Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 26
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?Page 2 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
I can't help but wonder what all those crying "big pharma conspiracy" would be saying now if the usual government agencies hand't of sounded the alarm and it did prove to be a major pandemic.

"Oh, it's 'their' fault. It's a conspiracy of population control."

Oy!
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 27
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 1/31/2010 7:05:38 AM

Thank you Lord for saving us from that virus you created.

Don't be so sure it was Him...We can create some pretty nasty sh¡t ourselves (If you have some crap to unload, create a market for it - 7th law of the Farengi, ch.2, v.17)
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 28
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 1/31/2010 9:04:46 AM

Ensuing panic, unless it is absolutely beyond a shadow of doubt, is playing Russian roulette.

...and they keep spinning the chamber for the next round of play.
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 29
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 1/31/2010 11:27:11 PM
That's to keep fear in everyone. A fearful populace is off balance and isn't paying attentiong to what's going on. It's a distraction. Magicians use the same technique.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 30
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/1/2010 6:52:00 AM

It seems misinformation is running rampant these days (I blame the media vultures for most of it)... and people's heads are spinning.


When all else fails, blame the media. What people don't seem to realize is that they too are "the media." So I guess that makes us all "vultures."


The next time the WHO reports a pandemic, more people are going to now sit back and laugh it off (thus causing an ever more dangerous risk of spreading)... This is the EXTREME danger of over-blowing anything to the public that should not be.


Versus what would have happened if the H1N1 fulfilled every nightmare scenario and the WHO were late in responding, perhaps? The USGS had the same problem with Mt. St. Helen's. Several people still died because they didn't want to believe the mountain was a danger. Oops.


Just when the hell do people know when it's actually time to take a 'pandemic' seriously (or any other panic-du-jour) and get the vaccination for something ?!


If the risk is significant enough, take the necessary precautions. If a shot is available, consider getting it. Or not. It's up to you.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 31
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/1/2010 8:42:59 AM

...The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?...


Fear Sells.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 32
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/1/2010 7:50:52 PM


^Sure but the presumption is that people can't think of more than one thing (and absolutely nothing else apparently) at a time. That's just silly .
The people who say "I know the TRUTH." always seem to be the same people accusing everybody else of being "sheeple" . They've got this sort of caricature of the average person stuck in their heads and despite the fact that almost nobody on the planet even remotely resembles this caricature in character quality , intellect , or simple curiosity/skepticism , it's the defacto representation of "everybody" (whereby everybody is only defined to fit the profile of "sheeple") It's very self-serving but hardly a reasonable representation of the average person. People CAN think of more than one thing at a time and are hardly mentally exhausted should they be presented with two or more.


Funcuz, this is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black... Those that know the "TRUTH"... Really I see the this side against that side, even get smeared myself on the THAT side, or this side, it doesn't matter...

There is one side and the other, and then truth that hits the middle...

So many different factors (factions) have an agenda, it is hard to sort out who wants what, and who really has good intent, and others that have a power agenda...

St John thanks, I pointed out FOR ME, and the why... I also stated "accumulation", it is just like X ray, not body knows what level of X ray will cause cancer in whom... However some people don't realize that say the Radiation from Chernobyl went around the world 10 times, but hey we all had a safe dose... Unless of course you live down wind, or 60 miles from an active Radiation dump site, and once active power plant like Hanford...

Funcuz, if you know some Holocaust history then it wouldn't come as a major surprise to you that many German people didn't know these camps existed... They went on in their unmerry world of losing sons from the world, but didn't know that the neighbors they had were gased or starving in a concentration camp...

These people were dazzled by the speaker Hitler, not the murder, they didn't know about it, or turned there heads to pretend it wasn't happening, or what ever the hell else that distracted them from noticing what was happening...

Hitler MAY have made his intend CLEAR after the fact, but in the very beginning... This is well documented...

The fact that people are spending so much time trying to chase the American dream, and have to spend hours working, running their kids around, making it to the gym, or just sit their butt in front of the TV... It is little surprise why many people are unaware of what is going on....

First question I asked is WHY use something that can be so toxic in something that is intended to save a persons life? If a little is ok for some, and a lot for others, who is to know until it is to late that they could only handle a little..

My injury happened 10 yrs ago this year... I am slowly strangling from my surgery, and struggling with the auto immune disorders, Dr's have NO IDEA what to do with this auto immune disorder... However they know that I will die soon than if all this shit happened...

If this makes me a little jaded towards Dr's so be it... They don't know as much as many people are lead to believe, and I have watched surgical botch ups first hand to know there are more inepts then anyone wants to believe...

So this pandemic??? I am not the only person who's living with stuff that has shortened their life, and taken away their lively hood... People are looking for answers, and some of the answers we don't like...

