The $120m sequel: swine flu II
|
Swine flu, it seems, is back. Yesterday a mostly compliant media dutifully reported the latest efforts by the Commonwealth’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Jim Bishop to scare Australians into getting a swine flu vaccination to ward off a threatening “second wave” of the influenza strain. A host of medical authorities fell into line to tell the media the second wave could be far more deadly than the first. Only Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph, to its credit (and, as we will see below, not before time) showed some scepticism, although the journalists failed to note that mass vaccination critic Professor Nikolai Petrovsky isn’t just any old “medical researcher” but research director for Vaxine, which has criticised the Government for not buying its vaccine rather than CSL’s. In total, the Government has handed $120 million to CSL for more than 20 million doses of H1N1 vaccine. Two-thirds of the vaccines are sitting in warehouses going off, despite GPs virtually throwing them at patients presenting for anything from a cough to a sprained ankle. The latest efforts to convince Australians of the mortal threat posed by swine flu bear a very close resemblance to an effort to spare the Government embarrassment. It’s not politicians who should be embarrassed, though it’s their health bureaucrats and advisers and the elements within the health industry who encouraged them. Let’s revisit their original warnings about swine flu. In July, Nicola Roxon, on the advice of her department, said that the worse case scenario was 6000 deaths from swine flu (a figure that has since vanished from the Health Department’s “Health Emergency” page). She made the comment in response to hysterical reporting, for example from the Telegraph’s Joe Hildebrand, that the death toll could reach 10,000 “in NSW alone” (the “in NSW alone” bit is the killer, ain’t it?) The context for the 6000 figure is that more than 3000 Australians die each year from influenza. As of the most recent update, 191 Australians have died from swine flu. ANU’s Professor Peter Collignon, a consistent proponent of taking a more realistic look at swine flu and mass vaccination, has said that the 2009 flu season was about on par with, or slightly less severe than, other years in the last decade or so, although certain groups such as pregnant women were over-represented (eight pregnant women have died of swine flu in Australia). The Department of Health’s estimate — eminently conservative as it was compared to the garbage coming from the tabloids — was about as useful as those thermal imaging machines the department sent to airports to detect swine flu cases. Too bad the bulk of swine flu victims don’t develop a fever and would pass unnoticed through a thermal scanner. Professor Bishop and the Department of Health have offered no acknowledgement that their estimates of the impact of swine flu were so badly wrong. Instead, we continue to get horror scenarios and meaningless factoids (“37,584 confirmed cases of H1N1”). In a recent interview with Croakey’s Melissa Sweet, Bishop insisted there had been no overreaction. In fact, Bishop went further and suggested they had always known swine flu wouldn’t be severe: “people at the start of this were genuinely unclear about what the virus looked like. We were very fortunate that we had about seven weeks at the start where we watched what was happening overseas before there were any cases here. That allowed us to understand it wasn’t causing a high death rate in a modern society.” That didn’t stop predictions of thousands of deaths, curiously. Putting aside Bishop’s claim that the Government always knew swine flu would be mild, the severity — or lack thereof — of swine flu was known well before a vaccine was developed and tested and the Government embarked on a mass vaccination campaign, which started at the end of September. Indeed, Collignon had identified in Crikey in May why swine flu wouldn’t be severe and followed that up on 20 August showing that the strain had clearly been far less severe than expected and indeed little different to normal flu seasons. The public have shown almost a complete lack of interest in immunisation September, which Bishop puts down to “people have felt it is over and it’s last year’s problem”. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the Government and the media being so demonstrably wrong about swine flu, presumably. The big winner from the mass vaccination campaign, regardless of whether anyone gets vaccinated or not, is CSL, which a long time ago was publicly owned but flogged off by the Keating Government. CSL has a contract with the Commonwealth Government to produce flu vaccines, having won the contract after a tender process in 2004. Another vaccine, Gardasil, helped turn CSL into one of the world’s leading biotherapy companies. The contract is not CSL’s only link with the Government. On the CSL board is former Big Carbon player John Akehurst, who is a Reserve Bank board member. Chair Elizabeth Alexander was until last year a member of the Takeovers Panel. The CEO is Brian McNamee, who chaired Kim Carr’s review of the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Chief Scientific Officer Andrew Cuthbertson was appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council last year. In October, the NHMRC endorsed the Government’s flu vaccination strategy. Cuthbertson declared a conflict of interest and didn’t participate in the discussion. Later in that meeting, Cuthbertson commented “on the need to engage with the community and especially about increasing public understanding of the risks and benefits of the use of effective medical interventions, for example, vaccination.” Risks and benefits are indeed an issue with swine flu vaccine. CSL has been indemnified for adverse reactions to the vaccine, despite, as Collignon has noted, a well-established history of (very rare) serious side effects. The benefits in terms of reduced mortality or actual impact (e.g. working days lost) have not been clearly demonstrated. Given the mildness of swine flu, the case for mass swine flu immunisation — as opposed to the case for high-risk group immunization, which is very strong — remains unmade by Bishop. Sweet asked Bishop about the issue of conflict of interest, less at high corporate level than at expert consultant level. Bishop replied “we have a number of expert groups all required to declare their conflicts of interests, such as advising a drug company. The Federal Government has a lot of conflict of interest arrangements.” Conflict of interest is a clear and easily-remedied problem, at least for objective observers. Crikey is not suggesting anyone involved in the Government’s response to swine flu did not address conflict of interest issues, if and where they arose, appropriately. Rather, the problem is one of groupthink across an entire sector, encompassing industry, regulators, advisers and academics: groupthink occasioned by disproportionate capacity to influence government decisions and to gain access to taxpayer funding. Nicola Roxon could never have rejected the advice of Bishop and the departmental advisers on mass immunisation, for fear of the political fallout merely from being seen to place Australians’ health at risk. In no other portfolio except possibly Defence, and even there nowhere close to the degree that it applies in Health, are stakeholders so powerful and the capacity for genuine political oversight so limited. The health industry – or more correctly the health complex, made up of industry, academics and health bureaucrats, and facilitated by a compliant media – never met a problem that couldn’t be solved with tens and hundreds of millions of dollars of extra funding, and rare are the politicians who can say no. That’s why there’s such a learned helplessness at the political level toward increased health costs associated with an ageing population. Moreover, health programs can be extended almost infinitely into new areas of activity that requires funding. Talk of an “obesi-genic society” allows education, transport, urban planning, housing and broadcasting to be brought within the health remit for regulation and new spending, and opens up exciting prospects for expensive social engineering on a vast scale. Those who point out the alarmist and false estimates of the impact of swine flu are scolded for missing the point about what might have been; such measures were necessary from a risk management point of view (see, for example, this response to Guardian and Telegraph commentary in the UK). To which the appropriate answer: risk management for whom? The allocation of every dollar in health is an exercise in risk management, a process of identifying where it can be spent most effectively in terms of a range of outcomes, but most particularly illness minimised, quality of life maintained, deaths prevented. There is as yet no evidence $120m hasn’t been wasted on a stockpile of useless vaccine and better returns for CSL when a much smaller, targeted rollout of vaccines to high-risk groups would have sufficed. What would $120m have achieved for health areas of greater priority but without extensive and well-organised support from Big Pharma, the health industry and academics - areas like rural and regional health services, or indigenous health? Australians in those communities are living out the “what might have been” scenario every day of the week. |
|
|
|
14 Comments
About two weeks back, that well known PR arm of the Australian Federal Government, New Scientist, published a pretty compelling article on pandemic flu and the chances that Wave II will be worse than Wave I.
I use the logic I use for making most decisions on this one. Are the consequences worse of:
1. Taking action (here, vaccinating) when there’s no need
or
2. Not acting when there is a need to.
A point of order about swine flu also: the median age of people who die of seasonal flu is 83; the median age of the 100,000++ who died worldwide in Wave I was 53.
