Being skeptical about H1N1

robindch

onq wrote: »

You've judged the article on the basis of which magazine its published in as opposed to the information contained therein = zero credibility. Have you bothered to read it and seen its lack of hard information for yourself?

Yes, I did read it. And in the context of a article which busts headline myths put around by medically uninformed people, I think it's entirely appropriate to provide headline responses. I'm sure the NS has published other articles which has given the scientific case in much more detail, and if they haven't, there are certainly articles in the literature which do.

onq wrote: »

http://www.globalresearch.ca contains a wide variety of opinion, not all of it in agreement.

Not any of it in agreement with reality, from what I've skimmed through.

onq wrote: »

Making assumptions based on publishers while not apparently assessing the contents of the articles referred to isn't a credible means of approaching a subject.

Much as it might annoy some, I do believe that some sources of information are more reliable than others. In this particular case, I think that a journal that I've been reading on and off for perhaps thirty years (and found to be thoroughly trustworthy) is more likely to publish accurate factual information, than, for example, a site which appears to be designed and run by a small group of single-issue fanatics and paranoid conspiracy theorists who fantasize about political issues above anything else.

If there's anything to globalresearch's opinion, then they are free to take part in the ongoing scientific debate that takes place in the scientific literature. The fact that they do not, and instead produce lurid, panicky websites, says much about the degree of trust that they deserve.

onq

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I did read it. And in the context of a article which busts headline myths put around by medically uninformed people, I think it's entirely appropriate to provide headline responses. I'm sure the NS has published other articles which has given the scientific case in much more detail, and if they haven't, there are certainly articles in the literature which do.Not any of it in agreement with reality, from what I've skimmed through.Much as it might annoy some, I do believe that some sources of information are more reliable than others. In this particular case, I think that a journal that I've been reading on and off for perhaps thirty years (and found to be thoroughly trustworthy) is more likely to publish accurate factual information, than, for example, a site which appears to be designed and run by a small group of single-issue fanatics and paranoid conspiracy theorists who fantasize about political issues above anything else.

If there's anything to globalresearch's opinion, then they are free to take part in the ongoing scientific debate that takes place in the scientific literature. The fact that they do not, and instead produce lurid, panicky websites, says much about the degree of trust that they deserve.

Robindch,

I accept that you are sincere in all your comments in principle including your opinion of globlresearch.ca

I happen to disagree with most of them including your opinion of the articles posted there - some are off the wall, most I have read are based on fact, including the first alert in the media to the exposure of the Big Four American Banks to over 1 Trillion in Derivatives trading, a fact not yet available in any mainstream media report.
Nuggets like that make wading through the dross bearable.

However your support for making headline responses to headline posts that fail to support their headline assertions with facts, as oposed to mere counter-headlines, doesn't further the debate on any level - it becomes mere rhetoric.
You'll note I didn't diss the website or the article for appearing on that website - I criticized the article itself for not providing any supporting data for its assertions.

There is a huge question over whether it was appropriate to raise Swine Flu to the level of pandemic at all, given the relative numbers of attributable deaths to this disease as opposed to "normal" influenza. The below information was posted by uprising in the following thread on Boards.ie
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055786529&goto=newpost

You may want to merge the threads if you think its appropriate.

Influenza epidemics occur yearly during autumn and winter in temperate regions. Illnesses result in hospitalizations and deaths mainly among high-risk groups (the very young, elderly or chronically ill). Worldwide, these annual epidemics result in about three to five million cases of severe illness, and about *250 000 to 500 000 deaths.* Most deaths associated with influenza in industrialized countries occur among people age 65 or older. In some tropical countries, influenza viruses circulate throughout the year with one or two peaks during rainy seasons.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs211/en/

*Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 - update 83*
*Weekly update*
15 January 2010 -- As of 10 January 2010, worldwide more than 208 countries and overseas territories or communities have reported laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, including at *least 13554 deaths.*
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2010_01_15/en/index.html


250,000 - 500,000 deaths for normal flu - vs- circa14,000 deaths for swine flu.

Thus swine flu is estimated to kill 2.8-5.6% of the number of people killed by normal flu each year - hardly an epidemic, never mind a pandemic.

FWIW

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

I have read are based on fact, including the first alert in the media to the exposure of the Big Four American Banks to over 1 Trillion in Derivatives trading, a fact not yet available in any mainstream media report.

Anybody familiar with economics in general, or financial or derivative trading in particular, is aware of the massive figures involved and there is no conspiracy of silence to suppress this fact. Quite the opposite in fact, since the figures are publicly available on Wikipedia (for example):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_%28finance%29

BTW, the figure of $1Tr is almost certainly a significant underestimate since the derivative market typically operates at between 50 and 100 times the value of the real economy.

onq wrote: »

However your support for making headline responses to headline posts that fail to support their headline assertions with facts, as oposed to mere counter-headlines, doesn't further the debate on any level - it becomes mere rhetoric.