It's a personal choice, and since there isn't one on the OTHER SIDE that has anything to say except insults to the others, then at least I have done research to see things that are unhealthy to the human body, and question like many others do I really want that in my body, or to take my chances with nature..
 SylvanSwan
Joined: 8/5/2008
Msg: 33
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 12:09:07 AM

a little jaded towards Dr's so be it... They don't know as much as many people are lead to believe,...


Amen, sister.

Here in the province I live in, almost 60% of the population still has not had the shot. I myself am one of them.

Numerous studies have shown that vaccines can stress your immune system, and may even cause cancer. One of the leading Veterinarians in the USA states that the alarming number of cancer showing up in pets is because DVM's keep pushing pet owners to get their dogs vaccinated every year, whether they need it or not.

Some people may already have antibodies present in their system. But no medical professional will ever test your blood to see if it exists. They will just tell you to get the shot instead.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 34
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 8:47:53 AM

almost 60% of the population still has not had the shot. I myself am one of them.

Fortunately for you, this appears to be a fairly mild strain, though it surely hangs on for a very long time in healthy adults. If you do contract it, expect to spend a couple of weeks, minimum, feeling like various types of poop. Plus, over 40% HAS chosen to be vaccinated, which should reduce your risk of exposure by nearly half. Good luck.


Numerous studies have shown that vaccines can stress your immune system, and may even cause cancer.

"Numerous" implies that providing a citation should be quite easy. Please? (Particularly cites related to cancer caused by influenza vaccines would be appreciated)


One of the leading Veterinarians in the USA states that the alarming number of cancer showing up in pets is because DVM's keep pushing pet owners to get their dogs vaccinated every year, whether they need it or not.

First, a cite would be nice. Second, how can you tell that a dog (or cat) does not need its distemper shot this year? (I use distemper because I have adopted a cat with cerebellar hypoplasia, which results from a pregnant cat contracting distemper, and causes cerebral palsy type symptoms in the kittens. A simple, timely vaccination would have prevented the difficulties afflicting my Gypsy.)


Some people may already have antibodies present in their system. But no medical professional will ever test your blood to see if it exists. They will just tell you to get the shot instead.

That's because:
1: This class of vaccine has been shown to be vastly, enormously less dangerous than the flu itself.
2: Testing by PCR for strain-specific antibodies costs hundreds of dollars and takes on the order of weeks to months, depending on the lab's backlog, during which time unvaccinated, non-immune induhviduals are still susceptible to the virus.
3: The vaccine is cheap and safe, and within about 2 weeks, will afford you a reasonable level of protection against strains closely related to the 1-3 strains used to create the vaccine. http://www.cdc.gov/Flu/professionals/acip/adverseTIV.htm http://www.cdc.gov/Flu/professionals/acip/efficacycomparison.htm
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 35
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 10:53:54 AM

It looks like we are getting close to the point where history is being rewritten. I thought that only happened in novels!

Didn't you know it's been 1984 for a long time now?
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 36
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 11:05:16 AM
Thanks Dreamy for kind of agreeing...

Welcome to the world of surviving by your own wit, and surviving by means of what Benadryl, epinephrine...

Honestly I don't know if we are less of more resistant... What I do know is that no one single person knows what kind of reaction any person who gets these shots or any other med for that matter will react in the future...

There is no study just speculation that the flu was LESS vigilant because the government created a "herd" mentality... It couldn't be because people washed their hands more, ran around with antibacterial in their pockets hand bags, or in the public bathrooms... Nor could it be that in THIS economy more people have been eating a little more at home then out and about...

Dreamy, your uncle is how old??? Depending on his age he's right, there weren't as many pollutants in the air that linger for years, that aggravate the lungs... In fact my grandpa worked with DDT, and lived to be an OLD AGE of 89, ten years less then his father...

I've done research on some of this stuff and these toxins have been known to become part of a persons DNA, benign to the person who already has strong stalk, but by the time it got passed between my mother, and to her kids... Yeah our health is a constant battle... THIS is speculative, however the research is pretty clear as to these different agents and even diseases do connect to peoples DNA, who are unaffected, but generation after are affected... (yes I do have citations...)

I can't blame Dr's for NOT knowing what lingers in my closet of genetics, however I can say that it sucks to be allergic to everything including the sun.. And no it isn't a joke, I am allergic to the sun... SHEESH... I am tired of them trying to bandaid my ills, but I think that is all they have to offer now...

I still personally think with the world wide promotion of keeping germs to yourself, and protecting externally from germs of others is probably an extremely effective means to keeping the bad bugs at bay...