The medical evidence is that most people aren’t particularly at risk from swine flu but (the not all that rare) people who have an hereditary deficit in Immunoglobulin B are. An alternative to vaccinating the maximum number of people to save the ones who’ll die otherwise would be mass test for the deficiency and only vaccinate them.
I know what I regard as a more economical strategy.
And flu sux anyway, so why catch if you don’t have to?
I confess to having mixed feelings on this issue. On the one hand and as you point out Bernard, spending $120 million on the fairly hasty roll-out of a mass vaccination program may represent an overreaction to a less severe than anticipated flu strain. As you point out, $120 million may have achieved a lot if spent elsewhere.
On the other hand, $120 million may have been a reasonable investment to protect population health under conditions of some uncertainty. Though this strain never seemed likely to have a very high mortality rate, there were questions in the early days about whether new populations sub-groups would be at greater risk. If last year’s H1N1 strain was as lethal as the H2N2 Asian flu of ‘56-‘58, let alone the Spanish flu of 1918-1920, we’d all be singing a different tune.
Some of my acquaintances working in public health have also suggested that a side benefit of the H1N1 episode has been to sort out any problems with outbreak monitoring and mass vaccination, which will come in handy if a more lethal flu strain or zoonotic disease ever occurs.
Is this an illustration of the problems of not being able to see the true value of preparedness?
Twenty twenty hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The Victorian Government took a light handed (low cost) approach to fire management and we all know where that led.
If they had spent loads of money on fire management and community preparedness and then the fires of Black Saturday fizzed out as a consequence of the preparations, the 20/20 Hind Sight brigade would be out in force telling everyone what a waste of money it all was.
Much the same as the Year 2000 bug. When the world didn’t come crashing down on the turn of the century the 20/20 brigade told us it all was a hoax. Fortunately people who run critical computer systems didn’t want to find out on the night so they fixed a lot of Y2K problems and amazingly they did a good job so nothing much happened.
Wake up Bernard,
Flu vaccine whether swine flu or ordinary flu injections don’t really hurt
Only 3 year olds cry as did my granddaughter who is very proud of herself now.
Just as people failed to get measles vaccine and suffered the really bad consequences, it is a good idea to take precautions as you advise all the time with climate change.
So get a small prick and don’t cry.
Excellent points made Bernard. We seem to be in accord once more. Here is my take on this in light of recent published work on last season.
Even before it was declared a level 6 pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), a group of “scientists” was sounding the alarm that this might indeed be the terrifying, deadly pandemic they had been waiting for. Naturally, the vaccine manufacturers were doing all they could to fuel this fear and they were quietly making deals with WHO to be among the companies selected to manufacture the “pandemic” vaccine for the world. The client follower media were also bursting with excitement at the chance to scare the public into a delirium.
Once the pandemic had been declared, virologists tested the potency of this virus using a conventional method, i.e. infecting ferrets with the virus which showed it to be no more pathogenic than the ordinary seasonal flu.
A study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine on October 8, 2009, called the AZIC study, analyzed all ICU admissions in New Zealand and Australia, looking at a number of factors. Here is what they found. Out of 25 million people, 722 were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with a confirmed diagnosis of H1N1 influenza. Overall, 856 people were admitted with a flu virus, but 11.3% were a type A flu that was not subtyped and 4.3% were seasonal flu.
They also analyzed the number of people admitted with viral pneumonia and found the following:
Number of People Admitted to the Hospital each Year with Viral Pneumonia
• 57 people in 2005
• 33 people in 2006
• 69 people in 2007
• 69 people in 2008
• 37 people in 2009
So, in 2009, 32 fewer people admitted with actual viral pneumonia. The various official health bodies across the West and other public health agents of fear like to imply that mass numbers of people are dying from “flu”, that is, actual influenza viral pneumonia, when in fact, most are dying from other complications secondary to under¬lying health problems either diagnosed or undiagnosed. They also found that the average person’s risk of ending up in the ICU was one in 35,714 or about three thou¬sandths of one percent (0.00285%), an incredibly low risk. When they looked at actual admis¬sion to the ICU, they found that it was people aged 25 to 49 who made up the largest number admitted. Infants from birth to age 1 year had the higher admission per population, and had a high mortality rate.
