Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 I must be gatecrashing some private joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevster Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 one of Britain's top Swine Flu advisors - Professor Sir Roy Anderson - is a paid-up non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, one of the major players in the pharmaceutical industry supplying drugs and vaccines. What are we to make of this? Who would you rather have as an advisor? Someone from the railway industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 It seems if you read correctly into this event it says some people have a less than 24hr period after immunisation where they feel sick and have some flu like symptoms but to date all have felt ok after a few hours rest, so as we see Chinese whispers are rife again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Well I wouldn't have the jab if I worked at Nobles. In all drug regimes the benefit/risk angle should always be considered. IMO I don't think the benefit outweighs the risk unless you are otherwise medically compromised. wtf - I've read your post several times and I still can't work out if you are drawing a parallel with this and MMR. If you are then MMR has been very well tested and the alleged link to autism has been completely discredited. The separate triple innoculations were also a cynical exploitation of peoples fears to sell them something supposedly safer. I wasn't of course but, hey, playing on people's fears is a great marketing tool. The press worked that one out a hundred or two years ago. disproving something by being not able to 'prove' it is a bit flakey,especially when those doing the disproving had vested interests in some way. politics plays a far bigger part in medicine than it ought to. do you offer an oppinion on why kish wasn't apparently waxinated? seems to me that the people pushing waxines and other meds consider them for everyone elses use but not their own?? ( perhaps because they KNOW what the side effects could be? ) there is daily use of drugs with known side effects/risks, anesthetics being one such drug. you are always told there is nothing to worry about blah de blah, but you are monitered for a short time after being jabbed because there is a chance ( very small ) that you can go into anaphylactic shock. that small risk is foisted upon people for the greater good. same with waxines and innoculations, there is no such thing as a 100% safe drug, there will always be someone wired in a way that it affects them, theses get refered to as underlying medical issues, or in plain english 'we don't know why, but it wasn't the perfectly safe drug we just gave them' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 H1N1 Vaccine Deaths in Germany: German doctors issued warning about swine flu jab http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16208 H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Insert Admits It Causes Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Vasculitis, Paralysis, Anaphylactic Shock And Death http://thebirdflupandemic.com/archives/h1n...shock-and-death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Where did the word serious come from? And from what I've seen there is no pressure on Government staff to have the vaccine as will be the case for at risk groups. It's a choice. Unfortunately, this is not true, as some staff WERE PRESSURED to get the vaccine as they risked infecting patients if they received swine flu. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. (Get better soon G) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 click On Monday, director of public health Dr Parameswaran Kishore announced the vaccine had arrived in the Island. He explained that although this vaccine has not been clinically trialled for side effects, it is simply a previously licensed flu vaccine with the old strain of flu replaced by the H1N1 swine flu strain. And he said: 'The UK started their vaccination programme on October 15 and no serious side effects have been reported. 'Sweden has used the vaccine for a long time and has already given one million doses. Again reports there suggest just pain and swelling in the arm or psychological reactions. So we can feel confident that this vaccine doesn't have any serious side effects.' N.B. As well as being the messenger of the gods in Greek mythology, Hermes was also the patron of thieves and liars. Also worth noting, perhaps, that as well as winged sandals, his symbols include the cock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Huh?Do you mean my post is nonsense? You're welcome to your opinion, but is it based on checking the facts for yourself? It's mostly nonsense. A staff member has been taken ill as a result of the vaccine, that looks to be true. The rest is just fear inducing crap. Well - it's happened. A member of staff at Nobles has been taken ill with a serious complication after receiving the inadequately tested vaccine against the so-called 'Swine Flu'. What serious complication? Staff receiving the jab have been given a leaflet telling them that this jab is the same as the normal flu jab, an unfortunate lie as it is augmented with chemicals called 'adjuvants', including one known as Squalene. Squalene antibodies have been identified as a marker of the so-called Gulf War Syndrome, controversially linked to hurriedly-prepared military vaccines in the 1990's and early 2000's. Wrong. The seasonal flu jab also contains adjuvants. This has been the case for a good ten years, and the vaccine has been mass produced for many many years and has a good safety record. Nothing is 100%, thre is a risk, there's always a risk, but you have to weigh that up against the benefits. This is particularly true of healthcare staff. Worryingly, it appears from information given to the DHSS staff that the vaccine manufacturers have negotiated a deal where they are not held responsible for any adverse reactions resulting from this possibly inadequately-tested and poorly-justified medical treatment! This point is very worrying indeed. Source? Anecdotal evidence suggests that the uptake of the vaccine by hospital workers is possibly less than 20%, suggesting a deep mistrust of both the vaccine and the indeed the whole characterisation of H1N1 as a serious public health problem, which overwhelming emerging evidence is suggesting that it is not and has never been. If medical professionals have this much trust in the vaccine, then what conclusions must the public then draw from this? My, I wonder why there's a deep mistrust. Even if h1n1 isn't a serious public health problem, vaccination is still worthwhile, same as vaccination for seasonal flu is worthwhile, particularly if you're at risk, or work in healthcare. I also hear stories of staff being pressured into receiving the jabs - both within healthcare services and in the education sector. There is no evidence suggesting a need for vaccination, particularly as there is no