Third of WHO advisers received support from drug firms

WildBoots · 12-08-2010 10:36pm #1

No surprises there anyway :rolleyes:

A third of the experts advising the World Health Organisation about the swine flu pandemic had ties to drugs firms, it has emerged.

Five of the 15 specialists who sat on the emergency committee had received funding from pharmaceutical giants, or were linked to them through their research.

The revelation will prompt speculation that the 'pandemic' was wildly overestimated and largely fuelled by the drugs industry who stood to benefit from the panic.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1302505/Third-WHO-swine-flu-advisers-received-support-drugs-firms.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0wQigi2mI

orourkeda · 12-08-2010 10:38pm

stoners

SuperInfinity · 12-08-2010 10:53pm

No surprise at all. They are all in bed with one another and having a laugh at the people who use the really expensive drugs. These people earn millions a year.

Even blood pressure medication, one of the few medications that is supposed to actually WORK properly, even with all the horrible side effects to them, they don't even reduce mortality as shown by the latest meta analysis.

The whole health care system, in particular the drug aspect to it, is for the mostpart nothing but a humongous scam.

12-08-2010 10:54pm

hope they all get bird flu c**ts . :mad:

WildBoots · 12-08-2010 10:59pm

Khalid Brief Viper wrote: »

hope they all get bird flu c**ts . :mad:

I hope they all get life in prison . And some bird flu too for good measure.

orourkeda · 12-08-2010 11:03pm

SuperInfinity wrote: »

No surprise at all. They are all in bed with one another and having a laugh at the people who use the really expensive drugs. These people earn millions a year.

Even blood pressure medication, one of the few medications that is supposed to actually WORK properly, even with all the horrible side effects to them, they don't even reduce mortality as shown by the latest meta analysis.

The whole health care system, in particular the drug aspect to it, is for the mostpart nothing but a humongous scam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR8XH3R95xE

starbelgrade · 12-08-2010 11:05pm

A third of Daily Mail readers are f*cking eejits, according to The Star.

ancapailldorcha · 13-08-2010 12:18am

SuperInfinity wrote: »

No surprise at all. They are all in bed with one another and having a laugh at the people who use the really expensive drugs. These people earn millions a year.

Even blood pressure medication, one of the few medications that is supposed to actually WORK properly, even with all the horrible side effects to them, they don't even reduce mortality as shown by the latest meta analysis.

The whole health care system, in particular the drug aspect to it, is for the mostpart nothing but a humongous scam.

Care to cite the meta-analysis? Just because these fools are on the take doesn't necessarily mean that the drugs do not necessarily work.

ancapailldorcha · 13-08-2010 12:20am

I also love how the Daily Mail is slagging the government's handling of the whole swine flu thing while it's morons like themselves that hyped it up in the first place.

SoupyNorman · 13-08-2010 12:23am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I also love how the Daily Mail is slagging the government's handling of the whole swine flu thing while it's morons like themselves that hyped it up in the first place.

So all the people who died from swine flu were faking?

sesna · 13-08-2010 12:25am

SoupyNorman wrote: »

So all the people who died from swine flu were faking?

Very few died, number probably in line with those who would have died from normal flu. Certainly didn't justify the billions spent on vaccines by various governments, but then again its easy to say that looking back.

The only unusual aspect of swine flu was the apparently young, healthy profile of some fatalities.

ancapailldorcha · 13-08-2010 12:27am

sesna wrote: »

Very few died, probably in line with those who would died from normal flu. The only unusual aspect was the apparently young, healthy profile of some fatalities.

More or less what I was going to say. A lot of those who die have underlying conditions like CF. Papers were making it out like it was the end of the world.

SoupyNorman · 13-08-2010 12:28am

sesna wrote: »

Very few died...

I didnt quote numbers did I?

sesna · 13-08-2010 12:58am

SoupyNorman wrote: »

I didnt quote numbers did I?

No, but you suggested the hype created by media/government another poster talked was related to mortality rates alone. The hype created by the media did refer to this, but more so to an imminent pandemic - hence huge numbers of vaccines being ordered at huge cost, and plans to vaccinate the entire population of Ireland for example.

Also, the mortality rates estimated by media were grossly over-estimated as many people who did contract the virus just experienced severe flu symptoms for 1-2 weeks before fully recovering. Once again, easy saying all this with hindsight.