It is inter¬esting to note that babies this age respond poorly to either the sea¬sonal flu vaccine or the H1N1 vaccine and according to Robert Kennedy Jr’s work on vaccines and autism, pretty badly to the other shots they are plied with at from age one day! One of the largest studies ever done, found that chil¬dren below the age of 2 years received no protection at all from the seasonal flu vaccine.(refer The Cochrane Collaboration: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006, Article number CD004879.)
Further, the recently completed study on the effectiveness of the new H1N1 vaccine reported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease found that 75% of small children below age 35 months received no protection from the H1N1 vaccine and that 65% of children between the ages of 3 years and 9 years received no protection from the vaccine.
So is the risk from this virus sig¬nif¬i¬cant enough to justify draconian measures by governments and parts of the medical com¬mu¬nity. If not what interest do the various parties have in plying this vaccine? Why are we implementing mass vaccinations with a product that is essentially an experimental vaccine, poorly tested and of questionable benefit?
One of the real surprises from this ANZ study was that one of the more powerful risk factors for being admitted to the ICU and of dying was obesity. Obese people are admitted 6 times more often than those of normal weight. And it also appears that obesity played a significant role in the risk to children and pregnant women as well, something that has never been discussed by the media, the Dept of Health or other health officials.
The ANZ study found that 32.7% of those admitted to the ICU had asthma or other chronic pulmonary disease, far higher than the general population. It also had a large number of aboriginal patients and those from the Torres Strait. It is known that nutrient deficiencies are common in both populations, which means an impaired immune system.
Obesity is associated with a high inci¬dence of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, both of which would increas one’s risk of having a serious infection, even to viruses that are mildly pathogenic.
H1N1 Vaccine is NOT Made the Same as Regular Flu Vaccine!!I am really upset at the insistence by medical doctors and the media that all pregnant women should be vaccinated by this experimental vaccine. The media repeats the manfacturers’ mantra that this vaccine is produced exactly like the seasonal flu, when in fact it is not. Yes, they use chicken eggs, but the rest has been fast tracked and many short¬cuts on safety procedures have been allowed.
There are 250,000 pregnant women in Australia and New Zealand combined. Only 66 pregnant women were admitted to the ICU, an incidence of 1 pregnant woman per 3,800 pregnant women or a risk of .03%.6 Put another way, a pregnant woman in these two coun¬tries can feel comfortable to know that there is a 99.97% chance that she will not get sick enough to end up in the ICU.
Pregnant women do not appear at increased risk but obese women are!
The Australian/New Zealand study found that one of the major risk factors for pregnant women was indeed being obese and that obesity was asso¬ci¬ated with a high risk of underlying med¬ical disorders.
They also found that death from H1N1 infection correlated best with increasing age, contrary to what the media says. They concluded the study with the following statement:
“ The proportion of patients who died in the hospital in our study is no higher than that previously reported among patients with sea¬sonal influenza A who were admitted to the ICU.”
In fact, they report that of those infected with the H1N1 variant virus who were sick enough to be admitted to the ICU, 84.5 % went home and 14.3% died and that of those admitted with seasonal flu 72.9% were discharged and 16.2% died. That is, more died from the seasonal flu.
