Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Home_To_Roost

Swine Flu Hysteria Is Back

Recommended Posts

Here we go again ..... the Swine Flu hysteria has returned with a vengeance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/8212056/Swine-flu-half-of-worst-afflicted-were-previously-in-good-health.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1339863/Pregnant-mother-battle-life-catching-swine-flu.html

Let's get this into perspective. Swine Flu is LESS deadly than normal seasonal flu. The mortality rate of the H1N1 "swine flu" is lower than common flu strains!!!!!!! Please, don't listen to the mainstream press, who are connected to "vested interests".

If I remember correctly, there were MILLIONS of unwanted vaccines from 2009 .... can they combine last year's vaccines with the current vaccines? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again ..... the Swine Flu hysteria has returned with a vengeance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/8212056/Swine-flu-half-of-worst-afflicted-were-previously-in-good-health.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1339863/Pregnant-mother-battle-life-catching-swine-flu.html

Let's get this into perspective. Swine Flu is LESS deadly than normal seasonal flu. The mortality rate of the H1N1 "swine flu" is lower than common flu strains!!!!!!! Please, don't listen to the mainstream press, who are connected to "vested interests".

If I remember correctly, there were MILLIONS of unwanted vaccines from 2009 .... can they combine last year's vaccines with the current vaccines? ;)

Normal flu doesn't kill perfectly health people, Swine flu does. This years vaccine protects against Swine flu, so if you are pregnant or have any health issue or obese you should get vaccinate.

If you have absolutely no regard for the health of your children or the people around you then don't. Also, if you get flu like symptoms, DO NOT go to see a doctor or take up hospital space. Swine flu is less deadly, so suffer in silence what can it do kill you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal flu doesn't kill perfectly health people, Swine flu does. This years vaccine protects against Swine flu, so if you are pregnant or have any health issue or obese you should get vaccinate.

If you have absolutely no regard for the health of your children or the people around you then don't. Also, if you get flu like symptoms, DO NOT go to see a doctor or take up hospital space. Swine flu is less deadly, so suffer in silence what can it do kill you :)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58E6NZ20090916

Both can kill, but rarely do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's hysteria. Swine flu could easily become more deadly or more contagious, so it's important to raise peoples' awareness again. It might well turn out there isn't an epidemic or a big number of severe cases, in which case, all well and good. But the opposite could happen, which is scary if you dwell on it too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My GP's surgery was desperate to make use of their swine flu vaccines.

I guess if they talk up the dangers then people will get vaccinated, use some of the stockpiled vaccines and make the NHS planners look ever so slightly less stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many the hysteria kills, as opposed to the actual virus? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My GP's surgery was desperate to make use of their swine flu vaccines.

I guess if they talk up the dangers then people will get vaccinated, use some of the stockpiled vaccines and make the NHS planners look ever so slightly less stupid.

They can throw them away, nothing stupid about a medical organisation planning for medical emergency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me, get vaccinated. I'm suffering from it at the moment. Been in hospital twice and still suffering 5 days later. It's terrible and it's a killer, don't get caught out like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the USA they're urging EVERYONE to get vaccinated against H1N1.

see: http://www.flu.gov/

Also there are public service ads on Bloomberg Internet Radio urging Americans to get vaccinated against H1N1

Ensuring that we were in a position to do that here was one of the few positive achievements of Gordon Brown's era as PM.

If the coalition retreats at all from the position we were in regarding being able to combat swine flu, it would be criminal.

This is where the Liberal Democrats must make a stand on behalf of the people of this country. If the Tories try to cut back at all on sthe potential for wine flu vaccination, they should be mindful they would be handing the Lib Dems a perfect excuse to leave the coalition, and with their heads held high, at that. The coalition is doomed anyway, the big problem is that the Tories can still do a great deal of damage its remaining weeks or months.

I know of two people who had H1N1 swine flu last year. One was only slightly ill, the other was very ill. Both people are under 40 and were in good health beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the USA they're urging EVERYONE to get vaccinated against H1N1.

This is where the Liberal Democrats must make a stand on behalf of the people of this country. If the Tories try to cut back at all on sthe potential for wine flu vaccination

Wine is a vaccine against flu? Great!

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get this into perspective. Swine Flu is LESS deadly than normal seasonal flu. The mortality rate of the H1N1 "swine flu" is lower than common flu strains!!!!!!! Please, don't listen to the mainstream press, who are connected to "vested interests".