I also find it interesting, for this being a world wide pandemic, and seemingly exclusion of data of the fairly large percentage of 3rd world country's population... Did they get their shots, or are they dropping off like flies trapped in an airless, foodless chamber... These studies are something I have been hard pressed in finding... World wide means all countries, not just advanced societies...

Dreamy I'd like a cookie please

VVVVVVVVV Oh thanks Cheshire, that was a wording faux pau, yeah ummm herd immunity....VVVVVVVVVVVVVV
 Rainsands
Joined: 1/9/2007
Msg: 37
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 12:08:59 PM
Hi John ~ Here are 2 links to the WHO definitions


An influenza pandemic 1 May 2009

An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness. With the increase in global transport, as well as urbanization and overcrowded conditions, epidemics due the new influenza virus are likely to quickly take hold around the world.

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/WHO_Pandemic_preparedness_May_1_20094.pdf




What is an influenza pandemic? 2 Sept 2009

A disease epidemic occurs when there are more cases of that disease than normal. A pandemic is a worldwide epidemic of a disease. An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity. With the increase in global transport, as well as urbanization and overcrowded conditions in some areas, epidemics due to a new influenza virus are likely to take hold around the world, and become a pandemic faster than before. WHO has defined the phases of a pandemic to provide a global framework to aid countries in pandemic preparedness and response planning. Pandemics can be either mild or severe in the illness and death
they cause, and the severity of a pandemic can change over the course of that pandemic.

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/WHO_Pandemic_preparedness_webpage_Sept_2_2009.pdf
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 38
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 3:47:59 PM

Let the conspiracy theories begin!

Oh Boy!!...Let me tell you about the unsavory connections between big pharma & the WHO...

...Nah...skip it for now...Maybe I'll get back to it later...
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 39
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 6:18:29 PM
With all this discussion about vaccines, how can I resist posting this?

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/familyhealth/article/759194--lancet-retracts-flawed-autism-study


Lancet retracts flawed autism study
February 2, 2010
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LONDON - British medical journal The Lancet says it has retracted a flawed study linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism and bowel disease.

The Lancet published the controversial paper by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues in 1998. British parents abandoned the vaccine in droves, leading to a resurgence of measles. Subsequent studies found no proof the vaccine is connected to autism.

Ten of the study’s 13 authors renounced the study’s conclusions, and The Lancet has previously said it should never have published the research. “We fully retract this paper from the published record,” its editors said in a statement on Tuesday.

Wakefield and two colleagues face being stripped of their right to practice medicine in Britain.
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 40
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 6:25:15 PM
On a related note- this out in the news in Canada on CBC radio today. Seems the doctor who started the vaccine scare with MMR has been disciplined, the autism connection dispelled and the published study has been retracted. See the link below-

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/02/autism-mmr-lancet-wakefield.html

Part of the fallout from this study was that many people did not get the vaccine and out breaks of mumps occurred in Canada and the UK.

But I still doubt this message will get out to the masses and will instead be buried in the pile of disinformation put out by the antivaccers and parts of the alternative health care industry that are pushing their own products by guerrilla advertising.

As QJ2 said , the noise to signal ratio is just too high on the internet. Free speech is great, but I think it needs to be tempered with some responsibility as well. Many people can get hurt and needlessly suffer with bad information getting so widespread. now.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 41
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 6:43:10 PM
This news item seemed relevent to the discussion, so I thought I'd post it here.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/canadians-contract-guillain-barre-syndrome-after-swine-flu-shot-in-same-doctors-office.html
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 42
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 6:55:22 PM
RE Msg: 76 by truetemp1:
On a related note- this out in the news in Canada on CBC radio today. Seems the doctor who started the vaccine scare with MMR has been disciplined, the autism connection dispelled and the published study has been retracted. See the link below-

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/02/02/autism-mmr-lancet-wakefield.html

Part of the fallout from this study was that many people did not get the vaccine and out breaks of mumps occurred in Canada and the UK.

But I still doubt this message will get out to the masses and will instead be buried in the pile of disinformation put out by the antivaccers and parts of the alternative health care industry that are pushing their own products by guerrilla advertising.
It doesn't make a difference. His actual paper wasn't totally against the vaccine, just that he'd found some possible contraindications that required further investigation. It was the media that made it into a cause célèbre. But the media that made the scaremongering aren't being disciplined about it.

Conversely, when Dr David Kelly went on TV saying that there were no evidence of WMDs and the government knew it, the BBC journalist who interviewed him, Andrew Gilligan, resigned, and the director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke resigned, and the chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies, resigned. Almost certainly ALL were pressured to resign under the influence of the government.

