if not to protect yourself then perhaps in order to protect small children, diabetics etc?
Because the same thing has happened with the bird flu for instance where there were to be an estimated 150 million deaths worldwide according to UN chief. There are about 250 people who've died from bird flu worldwide so far...
I think you fail to understand the key point discussed here: the fact that medical companies influence scientific institutions ALOT, creating panic and alarms that are blown out way out of proportion. And that is actually an understatement.
Also, 99% of the people who get the flu and don't have a very serious underlying illness just get a regular flu and then become healthy again. Why the hell should we get expensive flu shots for that?
As far as I know the bird flu hasn't mutated to a state where it is contagious among human beings, still there's a possibility that at one point it might. That strain of flu has actually proven to be both very virulent and deadly, so while I agree that media and other institutions might have blown it out of proportion it's a completely different scenario than this one.
I don't really see why you'd automatically assume that due to one strain of flu not turning out to be a pandemic, there is no reason to fear any subsequent ones. Surely you've read of the 1918 flu pandemic etc?
The reason why I personally would take a flu shot (although I haven't had the opportunity) is in order to protect not only myself but especially those who are in actual danger of dying, and none of us are really in a position to say whether a relatively recently sprung up flu strain might mutate into something worse.
Imo people who trust and base their decisions on conspiracist internet blogs rather than scientific institutions don't get to say 'haha told ya'.
edit: of course I completely support this investigation, if it turns out medical companies have had a big influence on our perception/measures of this flu then I agree that's completely fucked up.
I think there might be a difference between people with common sense and "people who trust and base their decisions on conspiracist internet blogs". I am actually against any flu shots, not just H1N1. All the people around me are going to be sick........*cough*bullshit*cough*
So in your opinion other pandemics such as the spanish flu, wiping out somewhere between 50 and 100 million people worldwide would be what.. Magical mythical fairytales?
On January 11 2010 21:42 hifriend wrote: How could you know it's bs beforehand? What we actually heard from scientific institutions was a consensus that the virus was potentially dangerous especially to certain groups of people, so wouldn't it make sense to take the vaccine as recommended, if not to protect yourself then perhaps in order to protect small children, diabetics etc?
Because the same thing has happened with the bird flu for instance where there were to be an estimated 150 million deaths worldwide according to UN chief. There are about 250 people who've died from bird flu worldwide so far...
I think you fail to understand the key point discussed here: the fact that medical companies influence scientific institutions ALOT, creating panic and alarms that are blown out way out of proportion. And that is actually an understatement.
Also, 99% of the people who get the flu and don't have a very serious underlying illness just get a regular flu and then become healthy again. Why the hell should we get expensive flu shots for that?
As far as I know the bird flu hasn't mutated to a state where it is contagious among human beings, still there's a possibility that at one point it might. That strain of flu has actually proven to be both very virulent and deadly, so while I agree that media and other institutions might have blown it out of proportion it's a completely different scenario than this one.
I don't really see why you'd automatically assume that due to one strain of flu not turning out to be a pandemic, there is no reason to fear any subsequent ones. Surely you've read of the 1918 flu pandemic etc?
The reason why I personally would take a flu shot (although I haven't had the opportunity) is in order to protect not only myself but especially those who are in actual danger of dying, and none of us are really in a position to say whether a relatively recently sprung up flu strain might mutate into something worse.
Imo people who trust and base their decisions on conspiracist internet blogs rather than scientific institutions don't get to say 'haha told ya'.
edit: of course I completely support this investigation, if it turns out medical companies have had a big influence on our perception/measures of this flu then I agree that's completely fucked up.
I think there might be a difference between people with common sense and "people who trust and base their decisions on conspiracist internet blogs". I am actually against any flu shots, not just H1N1. All the people around me are going to be sick........*cough*bullshit*cough*
But do you know why you are against flu shots? - Is it because you believe in strengthening your immune system the old fashion way? or maybe because you are afraid the vaccine will make you sick? Or perhaps you just don't believe that you can get the flu? Medicine is the devil? ... what?Common sense is not much of a reason tbh.
On January 11 2010 22:32 Ao_Jun wrote: Christ, so you guys just run to your personal labs and test the swine flus lethality?
I don't understand how you can say you were sure that this virus was nothing to be worried about when so many scientists worldwide recommended governments to buy a reserve of the vaccine..
Yea i know you were right in the end, but not listening to the advice of medical experts because your 'brain' tells you not to, will get you killed someday. What worries me most is the 'cry wolf' effect where alot of people will not get the vaccine because "The last 2 times they told me to, nothing happened" and die from a real bad ass pandemic (Goat flu!!)