Swine flu is killing ten times the number of normal strains of Flu, lets put that story to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news everybody, there isn't enough vaccine to vaccinate those who need it.

That will show those nasty pharmaceutical companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news everybody, there isn't enough vaccine to vaccinate those who need it.

But how come?

I thought they said not enough people were going for the vaccination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal flu doesn't kill perfectly health people, Swine flu does. This years vaccine protects against Swine flu, so if you are pregnant or have any health issue or obese you should get vaccinate.

If you have absolutely no regard for the health of your children or the people around you then don't. Also, if you get flu like symptoms, DO NOT go to see a doctor or take up hospital space. Swine flu is less deadly, so suffer in silence what can it do kill you :)

I just registered on this site specifically to reply to your comment. Without looking it up can you tell me the ingredients of the vaccine that you took and presumably gave to your kids and are pushing on other people? Did you even look at the list of ingredients when you took it? Do you know of all the potential long term side effects and risks in taking the vaccine? You need to look up thimerosal and squalene. The H1N1 vaccine like many vaccines contains MERCURY! Also look up Guillian Barre Syndrome. Telling anyone, let alone pregnant women to get this vaccine is highly immoral.

For everybody else: Before you take the word of someone on an internet forum or even a health professional for that matter about whether to inject your children with something which could potentially kill them or leave them seriously disabled do thorough research yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just registered on this site specifically to reply to your comment. Without looking it up can you tell me the ingredients of the vaccine that you took and presumably gave to your kids and are pushing on other people? Did you even look at the list of ingredients when you took it? Do you know of all the potential long term side effects and risks in taking the vaccine? You need to look up thimerosal and squalene. The H1N1 vaccine like many vaccines contains MERCURY! Also look up Guillian Barre Syndrome. Telling anyone, let alone pregnant women to get this vaccine is highly immoral.

For everybody else: Before you take the word of someone on an internet forum or even a health professional for that matter about whether to inject your children with something which could potentially kill them or leave them seriously disabled do thorough research yourself.

Yeah, sure take the advice of an idiot on a web site over the whole medical profession. Why don't we all read up some garbage (by struck off doctors) warning against vaccines and decide in half an hour that we know more than thousands of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. BTW, can you post your personal details here so every dead pregnant woman can sue you for taking your medical advice.

Thimerosal only present in multiple dose flu vaccines, its not in the single dose vaccine and hasn't been for many years. So there isn't mercury in the vaccine, but effectively there is in some packages. So you can get a vaccine without it.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever wondered how many employees of companies conform and comply with their bosses or line managers requests especially if it was to affect their employment? Its visible for all to see in all walks of life.

You might want to read up on Milgram if you are not familiar with his work.

We saw with the Nazi's that a large proportion of a country can conform and Milgram observed 65% compliance.

Is there anything to suggest human nature has changed over the last 70 odd years let alone over the last millenia?

Yes, human nature has changed a lot in 70 years. Totalitarian regimes have basically vanished, the catholic religion effective wiped out peoples freedom and access to information has changed the world. There has been a revolution in food production.

I worked in SKB's research department for a few months and spoke to a lot of people involved with the development and approval of drugs, everyone (except me and a secretary) were PHD's - management included. Everything they did was based on medicine not business, because quite simply, good medicine makes good business. Same as engineering actually.

However, my advice is avoid all vaccines if you want. Please include your children as well so you defective genes can be removed from the pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to good medicine makes good business, that could be applied to any business.

So whilst your observation maybe true about your former co-workers, I bet not many if faced with losing their job would not hestiate to skew/manipulate/present the statistics in favour of a product to keep a job. Its human nature to put yourself first. Likewise some businesses command more authority by virtue of market size yet it doesnt mean they make better products. It just means they are better at making money within their framework of rules or regulations. My rules & regulations are what the customer wants, for pharma its whats been drawn up by Govt based on problems that have occurred with past products. Afterall I think its true to say the Pharma industry is one of most regulated and rightly so, the mistakes of the past have created the regulations the pharma companies face today. If the pharma industry was so good would they be so heavily regulated unlike say the IT industry?

Your argument is purely conjecture. What might happen if people behaved how you decide they should, not on real, solid facts. For instance, how could you fake a animal test and not get discovered. Drug approval take seven years from patent on average, BTW. Investing all that time and money on something that is useless means drug companies try ******ing hard to get something that works, has good efficacy and has limited side effects. You cannot 'fake statistics' because drugs are tested independently.