Moreover, when the UK government's expert on drugs, Dr David Nutt, gave his professional opinion about drugs, which he was hired for, and is an expert in, and was hired because he knows far more than the ministers do, and it was against government policy, he was sacked for it by the minister who employed him.

So, when it comes to a fake story that caused serious harm, the media get away with it. But when it comes to a real story that highlighted the truth, but shows the UK government in a bad light, the media are treated like villains. Does that not tell you the truth of the situation?

Besides, has anyone ever said that you get autism from getting the 3 injections in 3 separate days or 3 separate weeks? Wakefield simply recommended separating them by at least a year. But I doubt that even he had any proper studies where children were given them in 3 separate days or 3 separate weeks, to observe the results. So there is nothing to stop running trials separating them by a week each, or even a day, for those people who currently have a problem with the MMR vaccine, and to publish the results when the trials have run their course.

Besides, the government doesn't issue them at birth. They are only vaccinated after a year. So there is no real reason why they cannot be given over 3 separate days, as long as they are within a reasonable amount of time, and a few weeks, when you've already waited 52, is not a big deal.

The real reason why Andrew Wakefield is being vilified over this, is not because of his paper or his work. It's because it's a lot cheaper to give an MMR vaccine, rather than giving 3 separate vaccines in 3 separate times. It's a PR campaign to save money, because if they really cared about the people, they would prosecute the people who caused the whole conflagration, the media stations and journalists who made a much bigger deal of it than even Wakefield did.
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 43
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 7:24:06 PM
Nice stuff Scorp and Dukky- but their been many studies world wide done on this over the last 10 years since Wakefields papers came up. They all pointed to the same thing- no correlation between autism and MMR. And Wakefield seems to have a been up to more than just suggesting to spread out the vaccine schedule as well.

Here's a nice piece- with citations and links- give it a read.

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

And - have a couple on me.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 44
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/2/2010 8:32:26 PM
In my second post I cited what was said about the removal of mecury and the reduction of thimerosal (www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ )

Even if things are stated that they were over stated at least the CDC listened, and took note...

So what do we know, there was the recommendation of one shot instead of two for children, apparently it worked well for those who took it, and those who didn't yes there were people who passed, BUT there were also people who dealt with it...

As stated as well, I had a flu from hell in 98', people were sick all over the place. Dr's wore masks to try and avoid the sickly...

Some things are hard to draw an absolute line from, as in the neurotoxins in vaccines, vs the rise in Autism...

My husband has Aspergers's syndrom, and off shot of Autism, however being born in Korea,they didn't vaccinate... I still have my huge small pox shot mark, he doesn't have anything like that...

Does that mean there is no corrolation??? it is hard to say.

If as one poster said well heavy metals are taken out of the system by the liver, perhaps having a nice spacing would be helpful...

No matter the side a person takes, it should be with education, and thought for why you have chosen what to do... I know that I didn't have the same knowledge when I raised my older kids, that I do now... Kind of sucks actually, because before I didn't have to think about it, now I do...
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 45
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/3/2010 12:13:49 AM
We'll still be able to debate. Only the sound will be a little muffled.
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 46
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/3/2010 5:41:06 PM
^^^^^^^

Here here! ( or is it Hear Hear!?)

And even worse is heart disease....


Estimates for the year 2006 are that 81,100,000 people in the United States have one or more forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD)......
Claimed 831,272 lives in 2006 (final mortality) (34.3 percent of all deaths or 1 of every 2.9 deaths)......

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4478

And


Male pattern baldness, hair in the ear canals, and creased earlobes are associated with a higher risk for heart disease in white males.

http://www.mamashealth.com/Heart_stat.asp

That's a tragedy! I say more government research grants should be given for unsightly ear conditions, The Hair Club for Men and the makers of Rogaine and Minoxidil. It's a matter of life and death!

These kind of numbers show us that the flu is small potatoes in a very large frying pan. We have bigger fish to fry!

PS- Hats off to SG for scooping me on last nights MMR newsflash- we must have been typing at the same time. Guess I have to buy
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 47
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/4/2010 11:27:59 AM
RE Msg: 81 by truetemp1:
Nice stuff Scorp and Dukky- but their been many studies world wide done on this over the last 10 years since Wakefields papers came up. They all pointed to the same thing- no correlation between autism and MMR. And Wakefield seems to have a been up to more than just suggesting to spread out the vaccine schedule as well.