I didnt get the vaccine either, but that's mostly because it was made with mercury and i know a whole lot about mercury. I would have gotten vaccinated if it had been made without heavy metals.. ( I mean, why not?)
Well I was scared of the virus of course (who wouldn't with the media doing so much to make people scared). I was still thinking that it will be 95% bs. The vaccine was not tested properly and there was bigger chance it would harm you than it would help you. And if you didn't have any side effects after taking the shot, that doesn't mean it wouldn't affect your body at all....
Actually I don't know why I'm even discussing this. You people really have a sad way of reasoning.. let's look at it this way.
1. Pandemics occasionally plague humanity since the beginning of time, often killing millions of people in a mere couple of weeks. 2. Humans get fed up with dying to diseases, makes tremendous advances in biochemistry and miraculously finds a way to prevent disease from taking place in the human body. 3. Retards decide they know a whole lot better than science, refuses to take the shots on principle, and the solution we worked so hard to achieve in turn becomes tooth-less. But hey, at least you're not a mindless sheep!
While the flu is not that dangerous to the average person off the street, he is still going to be spreading it to people who already have a condition that with the swine flu mixed in, could lead in serious threat to their health.
Not that I doubt that there has been some kind of exaggaration coming from medical companies.
On January 11 2010 22:52 hifriend wrote: Actually I don't know why I'm even discussing this. You people really have a sad way of reasoning.. let's look at it this way.
1. Pandemics occasionally plague humanity since the beginning of time, often killing millions of people in a mere couple of weeks. 2. Humans get fed up with dying to diseases, makes tremendous advances in biochemistry and miraculously finds a way to prevent disease from taking place in the human body. 3. Retards decide they know a whole lot better than science, refuses to take the shots on principle, and the solution we worked so hard to achieve in turn becomes tooth-less. But hey, at least you're not a mindless sheep!
On January 11 2010 22:52 hifriend wrote: Actually I don't know why I'm even discussing this. You people really have a sad way of reasoning.. let's look at it this way.
1. Pandemics occasionally plague humanity since the beginning of time, often killing millions of people in a mere couple of weeks. 2. Humans get fed up with dying to diseases, makes tremendous advances in biochemistry and miraculously finds a way to prevent disease from taking place in the human body. 3. Retards decide they know a whole lot better than science, refuses to take the shots on principle, and the solution we worked so hard to achieve in turn becomes tooth-less. But hey, at least you're not a mindless sheep!
Well, the big pandemics that killed a lot of humans could have been easily prevented not by medicine, but with super single things like clean water and good personal hyegene :
- plague (transmited by flea) - cholera (transmited by water) - small pox ( countries suffering from it were mostly third world african states) - spanish flu (occured during the first world war, when the living conditions were terrible everywhere)
I am not saying that vaccines are neseccary a bad thing, but if half of the money spent on producing vaccines and medicines were spent ot improving the living conditions of the people, major pandemics will be history.
On January 11 2010 21:42 hifriend wrote: How could you know it's bs beforehand? What we actually heard from scientific institutions was a consensus that the virus was potentially dangerous especially to certain groups of people, so wouldn't it make sense to take the vaccine as recommended, if not to protect yourself then perhaps in order to protect small children, diabetics etc?
Because the same thing has happened with the bird flu for instance where there were to be an estimated 150 million deaths worldwide according to UN chief. There are about 250 people who've died from bird flu worldwide so far...
I think you fail to understand the key point discussed here: the fact that medical companies influence scientific institutions ALOT, creating panic and alarms that are blown out way out of proportion. And that is actually an understatement.
Also, 99% of the people who get the flu and don't have a very serious underlying illness just get a regular flu and then become healthy again. Why the hell should we get expensive flu shots for that?
As far as I know the bird flu hasn't mutated to a state where it is contagious among human beings, still there's a possibility that at one point it might. That strain of flu has actually proven to be both very virulent and deadly, so while I agree that media and other institutions might have blown it out of proportion it's a completely different scenario than this one.
I don't really see why you'd automatically assume that due to one strain of flu not turning out to be a pandemic, there is no reason to fear any subsequent ones. Surely you've read of the 1918 flu pandemic etc?
The reason why I personally would take a flu shot (although I haven't had the opportunity) is in order to protect not only myself but especially those who are in actual danger of dying, and none of us are really in a position to say whether a relatively recently sprung up flu strain might mutate into something worse.
Imo people who trust and base their decisions on conspiracist internet blogs rather than scientific institutions don't get to say 'haha told ya'.
edit: of course I completely support this investigation, if it turns out medical companies have had a big influence on our perception/measures of this flu then I agree that's completely fucked up.