In the Oct, 8th 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine researchers reported on the American experience with the H1N1 variant virus. The study examined 13,217 cases of infection across 24 states involving 1082 people who were hospitalized with widespread influenza infec¬tion from April through June 2009. The study found
Of the total hospitalized patients:
• 60% of children had underlying medical conditions
• 83% of adults had under¬lying medical conditions
They also found that 32% of patients had at least 2 medical conditions that would put them at risk. We are constantly told that it is the young adult aged 25 to 49 who is at the greatest risk. Note that 83% of these people had underlying medical conditions. This means that in truth only 292 “healthy” people out of 1082 in 24 states were sick enough to enter the hospital that is 292 healthy people out of tens of millions of people, not much of a risk if you do not have an underlying chronic medical problem.
When they looked at people over age 65 years of age, that is, the folks who are most likely to die in the hospital, 100% had underlying medical conditions - all of them. So, there was not one healthy person over age 65 who has died out of 24 states combined.
This US study also found that 60% of children admitted had underlying medical conditions and that 30% were either obese or morbidly obese.
In Neil Z. Miller ‘s book Vaccine Safety Manuel —once the flu vaccine was given to small chil¬dren the death rate from flu increased 7-fold.10 Not surprising given the mercury (thimerosol) in the vacine suppresses immunity.
Pediatric Flu Deaths by Year are worse after Flu Vaccine introduced! (US data)
1999— 29 deaths
2000— 19 deaths
2001— 13 deaths
2002— 12 deaths
2003— 90 deaths (Year of mass vaccnations of children under age 5 years)
2006— 78 deaths
2007— 88 deaths
2008 — -116 deaths (40.9% vac¬ci¬nated at age 6 months to 23 months)11
Parents should also keep in mind that the US study, as well as the Australian/New Zealand Study found that childhood obesity played a major role in a child’s risk of being admitted to the ICU or dying. This is another dramatic demonstration as to the danger of obesity in children and that all parents should avoid MSG (all food-based excitotoxin additives), excess sugar and excess high glycaemic carbohydrates in their children’s diets. This goes for pregnant mothers as well.
Oh dear. The tin foil hat brigade are amongst us!
Obviously Catherine Scott feels threatened. You lose any argument you have when reducing yourself to the level of your last comment.
I’m “foiling up” again Catherine. A story reported in the UK Sun on January 11, 2010 entitled” H1N1 Flu is a false pandemic health expert claims” reports that Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe which speaks for 47 countries, claimed the swine flu scare was a false pandemic led by drug companies that stood to make billions from vaccines. Wodarg said that major firms organised a “campaign of panic” to put pressure on the WHO (manned by executives from major pharmaceutical corporations) to declare a pandemic. The Sun says that Wodarg believes this to be “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”
Nothing has changed from what I know excedpt the ever increasing credulity of some Crikey readers.
1. The term ‘pandemic’ refers to the geographic extent of a wave of illness, that’s all. Not how nasty and/or deadly it is.
That people chose to misunderstand the use of the term is their issue, not that of those who use it in the correct technical sense.
2. We do all love a good conspiracy theory, don’t we? especially if the bad guys come from the among the usual suspects.
3. Maybe everyone should consider that many of the wilder claims made on both sides are by people who just like to see their names in the papers.
4. Just think about it: a new disease crosses the species barrier and deaths result. Do we sit and whistle and wait to see how bad it gets or do we act in case it turns about to be very bad indeed? And yes, not everyone is at risk of severe illness from Swine flu, but some with distinct immunological characteristics are. Do you want to find out you or someone you love is in that category the very, very hard way? Or do you want to skip that little experiment?
I’ll take mine, single batch, squalene and thimerasol free, killed and without any live contaminants thanks! How about you?