evidence it significantly protects against influenza. Even leading experts on vaccination are concurring with this (eg - Professor Tom Jefferson of the influential Cochrane Collaboration). What evidence would demonstrate a need for vaccination? It's a strain of flu, it's widely spread in the population, that is enough for this to be a valid programme. Your use of Tom Jeffersons work is misinformation, Jefferson is a supporter of vaccination. He's against the seasonal flu vaccination because it's by nature a fairly hit and miss effort. There's a lot of seasonal illnesses around, and the vaccine only works against last years strain. Jeffersons research says that's not worth the bother. He's not saying vaccines aren't effective, and that research is not saying the h1n1 vaccine isn't effective. H1N1 typically manifests as an illness similar to the common cold, but with a higher fever. Many sufferers are asymptomatic, and many describe it as less of an illness than the usual Influenza, which considering the WHO-encouraged global response is utterly shocking. What is shocking, specifically? What are you objecting to here? We're fortunate that for most people this is a mild illness. That's a good thing, what's your problem? Had it turned out to be a serious illness and the WHO had done nothing, you'd have been jumping up and down, wouldn't you? Attention needs to be drawn to a number of alerts now being raised about the connections of some of the WHO's senior flu advisors, who shockingly have been shown to have close connections to the pharmaceutical companies now making Billions out of 'Swine Flu' vaccines and drugs, even though scientific doubt has been cast on the utility of these for years. It appears that the World Health Organisation (a branch of the World Trade organisation) has seemed a little too keen to promote these interventions, in the face of overwhelming evidence against the need for them. This smacks of corruption at the highest level, particularly as their chief - Dr Margaret Chan - is on record as claiming that H1N1 posed a threat to 'all of humanity', even though she provided no basis for such a claim. The WHO is an agency of the United Nations, not a branch of the World Trade Organisation. What has the WHO got to do with the local vaccination programme? What's the link? H1n1 is a threat, it's a pandemic virus with very little herd immunity. It's a risk, fortunately it's turned out to be a low one, but it's still a risk. The Isle of Man is following closely (but not exactly) after the example of Britain, and people ought to be aware that one of Britain's top Swine Flu advisors - Professor Sir Roy Anderson - is a paid-up non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, one of the major players in the pharmaceutical industry supplying drugs and vaccines. What are we to make of this? That he was invited as an expert, as reported. Why not accept that: A spokesman for GSK insisted there was no conflict of interest. 'Professor Anderson stepped down from the government's flu advisory group on appointment to GSK. 'In May, he was asked to rejoin as a temporary member as the scale of the influenza pandemic became evident. He is a world authority on the epidemiology of infectious diseases and his positions as an adviser to the government and as a member of GSK's board are entirely appropriate. 'These interests have been declared at all times and he has not attended any meetings related to purchase of drugs or vaccine for either the government or GSK.' A spokesman for Imperial College said Sir Roy's temporarily appointment to Sage was made 'with the full knowledge of the government departments involved in handling the pandemic'. He added: 'He is not a member of the drug or vaccine sub committees of the flu advisory group.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishbashbosh Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Where did the word serious come from? You actually. The original report says they "became ill" and that's all. You managed to turn that into "taken ill with a serious complication" Whatever scaremongering you claim goes on from health authorities is something you're quite partial to yourself from the other side of the fence. After all, you rushed to your keyboard to post your ill informed sensationalist rhetoric as soon as you heard about this, right? me?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted November 30, 2009 Author Share Posted November 30, 2009 Slim - All I ask of you is that if you wish to justify your position that H1N1 vaccination is a good thing, then why not give us the epidemiological argument behind your apparent support for general vaccination? Surely all vaccines are based on a sound base of scientific evidence - such as MMR, HIB, Tetanus, Meningitis, etc etc? What about H1N1? Your own claims for the scientific legitimacy of H1N1 vaccination programme for healthy individuals are scientifically uninformed, and media-biased. Your comments on Prof Jefferson's opinions are not based on current ideas, but the simply on the article I quoted, which is 3 years old. Are you not concerned that GSK etc refuse to take responsibility for adverse outcomes if their vaccines really are the same as the usual Flu vaccine? I mean, come on! You also ought to ask yourself if Prof Anderson is completely without potential conflicts of interest... you are pretty naive to think he is not! He is a principal involved with the state H1N1 response and is an NED of the main company providing 'solutions'. Er... what part of 'improper' do you not understand about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Swine flu vaccine rushed through safety checks GPs to be paid £100m for giving swine flu vaccine Does anyone know whether our GP's are being paid to administer the vaccine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Swine flu vaccine rushed through safety checks GPs to be paid £100m for giving swine flu vaccine Does anyone know whether our GP's are being paid to administer the vaccine? The first headline is badly out of date. The fast track didn't happen. The second headline: so? GP's are private partnerships, they should be paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Shock!!! Horror!!! Vaccinations make you feel a bit iffy after having one!!!! Some one call the newspapers!!! You wanna feel ill after a vacination try the Anthrax vaccination program. Makes the swine flu one look like a fun prospect. Wait whats that? A possible conspircay theory?!? Someone get Ringwraith on the blower!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2yu Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Swine flu vaccine rushed through safety checks GPs to be paid £100m for giving swine flu vaccine Does anyone know whether our GP's are being paid to administer the vaccine? Don't know the exact figure. Roughly £5 per patient but as Slim says they're essentially private businesses and so get paid for any extra work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.