I think there might be a difference between people with common sense and "people who trust and base their decisions on conspiracist internet blogs". I am actually against any flu shots, not just H1N1. All the people around me are going to be sick........*cough*bullshit*cough*
But do you know why you are against flu shots? - Is it because you believe in strengthening your immune system the old fashion way? or maybe because you are afraid the vaccine will make you sick? Or perhaps you just don't believe that you can get the flu? Medicine is the devil? ... what?Common sense is not much of a reason tbh.
Well the body can fight with virus like flu easily without any support. Also these shots can affect the body in a hidden way. I believe it can affect your imune system and body's capability of dealing with allergies. This wasn't proven or disproven so it is pretty much my own opinion. Also speaking about allergies, i think vaccination might be a part of the cause of allergies being so big last 20-30 years. I am not a scientist so i am not saying that this opinion is right, but you know even scientists might be wrong some time. So i am just trying to be as safe as possible with using the capability the nature gave me.
As i said somewhere, the percentage of me dying of swine flu was a lot smaller than my body being affected/harmed by swine flu vaccine (somehow) and i was willing to take that risk.
I can so much understand it. Swineflu was just a god-damn fake, or how do you read the fact, that not even medicins took the shot against swineflu and that nobody seriously was infected? damn pharmalobby-bullshit ..
On January 11 2010 23:32 BBS wrote: I can so much understand it. Swineflu was just a god-damn fake, or how do you read the fact, that not even medicins took the shot against swineflu and that nobody seriously was infected? damn pharmalobby-bullshit ..
Majority of doctors/scientists who have done their homework took the flu shot.
The swine flu IS dangerous to people who have another condition that enhances the effect of swine flu, this is common sense obv. it works just like normal flu in this case, but the swine flu is also very easily spread, such there was a danger of it becoming more serious in the future as it evolves.
If WHO or the other health care sources did claim that it is dangerous to the average Joe right now, then they did exaggarate obviously.
On January 11 2010 20:49 Glaucus wrote: With global warming there's no one that's going to be making any money. In fact, it will reduce economic growth.
The chief of the UN said that up to 150 million people can die from the bird flu. How is that not throwing a half-assed prediction that people are gonna catch up on, out there?
Yeah, in an absolute worst case scenario...
On January 11 2010 23:43 Mortality wrote: There's ALWAYS someone seeking profit of some kind from ANY political agenda. You're naive to think otherwise.
That's different. Less CO2 emissions means less use of energy which means less economic growth.
Taxes and trading of emission rights are all secondary things and can't be blamed on global warming.
What an amazing display of hindsight by many of the posters here...
Certainly, the disease did not turn out to be as bad as initially portrayed, but how could any layman (which I am assuming that everyone here is) know that at the time? Saying that it was "common sense" or that one could simply "know" is simply ridiculous.
On January 11 2010 20:50 NonFactor wrote: Raise your hand if you had the possibility to get a vaccine easily but decided not to because you knew it was bullshit and nothing really to be affraid of!
Back home in good ol' Sweden, the government bought two vaccines per person, resulting in 18million doses costing taxpayers 1,3 billion kr (roughly 130 million dollars)
When the minister responsible was asked why we needed such an amount of vaccine when the swine flu isn't that dangerous she replied: "If we can save the life of one kid, then its worth it". When further pressed about it, this was her only argument. . .
Such a waste of money.
Also, this was around the time when the flu was sufficiently spread and still the mortality was 1%!
These politicians are scared too. If it is really barely the better decision not to mass vaccinate and it turns out to be a huge flu pandemic then those politicians are totally screwed. How can they sleep at night knowing they decided to do nothing while millions died? They decided to be cheap and people died on their watch. For those people does it really matter if it's in in 1000 or one in 100,000?
And it will be the same people bashing them as there are now. Only it will be much much harsher and they will actually kind of have a point. What are they going to say? This has happened through the ages and there's nothing we can really do about it? (which might be true)
On January 12 2010 00:03 Jathin wrote: I don't really understand the purpose of this investigation. Is it to say that lobbyists were pushing to label this a 'pandemic'? Well, duh!
duh what? If the pharmaceutical companies lobbied for declaring a pandemic, without properly backing up their claims, then they are at fault.
Edit:
On January 12 2010 00:03 Jathin wrote: 2) Refusing to get a vaccine is up to you, but to say it's "bullshit because it won't help me" is missing the point of vaccination from a global health perspective. The concept of "herd immunity" is intended not to protect you, but to halt spread of the disease. I forget the exact numbers, but somewhere between 60 and 80% of people need to be vaccinated in order to decelerate the spread of influenza. Sure, it may not help you, but it'll help those who would die from it from acquiring the disease.