Dave! · 13-08-2010 1:17am

sesna wrote: »

Very few died, number probably in line with those who would have died from normal flu. Certainly didn't justify the billions spent on vaccines by various governments, but then again its easy to say that looking back.

The only unusual aspect of swine flu was the apparently young, healthy profile of some fatalities.

This.

To (mis)quote someone from another thread: "if we're gonna spend billions on a swine flu vaccine, then I wanna see children dying in the streets goddammit!!!"

Better safe than sorry. Hopefully governments and health authorities won't be intimidated by the moronic tabloid conspiracy crap that we saw regarding swine flu, and they'll continue to err on the side of caution and over-prepare for any future deadly pandemics.

bleg · 13-08-2010 12:48pm

Agreed. If anything, swine flu showed us how hopelessly under prepared we were for a lethal pandemic. Hopefully we'll take the lessons learned and implement them the next time.

ScumLord · 13-08-2010 1:20pm

bleg wrote: »

Agreed. If anything, swine flu showed us how hopelessly under prepared we were for a lethal pandemic. Hopefully we'll take the lessons learned and implement them the next time.

We over reacted to the so called pandemic, within days the entire world knew about it and was on the look out for it. I wouldn't say we where under prepared at all, we love all this doom and gloom we where on it in record time.

ancapailldorcha · 13-08-2010 4:47pm

ScumLord wrote: »

We over reacted to the so called pandemic, within days the entire world knew about it and was on the look out for it. I wouldn't say we where under prepared at all, we love all this doom and gloom we where on it in record time.

Yeah, headlines like "MMR vaccine ok!" just don't sell.

Wazdakka · 13-08-2010 4:51pm

This is news to you?

Next to Oil, Pharmaceuticals is the biggest industry on the planet.
I've worked in the industry for years...

There's a mental amount of corruption going in.

eightyfish · 13-08-2010 5:18pm

WildBoots wrote: »

A third of the experts advising the World Health Organisation about the swine flu pandemic had ties to drugs firms, it has emerged.

Non-story. Who else are you going to get as an expert in an area than someone with industry experience? I'm surprised it's only a third, TBH.

PS- Just saw this was the Daily Mail. Famous for manufacturing ignorant health-scare stories. If you could pick one paper to definitely NOT take health advice from, it would be this horrid rag.

moonpurple · 13-08-2010 6:35pm

pharm companies are constantly gifting key people

in ireland gps get cheques to take part in 'surveys'

which they can chose to fill in or not online

but they get the cheques anyway

and get back handers in many different ways

in medical card areas a gp will get entertained if a particular drug is being chosen at the expense of the taxpayer.. the rep will monitor sales at local pharmacies

in psychiatric facilities vulnerable people who might benefit more from staff supported fresh air and exercise get a lot of expensive sedatives owing to their boredom and frustation.... its good for business, not for them, but DAMN good for business

13-08-2010 6:36pm

Jesus.. Shouldn't a board like that be completely impartial?!
They're recommendations cost millions.

Tar.Aldarion · 13-08-2010 6:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus.. Shouldn't a board like that be completely impartial?!
They're recommendations cost millions.

Yes tehy should, hence the story :pac:

They should be strung out

13-08-2010 6:56pm

It's insider trading like..

bleg · 13-08-2010 8:52pm

How many were linked to the Pharma companies that stood to profit directly? Namely, the manufacturers of Relenza, Tamiflu and the vaccines.

Also: Remember, it's the daily mail.

ancapailldorcha · 13-08-2010 9:19pm

I'd have thought that you wouldn't be allowed to advise if you were working with big Pharma. I think the article says they all used to work with various firms. I don't see why they don't just take advice from the likes of University Epidemiologists and Virologists.

bleg · 13-08-2010 9:21pm

Cause most of them would have "links" with the pharmaceutical industry.

ancapailldorcha · 13-08-2010 9:51pm

I don't know what it's like in the US but I've seen a few research positions here sponsored by the likes of L'Oreal. I suppose those would be the links. In journals like Nature though the authors have to disclose such links.

bleg · 14-08-2010 9:58am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

. I think the article says they all used to work with various firms.

