Health industry may have exaggerated the dangers of swine flu

DubMedic · 16-01-2010 12:00AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjRG2530rwI

.

tallaght01 · 16-01-2010 12:21AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Am I surprised? No, they pull the same trick every few years.

SARS, Avian Flu, CJD, etc.

Yet it never ceases to amaze me how the gullible public will swallow whatever the "experts" (also known as vested interests) say. This includes educated, intelligent types; naivety doesn't discriminate.

So please, in two or three years time when the WHO etc. ask for billions of euros to fight some new killer disease, try to rememeber they're an industry who make their money from fear. I'm not saying they can't be trusted; I'm saying don't blindly believe everything they say. Use your common sense.

BTW, this applies to every industry, such as our recent example of the public believing estate agents when they said now is the time to buy.

blah blah blah I'm a computer bloke who always waffles about viruses when I don't have a clue

More retarded shoyte.

WHO saw there was a new flu virus.

New flu viruses traditionally kill millions.

They can either sit on their balls, and hope for the best cause some bloke on the net called AAAAAARRRGGGGGGG says swine flu is a load of cock.

Or they can encourage the development of a vaccine and a medication because eing overcautious is a hell of a lot safer than not giving a fook.

This review is happening because politicians are also retarded. It's a political thing. Not a health thing. The review will find that the WHO acted appropriately.

Politicians don't understand that those of us on the front line worked our nuts off to develop the vaccine and work on preventative measures, for precisely this reason...to stop mass deaths.

Is the swine flu less dangerous than the other previous swine flu mutations? Yes.

Did anyone (even the OP) know that for sure beforehand? No.

Did the measures that were put in place help prevent many many more deaths? Yes.

The amount of bollix talked by people about this is....well, actually, it's no difference to most things.

But the WHO doesn't tell the rest of us what to do. Government advisors all knew that this was serious as hell. They knew we had a death rate of 1 in 1000 at the start of this thing in Oz, before the vaccine.

It's very easy to get an I-told-you-so erection because some politicians have asked for a review of pandemic handling.

But if the WHO had done nothing, they're have been strung up by the balls, and rightly so.

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 12:34AM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Now people need to look at the global warming scam to see it is exactly the same thing, but with more serious consequences, the elite this time trying to get more in the way of taxes and control out of the masses. :rolleyes:

I was reading recently about "Keirsey Temperament Sorter" and how most people need to go along with whatever they're told, especially the "official" line on things. Only a very small minority of people are able to consistently see through the bullshit -- just 5% of the world are rational thinkers.

So it doesn't matter what argument or logic you use to try to make people question their reality, they simply don't want to know, and you will be wasting your time.

I had always suspected this was the case but thought maybe I was just being a bit of a prick, so to find out there is a load of scientific research which backed up my own views was pretty eye opening moment for me.
For starters, it has made me realise debating with people is pointless as they won't be able to change their view on things -- the world has been set up so the majority of the population will be suckers.

So when I was starting this thread I knew it would be a waste of time, and I knew it would be rejected. I've tried to avoid debating with people as I know no matter what I say they won't want to know, so... Run_to_da_hills, you're just going to waste your energy and get frustrated trying to convince people that the world is actually totally corrupt.

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 12:39AM

tallaght01 wrote: »

Did anyone (even the OP) know that for sure beforehand? No.

No, but I didn't blindly believe what I was told. I was able to weigh up the likelihood of swine flu being as lethal as predicted, along with the health industries track record of hyping problems and in general being a bit corrupt, and come to the conclusion that it probably wasn't as bad as we were being told.

I appreciate it must really bother you that it turns out I was right and you were wrong, but of course, you'll try to claim you were somehow right (even though you have just admitted you were wrong).

Go ahead and start insulting me like you normally do. The fact of the matter is I was right and you were wrong.

ride-the-spiral · 16-01-2010 12:59AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

I appreciate it must really bother you that it turns out I was right and you were wrong, but of course, you'll try to claim you were somehow right (even though you have just admitted you were wrong).

Go ahead and start insulting me like you normally do. The fact of the matter is I was right and you were wrong.

Well you see, if you happened to be right, then money would've been saved and alot of people would get gloating rights. If you were wrong then millions of people could have died.

phantom_lord · 16-01-2010 01:02AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

I was reading recently about "Keirsey Temperament Sorter" and how most people need to go along with whatever they're told, especially the "official" line on things. Only a very small minority of people are able to consistently see through the bullshit -- just 5% of the world are rational thinkers.

just you people that wear tin foil hats yeah?

phantom_lord · 16-01-2010 01:04AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

No, but I didn't blindly believe what I was told. I was able to weigh up the likelihood of swine flu being as lethal as predicted

that's quite a statement! you must have quite the medical education and understanding of diseases and epidemics!

AARRRGH wrote: »

along with the health industries track record of hyping problems and in general being a bit corrupt, and come to the conclusion that it probably wasn't as bad as we were being told.

Do you think the WHO exaggerated the threat?

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 01:05AM

ride-the-spiral wrote: »

Well you see, if you happened to be right, then money would've been saved and alot of people would get gloating rights. If you were wrong then millions of people could have died.

Ah yeah, I get no pleasure in being right, but people's blind belief in what they're told disturbs me.

I guess I just wished people were a bit more cynical and questioned things rather than just shut their mind to alternative opinions.

It's grand though, I realise that's just the way it is.

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 01:06AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

that's quite a statement! you must have quite the medical education and understanding of diseases and epidemics!

Do you think the WHO exaggerated the threat?

Honestly I'd rather not get into a debate with you. It's pretty obvious what road you want to go down.

phantom_lord · 16-01-2010 01:07AM

you wont even answer this simple question?

Do you think the WHO exaggerated the threat?

ride-the-spiral · 16-01-2010 01:12AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Ah yeah, I get no pleasure in being right, but people's blind belief in what they're told disturbs me.

I guess I just wished people were a bit more cynical and questioned things rather than just shut their mind to alternative opinions.

It's grand though, I realise that's just the way it is.

Well it works both ways. In my school we had the option of getting the swine flu jab. The amount of people that got it was about less than half, but I was amazed at the amount of people who were believing things about the vaccine that were just not true, in their attempt to be more "questioning" they took absurd things as true. Somebody didn't get it because they heard it was made from dead people :eek:

I must have been the only person to any type of research and decided that it was better to get it. So yeah, the amount of people that will get a vaccination without questioning is about the same as the amount that will believe pretty much anything bad they hear about it.

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 01:16AM

ride-the-spiral wrote: »

Well it works both ways. In my school we had the option of getting the swine flu jab. The amount of people that got it was about less than half, but I was amazed at the amount of people who were believing things about the vaccine that were just not true, in their attempt to be more "questioning" they took absurd things as true. Somebody didn't get it because they heard it was made from dead people :eek:

I must have been the only person to any type of research and decided that it was better to get it. So yeah, the amount of people that will get a vaccination without questioning is about the same as the amount that will believe pretty much anything bad they hear about it.

I agree there was a lot of mad stuff said about the vaccine.

But was the amount of money spent on vaccines necessary?

Probably not.

What is a bit sad is the same crap will happen in 3 or 4 years.

It seems you can sell anything to anyone if you use fear.

Maybe I should become a salesman.

Conor108 · 16-01-2010 01:18AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

but people's blind belief in what they're told disturbs me.

Ah now, it's not like we're told by some guy on the street. If the World Health Organisation, doctors, medical professionals etc. say it's a threat why the hell would you not believe them?

For all you know the "scaremongering" causing masks, vaccines, stricter travel controls etc. prevented it from becoming a more serious virus. So if the WHO had downplayed it it could have been much worse.

Originally Posted by AARRRGH
No, but I didn't blindly believe what I was told. I was able to weigh up the likelihood of swine flu being as lethal as predicted

Unless you have some kind of medical training/education, ignoring medical advice and coming up with your own predictions cobbled together from secondary school biology and reruns of ER is probably not the best idea

phantom_lord · 16-01-2010 01:21AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

you wont even answer this simple question?

hmmm. i guess that's a no. i only ask because you keep insisting that the big evil health industry exaggerated the threat, while in fact most organisations took their cue of how to deal with swine flu from the WHO. Which is a public health organisation and has nothing to gain from any money spent on medicines or vaccines.

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 01:22AM

Conor108 wrote: »

Ah now, it's not like we're told by some guy on the street. If the World Health Organisation, doctors, medical professionals etc. say it's a threat why the hell would you not believe them?

Would you believe an estate agent?

A politician?

A banker?

Medical professionals are humans too.

If the people giving advice are making money from the situation, you should never blindly believe.

Cop on 101 really.

phantom_lord · 16-01-2010 01:24AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Would you believe an estate agent?

A politician?

A banker?

Medical professionals are humans too.

If the people giving advice are making money from the situation, you should never blindly believe.

Cop on 101 really.

Cop on 101, the World Health Organisation does not make money from the situation.

Mahatma coat · 16-01-2010 01:24AM

To those saying "Pandemic is a very Specific word" The Swine flu would not have qualified as a Pandemic had the WHO not rejigged the definition a short whiler before the outbreak.

Also I dont know if it was reported on the news in Ireland at the time but in Australia I found it very coincedental that the Govt's previous stock of tamiflu had Just gone out of date when this 'Pandemic' was announced

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 01:24AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

Which is a public health organisation and has nothing to gain from any money spent on medicines or vaccines.

If you think the people working at public health organisations have nothing to gain from massive health scares, well what can I say, you don't understand the world.

But it's grand, I really would rather not talk to you.

HashSlinging · 16-01-2010 01:25AM

I guess its like having a couple of thousand tons of salt put away for "irish snow" when frankly it was never going to happen....uhoh...

sock puppet · 16-01-2010 01:25AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Maybe I should become a salesman.

Maybe but from looking at your "debating" style you'd probably make a better TD.

phantom_lord · 16-01-2010 01:26AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

If you think the people working at public health organisations have nothing to gain from massive health scares, well what can I say, you don't understand the world.

But it's grand, I really would rather not talk to you.

no i don't believe they do. ah go on let me in on the secret?

Conor108 · 16-01-2010 01:37AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Would you believe an estate agent?

A politician?

A banker?

Medical professionals are humans too.

If the people giving advice are making money from the situation, you should never blindly believe.

Cop on 101 really.

Grand so, we'll just fire any doctor who says a virus could be a threat.

Nobody "blindly believes" Swine Flu is dangerous, it has killed people. I mean there are scientific studies and data to support it.

You seem to think this is some global conspiracy to make a few bob for pharmacological companies or something and that you're better than the rest of us for not "blindly believing" in a potentially life-threatning pandemic.

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 01:40AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

no i don't believe they do. ah go on let me in on the secret?

I don't believe you're that thick, so you're obviously baiting.

Grow up.

phantom_lord · 16-01-2010 01:41AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

I don't believe you're that thick, so you're obviously baiting.

Grow up.

you think me not just accepting your conspiracy theory without any back up or evidence is being immature and thick? seriously? i'm not baiting, i'm just pointing out how silly what you're saying is. please explain to me what the WHO had to gain from exaggerating the threat?

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 01:42AM

Conor108 wrote: »

Grand so, we'll just fire any doctor who says a virus could be a threat.

Ah come on, no need to go to extremes. No one is saying people should lose their job for having an opinion.

If this is the level of logic here it's pointless talking about this topic.

Conor108 wrote: »

Nobody "blindly believes" Swine Flu is dangerous, it has killed people. I mean there are scientific studies and data to support it.

You seem to think this is some global conspiracy to make a few bob for pharmacological companies or something and that you're better than the rest of us for not "blindly believing" in a potentially life-threatning pandemic.

I don't think it's a global conspiracy, but I think swine flu was an opportunity to make a lot of money.

The world is totally corrupt. If you don't realise that you're naive.

phantom_lord · 16-01-2010 01:43AM

Conor108 wrote: »

You seem to think this is some global conspiracy to make a few bob for pharmacological companies or something and that you're better than the rest of us for not "blindly believing" in a potentially life-threatning pandemic.

bingo. i can only assume he's one of wacko losers conspiracy theorists who use faulty logic and ignore evidence to make the things fit their messed up views just so they can believe they're in on a secret and truly understand the world, just to feel less like losers.

Conor108 · 16-01-2010 01:45AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

I don't believe you're that thick, so you're obviously baiting.

Grow up.

So the WHO announce there is a pandemic of a potentially life-threatning virus (Which there is). World reacts -> masks, travel control, vaccines etc. All of which probably helped prevent the virus from spreading and mutating to a deadlier form.

And then because everything seems to have turned out not as bad as the WHO initially suggested (And probably because the did suggest it) you say they were exaggerating to make money (which they don't.)

AARRRGH wrote: »

No one is saying people should lose their job for having an opinion.

But thats it! Its not an opinion! It's a fact. There are scientific studies, data and people dying of it.

And they can hardly produce vaccines for free can they?

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 01:47AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

you think me not just accepting your conspiracy theory without any back up or evidence is being immature and thick? seriously? please explain to me what the WHO had to gain from exaggerating the threat?

Have a look at WHOs funding.

Have a look at who their main advisors are.

It's not rocket science.

I'm not your mammy so I'm not going to explain the basics of how the world works.

AARRRGH · 16-01-2010 01:51AM

Conor108 wrote: »

So the WHO announce there is a pandemic of a potentially life-threatning virus (Which there is). World reacts -> masks, travel control, vaccines etc. All of which probably helped prevent the virus from spreading and mutating to a deadlier form.

And then because everything seems to have turned out not as bad as the WHO initially suggested (And probably because the did suggest it) you say they were exaggerating to make money (which they don't.)

I mean come on

Hang on.

I never said swine flu wasn't dangerous.
I never said people wouldn't die.

It was the extreme predictions & extreme warnings I had a problem with.

The same crap happens every few years. Come on, use your memory.

Avian flu.
Sars.
Swine flu.
CJD.

They say you can fool the same person every 4 years.

Well guess what, they're right.

phantom_lord · 16-01-2010 01:53AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

Have a look at WHOs funding.

Have a look at who their main advisors are.

It's not rocket science.

I'm not your mammy so I'm not going to explain the basics of how the world works.

why don't you go and get the information for me since you know so much about it. you're the one putting forward a conspiracy theory. the burden of proof is on you. for someone that wished people were a bit more cynical and questioned things you're getting awful upset at me not just swallowing what you're saying.

Health industry may have exaggerated the dangers of swine flu

Comments