You forget the exact numbers, but you also forget to cite resources. It is very hard to tell after the vaccination programs have run, what would have happened otherwise and we can't really find out the truth, but it's convenient as an argument for vaccination.
3) It saddens me that some people here refused to take H1N1 vaccines because they didn't feel "at risk." In fact, the reason H1N1 caused such a stir this time around is because it has been killing healthy people in the younger age range (it is a recurrence of a prior strain, so the elderly population already has immunity against it since they were once exposed)
You are at risk of a lot of things. If you want insurance for all of them you're gonna pay millions, to insurance companies to get it covered. Yet, you can choose to accept the risk. How big is it really? That previous generation didn't suffer much from their influenza strain, or did they? (kinda a genuine question since I don't have any figures.)
It is the mutation that would be the problem from what I understand. Seriously though, sooner or later we've gotta be ready for an epidemic like this. It's stuff like this, even if it rips off, that prepares us for the real thing. Death by epidemic is problably the most plausible path of extinction for humanity right now [citation needed], and we need to prepare. Besides, should we have spread H1N1 uncontrollably, we might actually have seen a mutation.. Correct me if I'm wrong
it was obvious this all thing was a scam anyway. Almost every year there is a magical disease that come up and might wipe out millions of people, because of pork, cow, chicken, dog or i don't know what else they are gonna invent. In France this vaccination campaign was a fail, now they are looking for a way to sell the vaccines because they bought them at an expansive cost lol no shit, who made the money?
On January 11 2010 20:50 NonFactor wrote: Raise your hand if you had the possibility to get a vaccine easily but decided not to because you knew it was bullshit and nothing really to be affraid of!
o/
\o/
I got sick during the whole scare period and so did my roommates lol
On January 12 2010 00:03 Jathin wrote: 3) It saddens me that some people here refused to take H1N1 vaccines because they didn't feel "at risk." In fact, the reason H1N1 caused such a stir this time around is because it has been killing healthy people in the younger age range (it is a recurrence of a prior strain, so the elderly population already has immunity against it since they were once exposed)
The H1N1 does NOT kill healthy people. Not a single person diagnosed as healthy has died from H1N1 or any other flue for that matter. All deaths has either been reported by people with complications or by people with no diagnose. Just because you don't have a diagnose doesn't mean you are at good health.
On January 12 2010 00:03 Jathin wrote: 3) It saddens me that some people here refused to take H1N1 vaccines because they didn't feel "at risk." In fact, the reason H1N1 caused such a stir this time around is because it has been killing healthy people in the younger age range (it is a recurrence of a prior strain, so the elderly population already has immunity against it since they were once exposed)
Not a single person diagnosed as healthy has died from H1N1 or any other flue for that matter.
On January 12 2010 02:05 ocoini wrote: Wheeee,i took the vaccine! does this mean I might get some money when/if they get sued? :D
In dreamland maybe.
If people found out that the flu was not dangerous and continued to make it sound like it was to make a profit then they should be held accountable. There are far more deaths from side effects to vaccines than there were historically for flus such as the 1976 swine flu. I think the WHO can just argue that they were concerned about the public safety and will be left alone if they are brought to court.
Glad to see some in-fighting and the tiniest bit accountability amongst the power brokers of the world. In the end all the tax payers of the world ended up paying a lot of money for a largely useless product.
I predicted exact that when the vaccines finally arrived on the market in mass. This outcome was eminently predictable primarily because the vaccine arrived so late that the flu "pandemic" had already run its course. The primary effect of taking the flu vaccine was to exposure to the risks associated with a hastily-made vaccine.
On January 12 2010 01:02 Lovin wrote: It is the mutation that would be the problem from what I understand. Seriously though, sooner or later we've gotta be ready for an epidemic like this. It's stuff like this, even if it rips off, that prepares us for the real thing. Death by epidemic is problably the most plausible path of extinction for humanity right now [citation needed], and we need to prepare. Besides, should we have spread H1N1 uncontrollably, we might actually have seen a mutation.. Correct me if I'm wrong
This is correct. Flu virus does mutate over time. It is also the reason why flu vaccines get ineffective and you need a different flu vaccine every season.
The possibility for mutation significantly weakens the notion that a flu vaccine will be an effective counter in the middle or latter stages of an epidemic. The flu vaccine needs to be available at the early stages of an epidemic to blunt its spread.