Here's a nice piece- with citations and links- give it a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
I live in the UK, where the MMR vaccine controversy is well known, and reported on highly. The issue with the vaccine is twofold:

1) The evidence with the side-effects of Thalidomide was suppressed for several years. Those side-effects were so debilitating, that it made people worried that if this happened with any other drug, it just wasn't worth it to take the chance of ruining their children's lives. We HOPED that by the time of the MMR vaccine controversy, that such suppression of evidence was eliminated. Unfortunately, Seroxat proved this was not a once-only case. Autism ranks as somewhere between the side-effects of Thalidomide and Seroxat in how debilitating it is in the lives of children. Parents have a solid reason to not want to take the risk that in 20 years time, there will be a further admission that the evidence of the MMR vaccine will turn out to have been suppressed. So parents want to wait until we can personally see the results in our own eyes, not relying on trials that could be suppressed. But cases of autism and related problems, like high-functioning autism, and Aspergers, are still not things that doctors are keen to diagnose, and they aren't immediately apparent to all. So it might take 20-30 years for the public to fully see the results with their own eyes.

2) Some children have died due to not being vaccinated against measles, mumps and Rubella. But the MMR vaccine controversy did NOT cause those deaths. The government had the option of offering alternatives to the three-in-one. They could even have vaccinated children at 6, 9, and 12 months for each, which would have meant all the kids were MORE protected than currently offered under the current policy of the MMR vaccine. It might have meant a slightly higher cost. But since they are vaccinations that only have to be given 2-3 times in a lifetime, the costs run into millions, which is a level of finance that the government puts into all sorts of measures that only produce a tiny result, or even don't work at all. In terms of government budgets, it wasn't unreasonable. Even if the government wanted to push the MMR vaccine, it still could have offered 3 separate vaccines to those parents who refused giving their children the 3-in-1. There really was no need for any of these children at all.

These facts leave us with one problem: why on Earth would any government that cares about its people not at least offer the obvious alternative? The answer is not profits. It's not to save the lives of children. It's not even to prove anything to the people. It's just because certain drugs companies have established lucrative deals with certain politicians in return for backhanders behind the scenes. That's why there is a controversy. It's just a controversy, to help those who are corrupting the government for their own selfish desires. If not for that, it would NEVER have become the issue it did.

I'm all for vaccines, What I'm against is certain drugs companies and politicians using us to make them hefty profits, and not care about the lives of our children, and that is what drove the whole issue.

In a way, it's akin to the same problems with swine flu. When people were dying early on due to swine flu, the government was very keen to point out that they all had "underlying symptoms". No-one actually said what those symptoms were. It would have made total sense to, as initially, they were only reporting one or two cases a week in the UK. But they didn't. They hid the truth. So we were left wondering what those "underlying symptoms" were, and if this wasn't another cover-up like Thalidomide and Seroxat.

Then, AFTER the government had spent millions on Tamifu, right when we were being told that we'd have to put hundreds of billions into the banks, suddenly, the crisis mysteriously disappeared. Only then did scientists point out that it was no more infectious than ordinary cases of flu. But that must have been true before. So there wasn't really the need to buy Tamiflu, not at the point when Tamiflu was bought. Now, the UK had lots of expensive drugs that it had bought from drugs companies but wasn't going to use. Again, it seems that the government has handed cash to the drugs companies. It looks very much as if the whole crisis was manufactured to make huge profits for the drugs companies.

But, if the drugs companies wanted to be fair, given that it was supposed to be a serious pandemic that could have killed millions, they could have offered it on a sale-or-return basis. The drugs companies could even have offered to not demand that the government had to pay for the initial doses of Tamiflu, if it turned out to be a red herring, just to make people feel easier about the worry of spending plenty of money on drugs that we didn't need, when we didn't have the money to pay for it, and are in reality in a major national debt. Even from the government's view, the government has the right to confiscate patents and even property if there is a pressing need of the people. This pandemic would have counted. The governments of the world could have confiscated all the Tamiflu, and then promised to reimburse the drugs companies handsomely, if it turned out they had saved millions of lives. After all, what's money when you've saved the world?

But all this didn't happen. The system of making money was prioritised over people's lives. We've paid the price. Our governments are all in major debt, and we've just been persuaded to give money we don't have, for things we didn't need, to people who have far more money than they need. It al looks like a corruption of capitalism and a denial of decency and human rights.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 48
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/5/2010 12:59:18 PM
RE Msg: 89 by quietjohn2:

It's just because certain drugs companies have established lucrative deals with certain politicians in return for backhanders behind the scenes.
You seem to want us to take your statement at face value . yet hold others up to a different standard?..
No. You're allowed to question my views. I welcome it. That way I can be happy that you will correct me when I am wrong, which means I can afford to be more sure of my views.


When people were dying early on due to swine flu, the government was very keen to point out that they all had "underlying symptoms". No-one actually said what those symptoms were.
And I don't get why drug companies should give politicians 'backhanders' if there is no profit motive. Wouldn't drug companies have benefitted from preparing the MMR vaccines as 3 separate doses rather than just 1? You'd think they be paying to do that rather than paying to avoid it.
Yes. But then they'd have to re-negotiate the deal.

