Was swine flu threat exaggerated?

**BugginOut** · 20-01-2010, 05:23 AM

The Irish Times - Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The World Health Organisation stands accused of being unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies, writes RONAN McGREEVY
WHEN IS A pandemic not a pandemic? That critical question will be debated next week by the Council of Europe in an investigation that is likely to have worldwide implications.
To date, the swine flu pandemic has killed more than 13,500 people worldwide. It is a significant number, but nowhere near some of the more ghastly estimates which surfaced when the H1N1 virus began in Mexico last June.
The figure contrasts with the 35,000 people who die in the US alone from common influenza every year.
There is now a growing feeling that the threat from swine flu was grossly exaggerated and billions were spent worldwide by governments stockpiling vaccines. There was talk of hundreds of thousands of deaths this winter, but, as the threat has receded, so has demand for the vaccine. To date in Ireland, almost 700,000 (one in six) of the population has been vaccinated even though the Government bought enough vaccines last summer to immunise 3.85 million people.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Pace) represents 47 countries throughout Europe.
Unlike the European Parliament, it has no decision-making powers, but, as was demonstrated by its report into extraordinary rendition, it does have the power to make life uncomfortable for the powers that be.
The impetus for a public inquiry has come from the president of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a German doctor and epidemiologist. Dr Wodarg’s charges against the WHO could hardly be more serious. He has accused it of changing the definition of a pandemic from one that breaks out in several continents at once and has above-average morbidity to one where the spread of the disease is constant.
Dr Wodarg says that the WHO is unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies and that the declaration of a pandemic hugely enriched the industry at the expense of taxpayers and governments.
He also said it was strange that two vaccines were initially needed, not one, and that the swine flu epidemic could have been tackled using modifications of existing viruses. “There are systematic questions to be put so that we don’t get cheated by those who make us panic,” he said.
The WHO said it will vigorously defend itself and is conducting its own inquiry. Keiji Fukuda, special adviser to the WHO director-general on pandemic influenza, has said that “the world is going through a real pandemic” and “the description of it as a fake is both wrong and irresponsible”.
The pharmaceutical industry has also issued statements defending its position, but the public appears to believe that the threat was exaggerated given the huge stockpiles of unused vaccines – even allowing for the fact that only one vaccine is needed instead of two.
The Government ordered 7.7 million vaccines last summer, enough for two doses for each of the population. This was compromised of equal batches of Pandemrix, a vaccine made by GlaxoSmithKline, and Celvapan, made by Baxter.
It has now emerged that a shot of Pandemrix is sufficient for both children and adults, except those with weakened immune systems. As a result the Government has renegotiated its contract with Baxter and will not be taking up 3.7 million doses of the Celvapan vaccine as had been originally ordered, resulting in a saving of between €25 million and €35 million from an original vaccine budget of €88 million.
The pattern is being repeated across Europe as countries scale back their vaccination plans. France wants to cancel 50 million of the 94 million doses it ordered. Switzerland is giving away more than half its store of vaccines to the WHO for distribution in other countries, as is the Netherlands. Germany and Spain are renegotiating their contracts with the pharmaceutical companies.
In the UK, Labour MP Paul Flynn, a member of the Council of Europe, is trying to find out how much money Britain spent on vaccines. “What we want to find out is whether this was decided on proper scientific basis or the pressure from pharmaceutical companies to make bigger profits. How powerful are the pharmaceutical companies in influencing the World Health Organisation?” he said.

**BugginOut** · 20-01-2010, 05:30 AM

Council of Europe will investigate and debate on "Faked Pandemic"

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.
The "birds-flu"-campaign (2005/06) combined with the "swine-flu"-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies.
The Council of Europe and its member-states should ask for immediate investigations and consequences on their national levels as well as on the international level.
The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers.

When in April 2009 some hundred normal influenza cases in Mexico City were rashly announced to be the beginning of a threatening new pandemic, there was little scientific evidence for this judgment. Nevertheless a large and immediate word-wide agenda setting process started and was eagerly spread by alarmist media and formally legitimized by pandemic-defining WHO, the agency, which is our global epidemiological watchdog and task-force.
Besides this, vaccination programs against influenza are already established in most of the exposed countries as an annual routine. They are regularly taking into account all expected varieties of flu-viruses to bundle their antigen fragments in a well-adjusted poly-valent vaccine.
But around the Mexican outbreak, WHO in cooperation with some big pharmaceutical companies and their scientists re-defined pandemics and lowered the alarm-threshold. Those new standards forced politicians in most states to react immediately and sign marketing commitments for additional and new vaccines against "swine-flu" and spend billions of dollars to catch up with the alarming scenario that Big Pharma, media and WHO were spreading.
From the beginning in April 2009 it was clear, that a newly combined flu-virus was on its way - as many flu-virus-variations have been almost every year before. From the first cases in Mexico it was also evident, that this new subtype was doing less harm to infected humans than others in former years. Nevertheless the "swine-flu-campaign" was increasingly threatening people, filling television programs, newspapers, health-agendas, ambulances and hospitals.
Never before the search for traces of a virus was carried out so broadly and intensively. Besides, many cases of death, that happened to coincide with sero-positive H1N1 lab-findings, were simply attributed to "swine-flu" and used to foster fear.
Additionally it has been proven, that at least one third of the population older than 60 had already positive test results because of flu contacts in the second half of the last century. In contrast to this "agenda setting process" it has to be stated, that the annual worldwide spreading ("pandemic") of 2009- influenza was a relief for global health, compared with the suffering, influenza waves used to originate most of the years before.
The Australian flu-season, which has already passed by with the Australian winter, has even given evidence, that the infection with "swine-flu" brings some protection against other, more dangerous virus-types. Nevertheless we have to observe, that a faked "swine-flu"- pandemic is still used for marketing risky vaccines.
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.