Since there is a large difference in the fatality rate between the Spanish flu pandemic and the recent swine flu one, is that a difference because of the swine flu vaccination program, better hygiene and awareness, better treatment of other fatality-rate-increasing diseases or the effectiveness of the regular vaccination program? It is difficult to make a clear case for the swine flu vaccination program by comparing with the Spanish flu, when it comes with so many factors.
On January 12 2010 02:56 Badjas wrote: Thanks for the references Jathin.
Since there is a large difference in the fatality rate between the Spanish flu pandemic and the recent swine flu one, is that a difference because of the swine flu vaccination program, better hygiene and awareness, better treatment of other fatality-rate-increasing diseases or the effectiveness of the regular vaccination program? It is difficult to make a clear case for the swine flu vaccination program by comparing with the Spanish flu, when it comes with so many factors.
I think it's pretty certain the new strain wasn't nearly as fatal as the spanish flu, nor as fatal as we first suspected it to be. However all these amateur virologists who think that they somehow predicted this beforehand are idiots.
On January 12 2010 03:19 Wr3k wrote: Got swine flu before vaccine was available in my city (still think it was overhyped, I didn't die or anything, just felt like garbage for 4-5 days)
On January 12 2010 00:03 Jathin wrote: I don't really understand the purpose of this investigation. Is it to say that lobbyists were pushing to label this a 'pandemic'? Well, duh!
duh what? If the pharmaceutical companies lobbied for declaring a pandemic, without properly backing up their claims, then they are at fault.
Edit:
On January 12 2010 00:03 Jathin wrote: 2) Refusing to get a vaccine is up to you, but to say it's "bullshit because it won't help me" is missing the point of vaccination from a global health perspective. The concept of "herd immunity" is intended not to protect you, but to halt spread of the disease. I forget the exact numbers, but somewhere between 60 and 80% of people need to be vaccinated in order to decelerate the spread of influenza. Sure, it may not help you, but it'll help those who would die from it from acquiring the disease.
You forget the exact numbers, but you also forget to cite resources. It is very hard to tell after the vaccination programs have run, what would have happened otherwise and we can't really find out the truth, but it's convenient as an argument for vaccination.
3) It saddens me that some people here refused to take H1N1 vaccines because they didn't feel "at risk." In fact, the reason H1N1 caused such a stir this time around is because it has been killing healthy people in the younger age range (it is a recurrence of a prior strain, so the elderly population already has immunity against it since they were once exposed)
You are at risk of a lot of things. If you want insurance for all of them you're gonna pay millions, to insurance companies to get it covered. Yet, you can choose to accept the risk. How big is it really? That previous generation didn't suffer much from their influenza strain, or did they? (kinda a genuine question since I don't have any figures.)
*sigh*
To summarize, of course people with underlying illnesses are more susceptible, but H1N1 has been hitting people with even benign conditions such as asthma (see the .pdf below for distribution of incidences according to disease category)
Source: CDC
Prevalence of H1N1 is higher in asthmatics, diabetics, and obese patients (once again, these are considered relatively healthy people, and comprise a huge portion of US population). Smoking is particularly prevalent in European countries, and has been linked with inpatient prevalence. High burden of CVD ( considered 'unhealthy' ) is also of concern with H1N1.
Additionally, influenza annually leads to 36,000 deaths and 226,000 hospitalizations in the US. 50% of pediatric deaths have no underlying high risk condition.
EDIT: Oh, and to answer your question -- there were 20 million deaths from the previous H1N1, more than any other pandemic of the 20th century.
1- 50 million people died of the Spanish flu, not 20 million. 2- Asthmatics, diabetics and OBESE people are healthy? what? 3- If you have asthma (or smoke) - respiratory complications - of course a fucking respiratory-system affecting flu is going to be aggravated by that. 4- Why did you put unhealthy in quotation marks, its cardiovascular disease, the number 1 cause of death in NA. Unless you didn't write it - then get better sources. 5- The prevalence of obesity in NA and smoking in EU have nothing to do with their healthy or unhealthiness.
While I dont believe neither global warming is a threat nor Swine Flu... I wouldnt trust a Canadian site that things USA is the only thing that stands between good and evil in the world... AND has a OBAMA LEAVING OFFICE COUNTDOWN CLOCK?
While I definitely think the UN could use some scrutiny, a disease that is readily contagious and harmful is the biggest large scale threat possible (if you don't consider stars going supernova or asteroids hitting the earth), and drastic measures are justified if there is a risk. Perhaps later we will discover it was an overreaction, but overreacting is much more desirable than underreacting. Even nuclear explosions and chemical weapons have geographical limits - but a contagious disease doesn't stop at any boundaries.
EPT