So a third of them used to work with different firms. We're not sure if the firms they worked for stood to profit directly from advising the WHO to declare a pandemic. As far as I know the people on the panel didn't receive any bonus for having a pandemic declared.

In fact, they might have worked for a rival drug company and not advised declaring a pandemic.

However, all of this is pure, blind speculation that gets us nowhere.

Nodin · 14-08-2010 10:03am

WildBoots wrote: »

No surprises there anyway :rolleyes:

A third of the experts advising the World Health Organisation about the swine flu pandemic had ties to drugs firms, it has emerged.

Five of the 15 specialists who sat on the emergency committee had received funding from pharmaceutical giants, or were linked to them through their research.

The revelation will prompt speculation that the 'pandemic' was wildly overestimated and largely fuelled by the drugs industry who stood to benefit from the panic.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1302505/Third-WHO-swine-flu-advisers-received-support-drugs-firms.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0wQigi2mI

Thats the equivalent of saying that 5 of the 11 players on the international team have played for major European clubs. You'd have to show they were directly funded, while working for the WHO, to alter results, or promote their product etc.

Min · 14-08-2010 10:41am

The WHO leave a lot to be desired when it comes to health issues.

sligopark · 14-08-2010 8:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus.. Shouldn't a board like that be completely impartial?!
They're recommendations cost millions.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Billions my friedn and its not limited to the swine flu

Worse still our gps and nurses etc are all sucked into the big drug 'em drug 'em and then inject them propoganda of for profit drug producers and peddlars

gps and nurses are the equivalent of on the street drug dealers

bleg · 14-08-2010 11:31pm

sligopark wrote: »

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Billions my friedn and its not limited to the swine flu

Worse still our gps and nurses etc are all sucked into the big drug 'em drug 'em and then inject them propoganda of for profit drug producers and peddlars

gps and nurses are the equivalent of on the street drug dealers

What?

sock puppet · 14-08-2010 11:44pm

sligopark wrote: »

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Billions my friedn and its not limited to the swine flu

Worse still our gps and nurses etc are all sucked into the big drug 'em drug 'em and then inject them propoganda of for profit drug producers and peddlars

gps and nurses are the equivalent of on the street drug dealers

The sad thing about conspiracy theorists like you is that it actually results in the deaths of many many people.

sligopark · 14-08-2010 11:55pm

of course I do - I am getting paid by pharmaceutical companies to create panic and wealth

And I am stupid enough to believe them - hook, line and sinker

the medical profession really should be ashamed of itself in this saga

15-08-2010 12:06am

sligopark wrote: »

of course I do - I am getting paid by pharmaceutical companies to create panic and wealth

And I am stupid enough to believe them - hook, line and sinker

the medical profession really should be ashamed of itself in this saga

I wonder if you'll change your tune about the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies if and when you ever need urgent medical assistance.

sligopark · 15-08-2010 12:14am

A&E assistance is great and more technology driven - its when it comes to the lazy day to day drugging and vaccinating that the medical profession and the WHO falls down, listening heartily to vested interests

15-08-2010 12:16am

sligopark wrote: »

A&E assistance is great and more technology driven - its when it comes to the lazy day to day drugging and vaccinating that the medical profession and the WHO falls down, listening heartily to vested interests

Google smallpox.

sligopark · 15-08-2010 12:24am

Deleted User wrote: »

Google smallpox.

Just did and interestingly came on this quote (although not referenced):

I have read many interesting articles about how... the only people in Philippines who died of smallpox were the vaccinated,

http://naturesmother.myfreeforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=50

Although I do take your point but I do not know much past the vaccine PR about smallpox

Dave! · 15-08-2010 12:36am

sligopark wrote: »

Just did and interestingly came on this quote (although not referenced):

http://naturesmother.myfreeforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=50

Although I do take your point but I do not know much past the vaccine PR about smallpox

Then why even post it?

Interestingly I myself read a quote, not referenced though:

'Anti-vaccination' people only use 10% of their brains

Make of it what you wish

15-08-2010 12:37am

sligopark wrote: »

Although I do take your point but I do not know much past the vaccine PR about smallpox

It has been eradicated through extensive vaccination programmes.

sligopark · 15-08-2010 12:42am

Deleted User wrote: »

It has been eradicated through extensive vaccination programmes.