Having been quoted in the article I feel I should correct some misconceptions. Our Australian company Vaxine is developing a single batch, squalene, thiomersal (mercury), aluminium and egg-protein free influenza vaccine. This is very different vaccine to the inactivated egg grown virus, thiomersal containing multidose influenza vaccine produced by CSL. When we approached the NHMRC for modest funding (less than 1 million dollars) to help support the clinical trials of this vaccine this request was refused. Apart from this modest grant request which was refused we have never asked the Aust govt to buy our vaccine as suggested. We have challenged the refusal by NHMRC to provide this small funding request to development of what we would argue is a dramatically improved approach to CSL flu vaccine approach. To paraphrase the NHMRC response ‘the development of a swine vaccine was considered a low priority and of little interest to the committee assessing the swine flu research applications’. This at a time when CSL still hadn’t made an effective vaccine swine flu and these particular grants were exclusively for swine flu projects! One would be entitled to ask just how many vaccine projects in Australia are funded unless they have the CSL sign of approval? It should comes of no surprise that CSL has staff, board members and associated allies strategically placed on most if not all senior government advisory boards including NHMRC making recommendations on government immunisation policy, research funding and vaccine purchasing. Whilst these advisory boards might all have conflict policies and procedures, there is absolutely no way to independently ensure such conflict policies are in fact followed or policed by these bodies. Nor is there any easy independent mechanism for parties who believe they have been adversely affected by decisions where conflict policy was not adequately enforced, to seek remedy. The question we therefore ask is whether it is reasonable or healthy that CSL and its many associates, thanks to its powerful ex-government status, should continue to maintain an effective monopoly over Australian vaccine manufacture and the provision of government vaccination advice? Whatever the answer to this question, no alternative Australian vaccine industry will ever arise and be viable while the current stranglehold on government vaccine decision making and funding is continued. While this may not have been a big issue for the recent swine flu pandemic which did turn out to be surprisingly mild and where CSL’s and everyone else’s old fashioned vaccines presumably worked (no data has yet been published to demonstrate true swine flu vaccine mediated protection rather than enhancement of immunogenicity surrogates), the same may not be true of future pandemics Australia faces which could be much more severe and where there is always the risk that CSL’s vaccine approach does not work. What then about lack of choice and suitable domestic alternatives? Surely Australian consumers are entitled to a choice in whether they exclusively want CSL’s old-fashioned multidose, thiomersal-containing, inactivated virus pandemic influenza vaccine or a vaccine like ours that represents the latest that technology can offer by way of a safe and effective vaccine free of contaminants and need for thiomersal? The only cost to the Aust government of giving consumers a choice in which vaccine they want, would be the reduction of CSL’s monopoly profits from pandemic vaccine provision. Does CSL attempt to influence Aust govt policy in its own interests? Surely it would be a surprise if they didn’t? Australian government influenza vaccine decisions even at the level of research funding for potential new vaccines. The message NHMRC appear to wish to give to the Australian research community is if CSL doesn’t have an interest in your technology then don’t even bother applying. Ask yourself whether you truly believe that those many parties who sit on govt vaccine advisory boards who align themselves with CSL don’t have any direct or indirect influence over the ultimate decisions when competing vaccine technologies are brought forward?
Sorry, my email address username should in no way imply that my above comments are made in association with affiliation with any institution other than Vaxine Pty Ltd.
Nikolai, your situation is exactly what I am constantly railing against. I would like to draw to your attention a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald on October 23rd 2009 by Mark Metherill titled “Research grant judges urged to play by the rules” which reports that a highly critical Federal Govt. Audit Office found that 41% of the time, people who chair the panels that recommend how the medical research grants are allocated, also head the research teams bidding for them. So to your point, its a little club operating here by the looks of things and obviously Vaxines is not part of it. I would bet that CSL is however. So your non-toxic carefully constructed and potentially useful product is blocked by a are quick to market product containing in my view many questionable ingredients so it can be multiple batched for mass distribution.
The government talks of transparency so where is it in this instance? On the basis of the findings of the Govt. Audits office, I would be seriously questioning the justice here?