Look at it from your POV: if you needed to buy a car for you, your partner, and her daughter, then you might get a deal for all 3 from a sales rep. A friend of his might point out that he'd make a lot more money by selling you each car separately. But then, you took the deal, because it was a deal. If he breaks the deal, you might decide to buy only 1 car from him, and the 2 others from another dealer. So he'll end up with only 30-40% of the deal he made.

That's why so many companies sell with huge discounts, and why trade discounts are normal in business. Without it, you'd lose a lot of your business.

Then in your last paragraph you claim..
The system of making money was prioritised over people's lives.
.. which is it?
It's the same as before. Money was prioritised over people's lives. The system of making money, capitalism, was the motivating factor for that. If we weren't using a system that prioritised making money over everything else, then we could have required the drug company to sell at a price that was reasonable for the benefits accrued to the people, and not for the profits made for the company.

It seems like the decisions on MMR have been validated by recent reports that it isn't a factor in autism.
It seems that way. That's what we've been told. So I looked up the controversy in Wikipedia, and picked one of the results at random that says there is no correlation, the CDC study, because that one compared cases of autism to non-cases.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/113/2/259

The study stated that for autistic kids, 70.5% were vaccinated between 12 and 1 months, and for control children, 67.5% were vaccinated. So more kids who have autism have been vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. That "looks" like correlation. But, to be fair, I decided to run the numbers.

If we say A = event that kid has autism and M = event that kid was given the MMR vaccine, then we have P(M|A)=0.705 and P(M|^A)=0.675 from the study.
We also have P(A)=0.0116 from http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=235&a=3527. So P(^A)=1-P(A)=0.98884

We want P(A|M) and P(A|^M). To do this, we use: P(A|M)=P(A and M) / P(M) and P(A|^M)=P(A and ^M) / P(^M).

Now, we know: P(M|A)=P(M and A) | P(A) and P(M|^A)=P(M and ^A) | P(^A)
So P(A and M) = P(M and A) = P(M|A) * P(A) = 0.705 * 0.0116 = 0.008,178
Also, P(M and ^A) = P(M and ^A) * P(^A) = 0.675 * 0.98884 = 0.667,170
So P(M) = P(M and A) + P(M and ^A) = 0.008,178 + 0.667,170 = 0.675,348
So P(^M) = 1-P(M) = 1 - 0.675,348 = 0.324,652
Also, P(A and ^M) = P(A) - P(A and M) = 0.0116 - 0.008,178 = 0.003,422

So P(A|M)=P(A and M) / P(M) = 0.008,178 / 0.675,348 = approx 0.012,109,312,532,205,6
Also P(A|^M)=P(A and ^M) / P(^M) = 0.003,422 / 0.324,652 = approx 0.010,540,517,230,757,9

So, according to the stats of the study, we expect, that with 2 groups of kids, one group given the MMR vaccine, and one not, the one given the MMR should have more kids with autism, at about 1.5 more kids per thousand. That's an extra 1.5 kids per thousand, who we would expect to have autism, because they were given the MMR vaccine. That's not good.

Now, on a population the size of Denmark, that's about 8,624 more kids with autism. In Sweden, it's 14,465. In the UK, it's 96,322 more autistics.

Even if we drop the average number of autistics to the earlier figure of 9 in 10,000, we still expect to get 1.2 more kids per thousand, 12 kids per 10,000, instead of 15, and and Sweden, we expect to have have 6,708 more autistics and 11,251 more in Denmark. In the UK, it's 74,920 more autistics.

For USA, figures, take the UK figures, and multiply by 5, approximately 375,000 to 480,000 more kids with autism.

Now, let's look at the other side. How many people have suffered because of less people taking the MMR vaccine? Here is what a doctor wrote, one who believes the MMR vaccine is fine:
take, for example, in England and Wales there were nearly 1,350 cases (with two deaths) diagnosed in 2008 compared to just over 50 cases in 1998
http://www.dailystrength.org/experts/dr-jeremy/article/the-history-behind-the-mmr-vaccine-controversy

Now, I cannot quantify exactly how many deaths are due to autism and autistic tendencies. But these are kids who won't pay any attention to the road. They live in their own head. They don't see cars coming. They do crazy things like chewing carpets and just swallowing a whole bottle of pills because they are there. Parents are good. But they're not perfect, and they do their heads away for a second. These kids are likely to end up in A&E often. So it's not that hard to figure out, that out of 75,000-96,000 kids with autism, that a lot more than 2 are going to die due to them doing stupid things or not paying attention, due to their condition, that they wouldn't have done, if they hadn't been autistic.