I have a software company that is SaaS, (Software as a Service). We very good money out of it, incidentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, human nature has changed a lot in 70 years. Totalitarian regimes have basically vanished, the catholic religion effective wiped out peoples freedom and access to information has changed the world. There has been a revolution in food production.

Human nature has not changed a jot.

I worked in SKB's research department for a few months and spoke to a lot of people involved with the development and approval of drugs, everyone (except me and a secretary) were PHD's - management included. Everything they did was based on medicine not business, because quite simply, good medicine makes good business. Same as engineering actually.

However, my advice is avoid all vaccines if you want. Please include your children as well so you defective genes can be removed from the pool.

Peter, I have a Ph.D. and was an academic at a good institution for quite a few years. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on vaccines. I do have an opinion on the practice of science though.

We know from case after case in Australia and the US that drug companies will hide serious defects in drugs. Papers are, very often, not written by the scientists involved, but by the drug companies funding the research, and just try to release any information that harms a drug's prospect if you are in a university but in their pay. You do realise that there are companies that write pro-articles for the drug companies and then these are passed

A guy at Oxford had his career destroyed by this earlier this decade when he released information that the funding drug company did not want known. Mrs Woods knows an academic who was "paid off" quite handsomely to keep quite about his research. I could tell you the story about how I got a paper into one of the top science journals by buying an editor a beer. I have numerous stories involving plaigiarism to outright fraud - I can talk about rottenness in science all evening. (This is not to say there aren't many, many good, honest clever hardworking scientists, just that there are quite a few rotten apples too and that large amounts of money distorts everything.)

Ben Goldacre is often cited by the science fanboy crowd, so here is one of his articles on what came out of one Australian court case involving Vioxx. It is well worth a read.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/elsevier-get-into-fanzines/

For those who can't be bothered, I'll give you a couple of choice quotes:

The first fun thing to come out in the Australian one is email documentation showing that staff at Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who were critical of the company, or of the drug. This list had words like “neutralise”, “neutralised” and “discredit” next to the names of various doctors. “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” said one email, from a Merck employee. Gosh okay, see you at mine later.

They’re also alleged to have used other tactics, like trying to interfere with academic appointments, and dropping hints about how funding to institutions might dry up. Institutions might think about whether they, in turn, wish to receive money from a company like that.

But this time Elsevier Australia went the whole hog: they gave Merck an entire publication to themselves, which looked like an academic journal, but in fact only contained reprinted articles, or summaries of other articles. In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references.

This article on publication bias towards drug company funded reseacrch versus government funded research is also interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/14/bad-science-medical-research

An article on how half promotional material for medical drugs is not supported by the research cited:

http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/obvious-quacks-the-tip-of-a-scary-medical-iceberg/

Here is one about how Peter Wilmshurst, a prominent UK medical researcher is being sued for what he has said about the running of some medical device trials:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/11/migraine-libel-nmt

or you can just go for his nicely summary of scientific malfeasance in the year 2010:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/17/bad-science-review-of-the-year

The sorry conclusion I have come to, after being a scientist for many years, is that you cannot trust any research where a lot of money is at stake, and cannot trust half the other stuff either. How can you make decisions on important matters, such as vaccines, when you know that a lot of the data you are receiving is likely to be tainted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument is purely conjecture. What might happen if people behaved how you decide they should, not on real, solid facts. For instance, how could you fake a animal test and not get discovered. Drug approval take seven years from patent on average, BTW. Investing all that time and money on something that is useless means drug companies try ******ing hard to get something that works, has good efficacy and has limited side effects. You cannot 'fake statistics' because drugs are tested independently.

You are very naive. It is often about what statistics are published and what are not; what research is buried, and what is promoted. etc.

If everything worked as you suggested, Vioxx, amongst other drugs, would never have had a general release. It is not an isolated case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets take a look at one such company. GSK gsk.com/careers/uk-stud-spon-msc.htm

A few years ago, the active ingredient of the Sudafed (nasal decongestant) was changed from pseudoephidrine (which works, but is now much less easily available across the world as it can be used to make methamphetamines) to phenylephrine.

There have been two meta-analyses of phenylephrine. The first, by independents showed no difference between it and placebo.

A second, published soon after by GSK researchers, showed that it was significantly better than placebo.

Hmm. I know which one I believe. (I noticed the drug change after I bought a pack and they had no effect on my symptoms. Was puzzled, so did a bit of research...)

Wikipedia link phenylephrine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.