And how exactly should NS respond to people who speak and think in lurid headlines and credulous believers who won't read technical detail?

onq wrote: »

There is a huge question over whether it was appropriate to raise Swine Flu to the level of pandemic at all, given the relative numbers of attributable deaths to this disease as opposed to "normal" influenza. [...] Thus swine flu is estimated to kill 2.8-5.6% of the number of people killed by normal flu each year - hardly an epidemic, never mind a pandemic.

You don't seem to understand the difference between an epidemic (lots of people simultaneously catching some disease in some geographically confined area) and a pandemic (a global outbreak of some disease).

The terms epidemic and pandemic are related to infection rates and not to mortality rates, which are thankfully low but certainly higher than the figures you quote. In this case, the WHO was quite right to declare a pandemic, since it was an illness that went worldwide in a very short time.

onq

robindch wrote: »

Anybody familiar with economics in general, or financial or derivative trading in particular, is aware of the massive figures involved and there is no conspiracy of silence to suppress this fact. Quite the opposite in fact, since the figures are publicly available on Wikipedia (for example):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_%28finance%29

You're dissing globalresearch and suggesting Wiki as a reliable source?
Regardless, there is a big difference between being publicly available and becoming a story on the national carrier - Wiki isn't mainstream media for most of the population.

BTW, the figure of $1Tr is almost certainly a significant underestimate since the derivative market typically operates at between 50 and 100 times the value of the real economy.

No argument there.

And how exactly should NS respond to people who speak and think in lurid headlines and credulous believers who won't read technical detail?

NS wasn't responding to anyone, the people here were quoting NS, possibly as a source of credible information, and I pointed out that it wasn't backing up the headline with relevant supporting facts. There were being, dare I say it, a bit "lurid" in their presentation.

You don't seem to understand the difference between an epidemic (lots of people simultaneously catching some disease in some geographically confined area) and a pandemic (a global outbreak of some disease).

There is a pandemic of ordinary 'flu - every year.
250,000-500,000 people die from it - every year.

The terms epidemic and pandemic are related to infection rates and not to mortality rates, which are thankfully low but certainly higher than the figures you quote. In this case, the WHO was quite right to declare a pandemic, since it was an illness that went worldwide in a very short time.

Like the 'flu does every year and for the same reason.
It combines robust and successful delivery systems:

• aerosol spray and
• skin contact

...with air travel.

Once it can live and replicate in a human host every disease can go global in a short time using these methods.

Any 'flu may be a pandemic and lethal, but we're not all taking Tamiflu for it.
More people die from the ordinary 'flu than swine flu but its not getting hyped.
The common cold and its myriad of variants has been a rolling pandemic for decades.

Given the limited number of deaths the swine flu scare is merely FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
Back in the fifties, this tended to create a fearful population that was willing to accept the Government line.
Today people expect to be treated as intelligent, educated creatures, not hyped to death by people selling Tamiflu.

We'd be better served by wearing paper masks like the Japanese do.
Because since Gulf War Syndome, no-one trusts untested cocktails of drugs from America.

That's also listed on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome - mind you, with sentences like this:
"The oil and smoke that spewed for months from hundreds of burning oil wells presented another exposure hazard not previously encountered in a warzone"
...you might want to take it with a pinch of [decontaminated] salt - after all, a non-smoking warzone would be a triumph for beauracracy.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Given the limited number of deaths the swine flu scare is merely FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

onq wrote: »

We'd be better served by wearing paper masks like the Japanese do.
Because since Gulf War Syndome, no-one trusts untested cocktails of drugs from America.

Seems like a bit of a contradiction there.

"The government is telling you to fear the flu but don't trust them cause they are only trying to scare you. Also you should be afraid of the vaccines."

robindch

onq wrote: »

robindch wrote:

the figure of $1Tr is almost certainly a significant underestimate since the derivative market typically operates at between 50 and 100 times the value of the real economy.

No argument there.

With respect, there certainly is an argument there. You mentioned that the globalresearch PCT website was useful because it said there was $1Tn in derivatives exposure. I said that it was far more and you appeared to agree. You have changed your position to agree with me, not GR.

I think you have missed the basic point that GR has simply got it wrong, as it appears to have done with respect to everything else that I've read on it.

onq wrote: »

You're dissing globalresearch and suggesting Wiki as a reliable source?

Yes, I certainly am.

I take it you're unaware of the studies that suggest that Wikipedia is generally more reliable than, for example, Encyclopedia Britannica?

onq wrote: »

Regardless, there is a big difference between being publicly available and becoming a story on the national carrier - Wiki isn't mainstream media for most of the population.