In a book by Alison Bass reviewed by the New York Review of Books in January 2009, titled “Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial” , the author reveals that drug companies pay consultants hefty fees for speaking engagements on products they manufacture and that there appeared to be a strong correlation for some physicians between their level of promotion of a particular drug and the level of support provided by pharmaceutical companies. The writer provided evidence that many medical professionals failed to disclose the extent of these financial associations and deliberately lied to investigative bodies. The book points to a revolving door between the major pharmaceuticals manufacturers and the government regulatory bodies so that conflict of interest was ever present in much the same way that Wall Street and the US Treasury appear to operate..
The writer states:
“No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars”.
By such means argues Bass, “the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease”.
That is what you are up against Nikolai and what I absolutely deplore.
Perhaps it is not as well advanced in this country but from what you say, it seems to be heading in that direction and fast.
The idiots in this country have apparently not digested the FoxNews reports that the Great Swine Flu hoax of 2009/2010 is falling apart, as one country after another unloads hundreds of millions of doses of unused vaccine vials. Fox claims no informed person wants the injection anymore, and the entire fear campaign to promote the vaccine usage has been exposed as outright bad medicine and propaganda. Even doctors are now calling the pandemic a complete hoax. Yet I still hear them shilling about it on shows like Late Night and other pseudo intellectual claptrap “driveled” through the airwaves by our government media arm.
A quick review from important sources, as I best I can reckon, paints a prima facie case of global corruption. As noted in my earlier blog FoxNews reported that Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a leading health authority in Europe, charged that large pharmaceutical firms “organized a campaign of panic to put pressure on the World Health Organization to declare a pandemic.” Wodarg who calls the Swine Flu initiative ‘one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century’ and has called for an inquiry with the European Parliament. He said, “The vaccine developed by Novartis was produced in a bioreactor from cancerous cells, a technique that had never been used until now.” So cancer cells are being injected into the population as part of a vaccine campaign?
Perhaps I could also draw the swine flu vaccine shills at the ABC and elsewhere to a Reuters story about how the Big Pharma embarked on a marketing campaign to sell vaccines. The story reported that, “H1N1 swine flu was never dangerous, and it never should have been escalated to a level-6 pandemic in the first place. It was all a big marketing scam whose purpose was to simply sell vaccines. And it worked!” They continued by explaining how Big Pharma firms earned billion$ in profits for a useless vaccine. The vaccines were bought with taxpayer funds. Reuters calls the Great Swine Flu Hoax of 2009 an elaborate financial scam whose goal was to transfer wealth from the People to the shareholders of Big Pharma. For instance, in the fourth quarter of 2009, GlaxoSmithKline sold $1.4 billion worth of vaccines. But something is missing from this dispatch. People have been badly harmed by the vaccine, and many may have died from it. Damaging side effects of the vaccines have come to light, like the condition my mother-in-law experienced post vaccination i.e. Guillain-Barre Syndrome (a brain neuro disorder) which was a problem with the previous swine flu scare in the US back in the 70’s.. Some have concluded that the vaccines actually result in a net increased mortality. They did last time as well. But the US Congress in its wisdom managed to remove all legal liability to the drug makers before the campaign began.
And from Natural, a news story about the harmful side effects which stated “Meanwhile, countless people were harmed by the swine flu vaccine frenzy (‘countless’ because nobody is counting). In addition to those who were nearly paralyzed after receiving the vaccine shots, grade school students in Massachusetts who lined up to receive swine flu vaccine shots were instead injected with insulin.” The story continued with death count data which I have already reported. It also turns out that thousands of Americans who died from the Swine Flu had been previously injected with the vaccines. So why did the WHO declare a pandemic? I will leave you to work that out!
The BBC has reported that mass cancellations of vaccine orders have taken place. It reports that the Swine Flu hoax has fizzled out, and countries like Greece, France, and the United Kingdom have cancelled orders for vaccines. So why are we in this country persisting like the mindless UN conbtrolled automatons we have become? Despite a collapse in sales, a victory can be declared by Big Pharma, which raked in huge profits with in my view government and key agency collusion. However, for genuine medical research companies with apparently non toxic offerings, there is no place in this global con game.