The problem is, I'm being told that the MMR vaccine is perfectly safe. Yet when I'm examining the figures, they seem to suggest the very opposite. It's very difficult for me to justify a position, if the numbers that people are citing to prove their point, show the opposite.



So there wasn't really the need to buy Tamiflu
The only mention I heard of Tamiflu was that people shouldn't take it. I forget the reason. If you do a web search, you'll find articles from April and May of last year cautioning against taking anti-virals. Such as http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-swine-tamiflu_N.htm
I guess you don't know. The UK government had a first run of many thousands of people who they wanted to take Tamiflu, particularly those most at risk, like the elderly, the kids, and pregnant women. The plan was, that if the epidemic had continued, that everyone would take Tamiflu. However, demand was not met by the drugs companies. So they started prioritising the most-at-risk cases first.

FYI, the UK had a few hundred die, not 1 Mexican infant who died in Houston.

So you might be saying that one shouldn't take Tamiflu. But to be honest, you are sounding exactly like the people who were worried about the MMR vaccine. So I'm sorry, but I think you're not being fair.

The pandemic panic was mostly caused by amateur hype. This is more of the same. Blame no-one but the people who got caught up on both sides of the debacle. Obviously, some have learned NOTHING.
Not in the UK. We have something called a media here. When the media doesn't report on the subject, and there is a controversy, that's called an amateur hype. When the media reports on the subject, and the experts all say that in order to not artificially make a controversy that was never there, certain things should not be done, and the media does them all, not once, but again and again and again, 10 times a day, every day, for several months, on all the major stations, and THEN there is a controversy, we call that a MEDIA HYPE. You can always stop an amateur hype. That's just driven by ignorance. But you can't stop a media hype that easily, as that is driven by the Law of Supply and Demand. The only thing that stops a media hype is greater incentive than the incentive for controversy, to fine the media for more money than it made from all the increased sales, over all those media outlets, over all those months. Now, if you're going to start fineing the media billions for every controversy they've hyped, then you've got a shot at stopping them do that. But let's be honest. The people who own the media are very rich people. They've spent billions investing in politics. Who is going to fine them that much, when the people in Parliament are there partially because of those owners of the media? You'd bite the hand that feeds you. So media hype will continue to be a great source of income, and the longer it continues to be allowed, the more it will be used.

The quickest way to corrupt and deny decency is to persuade people not to think.
That's right, and the quickest way to do that, is to tell people that their own opinions are wrong, and they should just shut up and listen to the person telling them what is true. First they listen to their teacher, and switch off their brain. Then they listen to their lecturer and turn off their brain. Then they listen to their docter and turn off their brain. Then they listen to their preacher and turn off their brain. And you wonder why Biblical Literalism, anti-abortionism, and anti-homosexuality is so prevalent in the one country in the world where the people are told to just shut up and accept what they are told?

I've been watching QI. Stephen Fry, the presenter, just said something amazing. He said that more than 1 in 100 American Adults are in Jail, and that they work for 26 cents an hour. He also said that all the battle helmets, and almost all the office furniture is produced there. He said that Mexico cannot compete, because the prisoners work for less than the Mexicans. However, he also said that if they don't work, they get solitary confinement. All this makes it basically slave labour. When you factor in how many of those convicts are black, if what he said was true, then you wouldn't need to be a genius to work out that America basically is able to compete in many industries because they still blacks as slaves. Now, I think that this really ought to be questioned and examined, at least by me.

But either way, either the BBC just said that America still uses African Americans as slaves, on a massive scale, or Americans have been told that slavery was banned, when it's still going on. Either way, you've got a serious media hype, or a serious indoctrination about America. Now do you really see why it's not quite as nice and straightforward as you made out?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 49
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/22/2010 8:29:18 AM
RE Msg: 91 by quietjohn2:
Had I simply looked at the statistics you present, I would have concluded that you didn't really know what you were talking about. From a self-professed 'expert' in such topics that isn't a good evaluation.
I never stated that I was an expert statistician. But you seem to think YOU are.

I never stated that my name is Andrew Wakefield. I never claimed that there is a 100% definite correlation between the MMR vaccine and Autism. I simply stated that there is enough of a concern to parents, that studies are warranted that show they are clearly disconnected, and that these studies do not clearly show to me they are disconnected. That is of great concern to me, as I can still recall that the UK government said that eating BSE-infected meat could not infect humans either, and then 10 years on, they admitted it did, and it shut down the UK meat industry for 10 years. I don't want to find that the government admits it wrong yet again, because if that happens, then there will be as extreme a reaction as having your meat banned from every country in Europe, which cost the UK billions.

Anyone with an inkling of statistics knows that a single number isn't representative of a population - or even the mean of the population. At least come up with a standard error. That gives you an estimate of the error in your mean. The two means differ by only 3%. What evidence do you have that the two means (representing immunization frequency in each population) accurately represent the true value, or how close they are. Had you known what you were doing, you could at least have made an estimate. What do you bet that the SEs would come out greater than 3%?
Fine. Add in +/-5%. You then have figures that could show an error. But you still have to apply the error equally on both sides. The difference could be an error, or the difference could be understated by an error on both sides, indictating a whopping 15% increase. At most, you could say that the study shows nothing. But that begs the question of why anyone would consider the study to suggest that the MMR vaccine is NOT connected with autism. One must conclude that those who use such studies to suggest that MMR is unrelated to autism, are using such studies are gobbledygook to propose their views, and not the views of science.

Reading the citation, I note that the sample for the non-autism population amounts to much less than 1% of the total population (987/.003)? You still want to argue that the 67.5% is absolutely accurate? I could do a Monte-Carlo for you, but it's clear it wouldn't be pretty.
By all means, do. But no-one wants to know if you can put up an argument to show that the studies COULD be gobbledygook. All we both want is clear figures that show the MMR vaccine is definitely not related to autism. If you can do that, you have a point to make. If not, then the concerns of parents for the health of their children is paramount.

It's good that you provide the citation, but it doesn't put your interpretation in a good light. The study states that over 200 of the autistic children had a diagnosed preexisting conditions before 12 months. It also states that only 8 were vaccinated before 12 months. That's at least 192 kids who had problems diagnosed BEFORE they received MMR. Did they get sick because they knew they were going to get MMR? You may be thinking, but I guess I should change my definition to CRITICAL thinking.
Good point. Let's examine your critical thinking.
How can anyone test if MMR can cause autism, by examining kids who already have autism?
How can any scientist possibly consider publishing any study to see if MMR can cause autism, by including kids who already have autism in the study?
How can any reputable scientific body not lambast and criticise studies on the subject that are claimed to prove that MMR does not cause autism, that includes kids who already have autism in those studies?
Your own points show me that you believe these scientific bodies to have not acted reputably and responsibly with regards to this issue, and that is my point.

The point relative to the OP is that it's easy to provide impressive looking/sounding gobbledygook and have it appear to be an 'expert' opinion. Sometimes that seemingly 'expert' opinion is just amateur, and I supect the media can't, or can't be bothered to make the distinction.
I am not discussing if MMR causes autism for sure, as I do not have the scientific data to prove it for myself one way or the other, and the matter is so fraught with controversy that it is extremely difficult to get any data that could prove it for sure.

I am discussing whether or not the government is trying to use impressive sounding gobbledygook and have it appear to be "expert" opinion, and whether the media is doing the same. Clearly you agree with me that such actions are detrimental to science, and that's what is going on.

You also need to update the numbers on US deaths due to H1N1.
I wasn't citing US deaths. I was talking about UK deaths. I suggest that you re-read my post.

All this shows, is that when it comes to pandemics, politics rules, and science is used to shore up political opinions. We should keep science separate from politics.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 50
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/22/2010 10:02:15 AM

The real reason why Andrew Wakefield is being vilified over this, is not because of his paper or his work. It's because it's a lot cheaper to give an MMR vaccine, rather than giving 3 separate vaccines in 3 separate times.
And the real reason people hate Hitler is not because of the millions of innocent lives he killed, its because of his silly moustache. Everybody hates the moustache.
As you can tell, I'm a graduate of the Scorpio School of Straw Man Arguments.


because if they really cared about the people, they would prosecute the people who caused the whole conflagration, the media stations and journalists who made a much bigger deal of it than even Wakefield did.
Ah yes, Wakefield is not to blame here, its the media's fault. How dare they report the news?! Its like they think that reporting the news is their job or something *gasp*.

Wakefield is really the innocent victim here. I mean all he did was accept a payout by 12 parents of autistic children who were trying to sue manufacturers of the MMR vaccine to make a research study to support their case. Just because that was a conflict of interest and professional misconduct it doesn't mean its a bad thing. And sure, when the study came out it resulted in a large drop in MMR immunizations which naturally led to increased incidence of illness - but hey, just because he was willing to accept money even though it caused many others to get sick and die...it doesn't mean he's a bad person. And yes, his study did involve some data fixing, falsifying data, and drawing faulty conclusions...but that doesn't mean he isn't honest - right? The important thing to remember here is to put the blame on the media...for some reason...and to downplay Wakefield's atrocities with claims like 'all Wakefield wanted to do was separate the injections apart' and ignore the part about him blaming the MMR vaccine for autism.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?