Thats what I have been led to believe too

sorry I am rearranging the tin foil on my head

15-08-2010 12:44am

sligopark wrote: »

Thats would I have been led to believe too

Have you really been as far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

sligopark · 15-08-2010 12:47am

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you really been as far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

wtf?

ancapailldorcha · 15-08-2010 1:05am

Variola major (the virus that causes smallpox) is possibly the most deadly pathogen mankind has ever encountered. It is estimated to have killed over 500 million people and has a death rate of 30% making it an ideal choice as a bioweapon. The vaccine used to prevent smallpox is based on the vaccinia (cowpox) virus which is not an entirely safe vaccine and has a death rate of about 24 per million. This is not counting the amounts of symptoms such as encephalitis (brain infections) caused. Add the fact that the WHO declared smallpox eradicated decades ago (trust them?) and that means the world is very vulnerable to a smallpox pandemic which would certainly kill many, many people.
Source

bleg · 15-08-2010 11:05am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Variola major (the virus that causes smallpox) is possibly the most deadly pathogen mankind has ever encountered. It is estimated to have killed over 500 million people and has a death rate of 30% making it an ideal choice as a bioweapon. The vaccine used to prevent smallpox is based on the vaccinia (cowpox) virus which is not an entirely safe vaccine and has a death rate of about 24 per million. This is not counting the amounts of symptoms such as encephalitis (brain infections) caused. Add the fact that the WHO declared smallpox eradicated decades ago (trust them?) and that means the world is very vulnerable to a smallpox pandemic which would certainly kill many, many people.
Source

So many contradictions.

Are you advocating non vaccination against smallpox due to the risk associated with vaccination? Or, are you saying we should all be vaccinated because we can't trust the WHO when they say that smallpox is eradicated?

What does the article suggest in its conclusions?

What does this have to do with swine flu?

sligopark · 15-08-2010 11:32am

bleg wrote: »

What does this have to do with swine flu?

you think that this pharmaceutical industry interest has only influence on the issue of swine flu?

the word naive comes to mind

Nodin · 15-08-2010 11:37am

bleg wrote: »

So many contradictions.

Are you advocating non vaccination against smallpox due to the risk associated with vaccination? Or, are you saying we should all be vaccinated because we can't trust the WHO when they say that smallpox is eradicated?

What does the article suggest in its conclusions?

What does this have to do with swine flu?

Roughly?

'THEY'RE TAKEN OVER, MAN!!!!!!!'

or so I'd guess.

bleg · 15-08-2010 11:52am

sligopark wrote: »

you think that this pharmaceutical industry interest has only influence on the issue of swine flu?

An article in a rag claiming a third of a few advisers are linked to various pharmaceutical companies (not even the ones that stood to profit directly) is not evidence of any influence.

It's the Daily Mail for **** sake.

I still don't get the link between smallpox eradication and swine flu though. Perhaps you could elaborate.

ancapailldorcha · 15-08-2010 12:38pm

bleg wrote: »

So many contradictions.

Are you advocating non vaccination against smallpox due to the risk associated with vaccination? Or, are you saying we should all be vaccinated because we can't trust the WHO when they say that smallpox is eradicated?

What does the article suggest in its conclusions?

What does this have to do with swine flu?

No, I just thought I'd provide a little info. My point was that overall, the vaccine was greatly beneficial even though it had an imperfect safety profile. Big Pharma has been hugely beneficial to human health and just because it's committed a fair share of evils doesn't mean we should boycott western medicine which is based on evidence based healthcare.

the_barfly1 · 15-08-2010 2:26pm

I'd be of the opinion that in order to maximise profits, Pharma companies focus on the TREATMENT of illnesses rather than the cure. After all, if you cure somebody there's gonna be no reason to for them to come back with repeat business!
IMO, all these drugs just break your immune system down and make you more suceptible to contracting/suffering from even more viruses.
I used to catch every bug going, but decided to myself about 8 yrs ago that i'd stop taking ALL types of pharma drugs, I wouldnt take as much as a paracetamol for a headache.
From about 6 months after that decision right through to today, I haven't even had as much as a headache.
I'd recommend anybody else to give up the meds.

White blood cells FTW.

Third of WHO advisers received support from drug firms

Comments