Given that Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website in the world, and the most popular informational (vs personal) website, I would respectfully suggest that it certainly is the mainstream. See the Alexa Rankings for more info.

onq wrote: »

Given the limited number of deaths the swine flu scare is merely FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

Er, are you seriously suggesting that 14,000 deaths -- certainly an underestimate, given that there were around 10,000 deaths in the USA alone in the period up to mid-November, three times the number dead in the WTC attacks -- is in some sense "limited"?

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Also you should be afraid of the vaccines.

The vaccine-scare meme is a relatively new one, and seems to have taken flight as a public problem after Andrew Wakefield's discredited paper on the links that he was paid (by lawyers) to find between the MMR vaccine and autism. More on this carefully manufactured controversy here:

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

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

The vaccine-scare meme is a relatively new one, and seems to have taken flight as a public problem after Andrew Wakefield's discredited paper on the links that he was paid (by lawyers) to find between the MMR vaccine and autism. More on this carefully manufactured controversy here:

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

Oh don't worry I'm up to date with the nonsense and scaremongering around vaccines.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of giving out about the government scaremongering then doing the same thing in the same paragraph.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Seems like a bit of a contradiction there.

"The government is telling you to fear the flu but don't trust them cause they are only trying to scare you. Also you should be afraid of the vaccines."

Its bad enough you don't understand what I write without putting your interpretation in quotation marks to suggest your warblings are my original post.

Here is a clue:

1. Don't trust the government when they are telling you to fear swine flu - its caused fewer deaths than the ordinary flu.
2. Don't take combinations of anti-viral drugs which haven't been rigorously tested.

There is no contradiction unless you think you automatically become fearful of everything you don't trust.
Most of us can deal with not trusting something without getting sweaty palms about it.
We don't panic about it, we just avoid it.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Its bad enough you don't understand what I write without putting your interpretation in quotation marks to suggest your warblings are my original post.

Here is a clue:

1. Don't trust the government when they are telling you to fear swine flu - its caused fewer deaths than the ordinary flu.
2. Don't take combinations of anti-viral drugs which haven't been rigorously tested.

There is no contradiction.

ONQ.

So you don't see how claiming the vaccine is "untested" and a "cocktail of drugs" and claiming they caused gulf war syndrome might be seen as spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt?

I don't see where the government told us to fear anything.
I've seen the media do it.
Oh and you with vaccines of course.

And have you actually read any of the studies related to the swine flu vaccine?

onq

robindch wrote: »

With respect, there certainly is an argument there. You mentioned that the globalresearch PCT website was useful because it said there was $1Tn in derivatives exposure. I said that it was far more and you appeared to agree. You have changed your position to agree with me, not GR.

I was pointing out that they had publicised something that hadn't yet made it into the mainstream media - I wasn't concerned about the exact amount. Your assertion that it may be far more makes the lack of mainstream media publicity even more of the indictment of the 4th Estate.

I think you have missed the basic point that GR has simply got it wrong, as it appears to have done with respect to everything else that I've read on it.

(again) My point was that it broke a story that wasn't covered by the mainstream media - I'm not too worried about the actual amount because I think nobody knows how to quantify OTC trading - that is part of the problem.
It could be a multiple of the figures quoted in your wiki article and it wouldn't take away from the fact that globalresearch carried it and mainstream didn't.
I accept that wiki carried it as well - I'm not arguing the point.

Yes, I certainly am.

Yes, you certainly are... what?

I take it you're unaware of the studies that suggest that Wikipedia is generally more reliable than, for example, Encyclopedia Britannica?Given that Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website in the world, and the most popular informational (vs personal) website, I would respectfully suggest that it certainly is the mainstream. See the Alexa Rankings for more info.

I cannot speak for De Wurld, but I use wiki a lot for reference and I have contributed to its fund because I think the idea of open peer review is the way forward and I am aware of the alleged dificiencies in EB. I say "alleged" because I haven't looked into it or read much about it.

Wiki by definition is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a current affairs blog - of course it will be well read, but can't you see the difference?
Reading a reference work is a different matter than reading a newspaper or a blog looking for up for the minute information.
And none of them carry the gravitas of a national carrier in exposing something that still threatens the world economy.

Er, are you seriously suggesting that 14,000 deaths -- certainly an underestimate, given that there were around 10,000 deaths in the USA alone in the period up to mid-November, three times the number dead in the WTC attacks -- is in some sense "limited"?

Which part of "2.8-5.6%" didn't you get?

As for the WTC attacks, I understand that 45,000 people die from drink driving in the USA - ever year.

You don't see them investing trillions to deal with that disaster, do you?

ONQ.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So you don't see how claiming the vaccine is "untested" and a "cocktail of drugs" and claiming they caused gulf war syndrome might be seen as spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt?

Happy to spread uncertainty and doubt where a benefit may arise - fear, not so much.

I don't see where the government told us to fear anything.

<drums fingers on table>

I've seen the media do it.
Oh and you with vaccines of course.

Of course.

And have you actually read any of the studies related to the swine flu vaccine?

If you want me to comment as to whether I've read a particular study or not, please post the relevant link.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Happy to spread uncertainty and doubt where a benefit may arise - fear, not so much.

So hang on it's ok for you to scaremonger then?

onq wrote: »

<drums fingers on table>

Show us one example.

onq wrote: »

Of course.

And media sensationalises stuff. And contrary to popular belief the media isn't under the control of the government.

What's your excuse for sensationalism and fearmongering?

onq wrote: »

If you want me to comment as to whether I've read a particular study or not, please post the relevant link.

ONQ.

Have you read any studies for the vaccines?

robindch

onq wrote: »

I was pointing out that they had publicised something that hadn't yet made it into the mainstream media - I wasn't concerned about the exact amount.

And I was pointing out that (a) it certainly is in the mainstream media and (b) GR got it wrong.

onq wrote: »

Your assertion that it may be far more makes the lack of mainstream media publicity even more of the indictment of the 4th Estate.

And equally well, it suggests that you may not understand quite what derivative trading is, since it is a virtual economy, not a real one.

onq wrote: »

Which part of "2.8-5.6%" didn't you get?

I do understand the stats, thanks for asking

As I asked, do you really consider that 14,000 deaths is "limited"?

onq wrote: »

As for the WTC attacks, I understand that 45,000 people die from drink driving in the USA - ever year.

Your figures are wrong again. The 45k figure is roughly the total number of road deaths, with around 40% of those being drink-related (see here).

onq wrote: »

You don't see them investing trillions to deal with that disaster, do you?

No, and nobody spends that amount of money on Swine Flu vaccines either.

I think you'd be able to make a better case if your statistics were accurate. So far, every one I've checked has been wrong.

onq

robindch wrote: »

And I was pointing out that (a) it certainly is in the mainstream media and (b) GR got it wrong.And equally well, it suggests that you may not understand quite what derivative trading is, since it is a virtual economy, not a real one.I do understand the stats, thanks for asking

Since the abandonment of the Gold Standard, or any other RL suport for currency, all economies are virtual because their currency is virtual - the price of gold is itself virtual.
Fractional reserve banking allows a bank to create virtual money by ledger entry based on the permitted lending ratio, which itself is also virtual.
We live in a virtual world, not a real world on board.ie.
You are surronded by virtual events, with 90% of your universe composed of dark matter or energy we cannot touch or see.
However the debt, when it becomes due, still must be paid - there's nothing virtual about that.
And as I pointed out GR didn't get it wrong per se because all figures of OTC trades are estimates.
As far as we know - and we don't know for certain - all of the figures you quoted may be wrong also.

As I asked, do you really consider that 14,000 deaths is "limited"?Your figures are wrong again. The 45k figure is roughly the total number of road deaths, with around 40% of those being drink-related (see here).No, and nobody spends that amount of money on Swine Flu vaccines either.

All figures you can quote are limited by definition.
In the present case 14,000 is a limited amount of deaths in relation to 250,000 or 500,000 deaths.
You could well be right about the proportion of road deaths - so its down to around double the swine flu deaths as opposed to triple - thanks for the correction.

I think you'd be able to make a better case if your statistics were accurate. So far, every one I've checked has been wrong.

Please point out to me where you've shown that the WHO's own estimate of the mortality rates from swine flu and ordinary flu are "wrong".

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So hang on it's ok for you to scaremonger then?

"not so much" is a colloquial term its not that hard to understand.

Show us one example.

You don't create fear by telling people to fear something directly

And media sensationalises stuff. And contrary to popular belief the media isn't under the control of the government.

The government, the banks, and during the building boom thedevelopers paid their wages - you figure out who controls them.

What's your excuse for sensationalism and fearmongering?

Telling the truth sometimes causes people to fear things.

Have you read any studies for the vaccines?

You're dodging the question I asked - no surprises.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

"not so much" is a colloquial term its not that hard to understand.

So you just spread uncertainty and doubt?
That never generates fear alright.

onq wrote: »

You don't create fear by telling people to fear something directly

Wow kinda like what you are doing by saying the vaccine is unsafe?

So can you show a single example of the government do this or not?

onq wrote: »

The government, the banks, and during the building boom thedevelopers paid their wages - you figure out who controls them.

And I pay taxes therefore I control the government?
And can you show that the media sensationalised swine flu at the behest of the government?
Or is that just paranioa on your part?

onq wrote: »

Telling the truth sometimes causes people to fear things.

And so can misinformation.

onq wrote: »

You're dodging the question I asked - no surprises.

ONQ.

So no then, you haven't read any studies on the vaccine.

robindch

onq wrote: »

all economies are virtual because their currency is virtual [...] debt, when it becomes due, still must be paid - there's nothing virtual about that.

:rolleyes:

onq wrote: »

Please point out to me where you've shown that the WHO's own estimate of the mortality rates from swine flu and ordinary flu are "wrong".

I didn't say that all were wrong, I said that all that I checked (because I had to) were wrong. The ones that I didn't check -- like the WHO figure -- are accepted, even if they are also accepted to be considerable underestimates. BTW, can we perhaps agree on 30,000 as a less-unreasonable estimate of the actual figure to date?

onq wrote: »

In the present case 14,000 is a limited amount of deaths in relation to 250,000 or 500,000 deaths.

I'm rather staggered that you can think that a figure of 14,000 deaths is in any way "limited".

You've also failed to show that the reasonable precautionary steps which have been taken by national governments and international organizations to ensure that populations are vaccinated against a virus which at the time of purchase was known to be highly contagious, but of disputed lethality, constitute scare tactics in the broadest sense. And your unsupported assertion that that it's all a conspiracy on behalf of the drug companies -- "Big Pharma" as appear to think of them -- bear all the hallmarks of a straightforward conspiracy theory.

onq

robindch wrote: »

:rolleyes:I didn't say that all were wrong, I said that all that I checked (because I had to) were wrong. The ones that I didn't check -- like the WHO figure -- are accepted, even if they are also accepted to be considerable underestimates. BTW, can we perhaps agree on 30,000 as a less-unreasonable estimate of the actual figure to date?I'm rather staggered that you can think that a figure of 14,000 deaths is in any way "limited".

If you're going to start limiting meaningful discussion of disease because of your liking for what you may consider politically correct semantics you'll do very little talking.
This is a discussion forum, right? Not a "I'm more politically correct than you when I'm talking about death forum"...

For example:
A lot of people die each year, i.e. 400 annually on road deaths in Ireland.
The number of bikers who die is limited in relation to the number of car drivers, not because they're so careful, but because they are so few.
I had a near fatal accident when I was nineteen but I don't get wobbly-kneed over it.
I had several near misses when I was a student cycling in and out of Bolton Street for years.
Perhaps that gives me a different perspective on death from other [current] car drivers.
Move on.

You've also failed to show that the reasonable precautionary steps which have been taken by national governments and international organizations to ensure that populations are vaccinated against a virus which at the time of purchase was known to be highly contagious, but of disputed lethality, constitute scare tactics in the broadest sense.

I haven't raised the issue, but in actual fact the statistics for vaccinated and unvaccinated populations of young people seem to weigh against vaccination.

And your unsupported assertion that that it's all a conspiracy on behalf of the drug companies -- "Big Pharma" as appear to think of them -- bear all the hallmarks of a straightforward conspiracy theory.

The weasel word "theory" is trotted out by those who don't want to face facts.
Capital is a relatively unscrupulous exploiter of Land and Labour - live it it.

ONQ

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So you just spread uncertainty and doubt?
That never generates fear alright.

I'm doubtful if you're an adult and I'm uncertain of your level of comprehension, but I'm not afraid of you.

Wow kinda like what you are doing by saying the vaccine is unsafe?

Not really, no.

So can you show a single example of the government do this or not?

Pardon?

And I pay taxes therefore I control the government?

Well actually its more "I vote and therefore I control the government" but only someone over eighteen would know that from personal experience.

And can you show that the media sensationalised swine flu at the behest of the government?
Or is that just paranioa on your part?

On your part perhaps - I didn't mention the term "sensationalised".
Asking someone to prove more than they have asserted isn't even a good debating technique, it leaves you open to being discredited too easily.

And so can misinformation.

If you say so.

So no then, you haven't read any studies on the vaccine.

I didn't answer.
You asked me whether I read any studies on the vaccine and I asked you to post links so I could determine whether I had or hadn't - you still haven't done this despite being asked to do so repeatedly.

Its very difficult to maintain credibility by raising issues and not following through on them.

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

If you're going to start limiting meaningful discussion of disease because of your liking for what you may consider politically correct semantics you'll do very little talking.

I must confess that you're beginning to lose me here. Are you trying to say that thinking that 14,000 dead people is a bad thing is somehow "politically correct"?

onq wrote: »

robindch wrote:

You've also failed to show that the reasonable precautionary steps which have been taken by national governments and international organizations to ensure that populations are vaccinated against a virus which at the time of purchase was known to be highly contagious, but of disputed lethality, constitute scare tactics in the broadest sense.

I haven't raised the issue, but in actual fact the statistics for vaccinated and unvaccinated populations of young people seem to weigh against vaccination.

With respect, the issue here is whether vaccination works or not, and whether it is the appropriate response to a worldwide pandemic.

Are you saying that vaccination doesn't work? And if it does work, that vaccinating people as a precautionary measure is a bad thing?

onq

robindch wrote: »

I must confess that you're beginning to lose me here. Are you trying to say that thinking that 14,000 dead people is a bad thing is somehow "politically correct"?

No. You've wasted several reply cycles questioning my use of the word "limited".
You either don't understand its meaning or you don't understand its context - you chose.

With respect, the issue here is whether vaccination works or not, and whether it is the appropriate response to a worldwide pandemic.

Respect doesn't arise when dealing with a mindless killer like a virus.
There are two issues here:

1. Whether the outbreak justifies the term Pandemic or not - I accept your comments in terms of the WHO's definition, but I question whether or not their definition is appropriate given the "limited" number of deaths that can be traced directly to swine flu.

2. Whether the cure is worse than the disease - statistically the jury appears to be out with some reports claiming problems and some claiming results.
The reports that claim problems seem to point to the cure causing statistically more problems than the disease.
In that sense while it may have been effective in some instances it wasn't in others.

So its not just about whether its effective or not per se, its about whehter its positve results outweigh the negative ones in terms of the overall population.
These negative results are not disputed and without them I would not challenge your assertion that its about whether its effective or not.

Are you saying that vaccination doesn't work? And if it does work, that vaccinating people as a precautionary measure is a bad thing?

I'm saying that while it may work in some cases in others it doesn't and in still others is causes more problems than it solves. Its not simply about whether it works or not.

In the other thread I referred to above this issue was raised :

In post #168 on page 12 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055786529&page=12

studiorat has uttered the immortal riposte:

"I don't think anyone mentioned that they were safe. Did they?"

No indeed.

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

I'm doubtful if you're an adult and I'm uncertain of your level of comprehension, but I'm not afraid of you.

Wearing my moderator hat briefly, your comments are out of order here. As you're a relative newbie, I'll forgive and forget this instance. But any more name calling or finger pointing will result in cards or bans. Just FYI.

onq wrote: »

1. Whether the outbreak justifies the term Pandemic or not - I accept your comments in terms of the WHO's definition, but I question whether or not their definition is appropriate given the "limited" number of deaths that can be traced directly to swine flu.

I'm kinda speechless at this response. A disease is declared a "pandemic" if it has global reach and it is unrelated to the lethality of the disease. How difficult can you really find this very simple idea?

onq wrote: »

2. Whether the cure is worse than the disease - statistically the jury appears to be out with some reports claiming problems and some claiming results.

The jury is out only if you call to duty the kind of medically-uninformed buffoons that run sites like that idiotic "globalresearch" panicsite.

Virtually everybody who's had medical training, or indeed, who knows anything about real medicine at all, was convinced of the benefits of vaccines in the 19th century.

From what little coherent information you've written to date, it seems that your single source of information on this -- a panicsite produced by a few single-issue fanatics -- is clearly still having severe trouble keeping itself current with developments in 19th century medicine, let alone 21st century.

onq

robindch wrote: »

Wearing my moderator hat briefly, your comments are out of order here. As you're a relative newbie, I'll forgive and forget this instance. But any more name calling or finger pointing will result in cards or bans.

I refer to post #15 and comments made to me by King Mob:

"Are you a biological terrorist?"
"You taking things out of context, twisting facts and generally making **** up?"

In this regard you were silent and I took it to mean a certain amount of robust exchange was countenanced by you. My mistake.

Just FYI.I'm kinda speechless at this response. A disease is declared a "pandemic" if it has global reach and it is unrelated to the lethality of the disease. How difficult can you really find this very simple idea?

I understand what you think is the definition..
And according to your site of record, Wiki, it appears your understanding of the WHO definition may be at fault:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

"Definition and stages

"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a pandemic can start when three conditions have been met:[1]

* emergence of a disease new to a population;
* agents infect humans, causing serious illness; and
* agents spread easily and sustainably among humans.

"A disease or condition is not a pandemic merely because it is widespread or kills many people; it must also be infectious. For instance, cancer is responsible for many deaths but is not considered a pandemic because the disease is not infectious or contagious."

I have a problem calling the swine flu a pandemic because its not that lethal - most cases in Ireland and elsewhere cited underlying conditions as being present. Put whatever interpretation you like on this and it still means you cannot exclusively blame swine flu for those deaths.

Mind you I can understand why you'd be misled by the WHO since its watered down its own aide-memoire discriptions of pandemics. That website goes on to say.

"In planning for a possible influenza pandemic the WHO published a document on pandemic preparedness guidance in1999, revised in 2005 and during the 2009 outbreak, defining phases and appropriate actions for each phase in an aide memoire entitled WHO pandemic phase descriptions and main actions by phase[3]. All versions of this document refer to influenza. The phases are defined by the spread of the disease; virulence and mortality are not mentioned."

My underline. The gist of this seems to be that removing virulence and mortality allows the WHO to call almost any widespread disease a Pandemic, which paves the way for more scare mongering in years to come.

Far from "preparing" us for some putative real pandemic, the WHO's poorly thought out approach over the Asian Bird Flu and the Swine Flu will end up them being ignored like the boy who cried wolf should anything really serious come along.

The jury is out only if you call to duty the kind of medically-uninformed buffoons that run sites like that idiotic "globalresearch" panicsite.

I find that quality of a site rests on the competence and integrity of the contributors and many of those who contribute to Globalresearch are of international stature and certainly not buffoons. Ad hominems aren't appropriate.

Virtually everybody who's had medical training, or indeed, who knows anything about real medicine at all, was convinced of the benefits of vaccines in the 19th century.

And they only realised the risks of inadequately tested products in the 1960's:

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

From what little coherent information you've written to date,

"...I'm uncertain of your level of comprehension..."

...it seems that your single source of information on this -- a panicsite produced by a few single-issue fanatics -- is clearly still having severe trouble keeping itself current with developments in 19th century medicine, let alone 21st century.

As you can see from the above I've learnt to read Wiki too but I'll admit to having been sidetracked by medicine from the 1960's which still has lessons to teach us today.

ONQ.

King Mob

Couple of points.

One, I wasn't actually accusing you of being a terrorist, I was trying to point out how your pointed questions to Malty T where pretty much an accusation.

Two, the WHO or any other health body has never once defined a pandemic by death rate.
This document here from 1999 defines a pandemic:

The Pandemic will be declared when the new virus sub-type has been shown to cause several outbreaks in at least one country, and to have spread to other countries, with consistent disease patterns indicating that serious morbidity and mortality is likely in at least one segment of the population

http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/influenza/whocdscsredc991.pdf

Worded a bit differently but not dependant on death rate.

This 1999 document was revised in 2005 to match the WHO's new 6 stage alert system.
The current wording for the definition was added then.

In 2009 the alert system was updated to include post pandemic stages.
Also there was a slight change in how a "new subtype" is defined.

What most of the tabloid experts and conspiracy theorists jump on was that part of the web page was changed because it wasn't an accurate representation of the definition of a pandemic.
It stated that pandemics lead to enormous death tolls, even though not one official document said similar.
And of course the media and Conspiracy theorists take this and sensationalise it till "WHO fix a line on their website" becomes "WHO change definition as part of global conspiracy."

Third, as for Thalidomide if you actually read beyond the usual anti science propaganda and nonsense you can what really happened.

Thalidomide was licensed in England but was pulled as soon as birth defects where proven (not by tabloid science, but by actual science.)
In fact most people don't know that the FDA refused to give permission to market the drug in America due to lack of adequate testing.

Afterwards many many laws where brought in from stopping untested drugs from being sold and stricter testing standards were adopted.

So saying, "they were wrong about thalidomide" is pretty much a non issue.
Especially when discussing vaccines, given the enormous good they've done.
Smallpox for one.
A disease that caused upwards of 300 million death last century alone, gone thanks to vaccines.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Couple of points.

One, I wasn't actually accusing you of being a terrorist, I was trying to point out how your pointed questions to Malty T where pretty much an accusation.

I was aware of your original intent but that wasn't why I posted the quotation in post #55 above.

<suggestion that non-lethal diseases are worthy of being called pandemics on the basis of rate and extent of spread alone snipped>

Spending huge money on treatment for a non-lethal dasease isn't good governance.
If a disease doesn't kill you you'll recover and have a stronger natural resistance.
Broad spectrum treatments are widely discredited in the fight against disease.
Persistent use in the last century only bred Superbugs which are spreading.

The issue of mortality is a clearly implied term in anything classed as "serious".
Issuing illogical definitions merely exposes the WHO as a shill for Big Pharma.
Worse this amounts to boosting broad spectrum policy under another name.

Third, as for Thalidomide if you actually read beyond the usual anti science propaganda and nonsense you can what really happened.

<pointless defense of the American FDA snipped>

The point was that robindch referriing back two centuries in support of vaccination was a non-argument.
Events in the last century had given us ample proof of the dangers of inadequately tested treatments.
Mass vaccination are appropriate in the fight against lethal, virulent disease - swine flu hype isn't one.
Inadequately tested treatments are never appropriate and the current farce needs a public inquiry.

The US attitude to health was already shown by the Gulf War Syndrome reference.
To that I add the EPA's disgraceful "no-risk" assurances to New Yorkers after 9/11.

<side bar about smallpox snipped >

Thanks to the good looking Milkmaids who pointed us towards the vaccine

ONQ.

pH

onq wrote: »

Spending huge money on treatment for a non-lethal dasease isn't good governance.
If a disease doesn't kill you you'll recover and have a stronger natural resistance.

ONQ.

Look, the 1918 flu pandemic was real, virulent, infected 500 million people and killed 50 million.

Once again this outbreak wasn't as serious as feared, and it followed on the back of a series of media-driven global health fears - AIDS, avian flu, salmonella, BSE, CJD - if there's one thing you can find in common among all of them is early on you can find the media bigging up whichever experts are prepared to make the most doomsday-like predictions.

It would be interesting to read a reasoned account of why the initial Mexican reports seemed to indicate a more virulent and deadly strain than was experienced around the world, but given the fact that we could have been looking at something similar meant that an immunization program was a proportional response.

Especially when you consider how governments hadn't much time to react, public pressure on the govt to do something quick to order vaccine before other countries had it all.

Anyway, here's David Icke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkiclMWy3Ns

robindch

onq wrote: »

I have a problem calling the swine flu a pandemic because its not that lethal

It's hardly worth pointing out for the umpteenth time that widespread lethality is not a requirement for a pandemic.

If you use your own private definition of the word "pandemic" (as you are), then, in all fairness, you're not going to gain many supporters by getting upset that other people use it differently.

onq wrote: »

I find that quality of a site rests on the competence and integrity of the contributors and many of those who contribute to Globalresearch are of international stature and certainly not buffoons. Ad hominems aren't appropriate.

I've no idea why you think these deluded people are competent -- their shoddy, panicky, third-rate, paranoid arguments can be cut to pieces with the most basic research.

robindch

pH wrote: »

Anyway, here's David Icke

Pity there's no vaccine against stupidity...

King Mob

onq wrote: »

I was aware of your original intent but that wasn't why I posted the quotation in post #55 above.

So why did you post it?

onq wrote: »

<suggestion that non-lethal diseases are worthy of being called pandemics on the basis of rate and extent of spread alone snipped>

That's not a suggestion. That's how pandemics have always been defined

onq wrote: »

Spending huge money on treatment for a non-lethal dasease isn't good governance.

Unless of course it has a chance of becoming lethal.
If the government didn't prepare as they did we'd be hearing a very different conspiracy theory.

onq wrote: »

If a disease doesn't kill you you'll recover and have a stronger natural resistance.

Unless of course it gives you pneumonia or another opportunistic infection.
If there was only some way to confer resistance to a virus without suffering the symptoms.
Oh wait, they have that: vaccines.

onq wrote: »

Broad spectrum treatments are widely discredited in the fight against disease.
Persistent use in the last century only bred Superbugs which are spreading.

That's not how vaccines work. But hey that sure does sound scary alright.

Unless you're referring to antivirals like tamiflu.
Cause then the WHO and other warned to use them sparingly to prevent the virus gaining immunity to antivirals.

onq wrote: »

The issue of mortality is a clearly implied term in anything classed as "serious".

And that's also in the current definition. It also refers to morbidity as serious but makes not mention to a death rate.
Look through the entire document and see if you can find a single definition of a pandemic that depends on a death rate.
And bear in mind that this is from 1999, ten years before the definition was supposedly changed.

onq wrote: »

Issuing illogical definitions merely exposes the WHO as a shill for Big Pharma.
Worse this amounts to boosting broad spectrum policy under another name.

And can you show a single offical source that ever used death rate to define a pandemic.
Seems your confusing the actual term for the Hollywood version.

onq wrote: »

<pointless defense of the American FDA snipped>

The point was that robindch referriing back two centuries in support of vaccination was a non-argument.
Events in the last century had given us ample proof of the dangers of inadequately tested treatments.

And we can point back to events in the last century that give us ample proof of the effectiveness of vaccines.
Do you really want to play a numbers game?

In fact cause most of those "dangers of inadequately tested treatments" probably have ****e all to do with vaccines.
I dare you to show one example of where a vaccine has cause huge amounts of harm.

onq wrote: »

Mass vaccination are appropriate in the fight against lethal, virulent disease - swine flu hype isn't one.
Inadequately tested treatments are never appropriate and the current farce needs a public inquiry.

And the swine flu vaccine had been adequately tested, despite what the anti science sites like to tell you.
There have been no reports of major side effects from it, and not a single death.

onq wrote: »

The US attitude to health was already shown by the Gulf War Syndrome reference.
To that I add the EPA's disgraceful "no-risk" assurances to New Yorkers after 9/11.

And this is relevant but pointing out triumphs of modern medicine isn't?

And are you suggesting that the government act on a non lethal and possibly non existent disease like GWS?

onq wrote: »

<side bar about smallpox snipped >

Thanks to the good looking Milkmaids who pointed us towards the vaccine

ONQ.

Yea and thanks to the scientists and doctors who made it happen too.