Tabled by

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (Soc. Germany)
(already signed and supported by a sufficient number of members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe)

**sabang** · 20-01-2010, 10:53 AM

Yes, it was.
And some folk made good money from it.
Why do you ask?

**Rural Surin** · 20-01-2010, 11:36 AM

Promoting institutional fear. Big business....

**Norton** · 20-01-2010, 11:46 AM

It was. Lots of money to be made if a state of fear can be established. Death by terrorist attack "pandemic" another example. Given the numbers, risk of being done off by a terrorist are less likely than being killed by the little known Osama Bee Laden.

**Panda** · 20-01-2010, 03:38 PM

It was an unknown quantity to begin with and certainly an overreaction in retrospect. But at the same time a good trial run for the big one.

**buriramboy** · 20-01-2010, 04:08 PM

Of course it was, add it to sars, bird flu, the milenium bug, aids (shouldn't that have wiped out mankind now if you think back to the scaremongering in the 80's) iraq having nukes and probably loads more i can't think of.

**Panda** · 20-01-2010, 05:14 PM

The thing is that modern pandemic planning is vital to the survival of the masses in developed countries, and to a lesser extent those in undeveloped countries.

The Bubonic Plague swept through the world unchallenged a few centuries ago and wiped out nearly half the earths population of humans. Its still around today in fact though we have it contained through better medical practices and planning. ------
Black Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" From 1944 through 1993, 362 cases of human plague were reported in the United States; approximately 90% of these occurred in four western states.[74] Plague was confirmed in the United States from nine western states during 1995"

We shouldn't become too complacent about potential pandemics that might wipe out a large proportion of the earths human population including you, me and our families. It can happen and probably will eventually. SARS, Bird Flu, and the latest Piggie Flu have all been contained due to global cooperation in pandemic planning.
Perhaps they didnt turn out to be the new Bubonic plague of modern times, but can anyone turn around and with confidance say that next pandemic wont be just as lethal?

I am happy for governments to err on the side of caution, particularly if I get the vaccination first. Just because the past few epidemics haven't turned out to be so bad doesn't mean there wont be a really nasty one we have trouble stopping hit us sometime in the future.

Though it could be a good thing for our planet if half the human population were wiped out, I dont want myself or my family to be part of the casualties.

**spliff** · 20-01-2010, 05:23 PM

Exaggerated....Same as Glowbull worming.

**nikster** · 20-01-2010, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

Though it could be a good thing for our planet if half the human population were wiped out, I dont want myself or my family to be part of the casualties.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Does that, worded differently, mean that you would, if possible, maybe wipe out 50% of the human population? A modern day Pol Pot? Because that's what it means, in consequence.

Here's what I think - the pandemic was simply an error and an over-reaction. I don't think erring on the safe side is an excuse. If it were we'd have ambulances chasing up and down our roads at all times, and we'd be in a constant state of alert.

Dark forces pushing their drugs were probably involved as well, but they were not the only or even main factor. But yeah, they were pushing as they had a lot to gain. There's that whole Rumsfeld connection to anti-flu drugs that's really worrying.

I don't think this faction controls the world, or even the WHO, but they do exist and I do think they are involved in numerous plots to further their business interest against all ethical considerations. They're trying. In particular, what they can easily do is pay some scientists to research until they find the "right" results, then publish that, and let the media do the rest - scare stories make great headlines and sell lots of papers, you don't really need to do much to get huge exposure, and next thing you know "the people" will demand that the governments stock pile anti-flu medicine, at any price. And lo and behold, whoops, there's only one company making this medicine! It's so easy - no wonder they try all the time.

**nikster** · 20-01-2010, 05:58 PM

One thing that I was thinking - can it be that hard to keep the WHO clean of influences from the pharmaceutical industry? Strict supervision, independent reviews, and huge fines for the industry if anything improper comes to light should suffice, I'd think.

**Jesus Jones** · 20-01-2010, 06:19 PM

Distraction from the issues of the economy while profiteering from an over exaggerated crisis.

Create the problem and the people will look to us for the solution. As it always has been but history seems to teach us nothing!

**Rural Surin** · 20-01-2010, 07:15 PM

Plagues and pandemics. Nature's way of thinning out the herd. Those, and wars, which are exclusively species-centred.

Thread: Was swine flu threat exaggerated?

Thread Tools

Display

Was swine flu threat exaggerated?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions