Did the WHO cry wolf over swine flu?....Yes they did!

uprising2 · 27-05-2010 10:00PM #1

Quote:
"THE CONSPIRACY theorists are having a field day about swine flu. The gist of their argument is that the whole swine flu saga was a hoax, put together by capitalist forces driven by the pharmaceutical industry. But leaving aside those extreme views, did the World Health Organisation (WHO) and public-health experts overestimate the risk of the H1N1 virus to the population?
Based on the figures, the answer would seem to be yes."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/0525/1224271081741.html

Regular Flu deaths in USA 2009
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/regular-flu-deaths-in-usa-in-2009.html

2009 flu pandemic :eek::eek::eek:
14,286 Deaths Worldwide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

Influenza, commonly referred to as the flu
On average 41,400 people died each year in the United States between 1979 and 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza

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

I normally don't like triumphalism, I'll make an exception this once,;).

Stinicker · 27-05-2010 10:19PM

I got Swine Flue last winter and it had no real effect on me, I took several hot whiskeys and some illicit Poitin

and it cured me up grand. I got a worse normal flu towards the end of 2008 and that was bad in comparison. Swine Flu is just another flu imo.

uprising2 · 27-05-2010 10:37PM

It was a hoax from the start, I 100% genuinely offered on here to visit anybody who had swine flu while the hype was full flow, I was home alone for 2 weeks and was willing to bet my life and prove what I knew was BS, I was going to treat/prevent it with Vitamin D, people called me mad at the time, but I was willing and able, I wanted to catch it, confirm it, have a day or 2 in bed and back to normal without any vaccine, I actually think I may have got it afterwards, but never had it confirmed.

Sparticle · 27-05-2010 11:14PM

We were very lucky it wasn't as dangerous as predicted, at least now the world has had a trial run at preventing an epidemic virus. Now we realize that we are horribly ill equipped to manufacture and distribute vaccines to developing countries in time which will hopefully lead to more investment in vaccine production.

Watch yourself with those Vitamin D treatments, an excess of Vitamin D is worse than any flu.

The_B_Man · 28-05-2010 04:55AM

So the conspiracy is that Pfizer or whoever, combined with the WHO, told everyone that swine flu is gonna kill everyone, so people would buy Pfizer or whoevers medicine, while governments all over the world raced to prevent swine flu from passing through their national borders, including airport scanners and stricter border controls, all so the pharmaceutical companies could make a bit more cash, some of which they obviously would have bribed the WHO with in order for them to lie to everyone as well, since they wouldnt directly profit from the purchase of the pharma companies sales?

28-05-2010 05:11AM

Donald Rumsfeld cleaned up too didn't he...he's on some board of some company that invented tamiflu or something..

humanji · 28-05-2010 07:47AM

uprising2 wrote: »

Quote:
"THE CONSPIRACY theorists are having a field day about swine flu. The gist of their argument is that the whole swine flu saga was a hoax, put together by capitalist forces driven by the pharmaceutical industry. But leaving aside those extreme views, did the World Health Organisation (WHO) and public-health experts overestimate the risk of the H1N1 virus to the population?
Based on the figures, the answer would seem to be yes."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/0525/1224271081741.html

Regular Flu deaths in USA 2009
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/regular-flu-deaths-in-usa-in-2009.html

2009 flu pandemic :eek::eek::eek:
14,286 Deaths Worldwide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

Influenza, commonly referred to as the flu
On average 41,400 people died each year in the United States between 1979 and 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza

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

I normally don't like triumphalism, I'll make an exception this once,;).

What exactly have you got to be triumphant about? What conspiracy was proven? The virus didn't kill as many as was feared? But over 14,000 people are dead! Are they just collateral damage for you?

bonkey · 28-05-2010 07:54AM

uprising2 wrote: »

did the World Health Organisation (WHO) and public-health experts overestimate the risk of the H1N1 virus to the population?

I put on my seatbelt when I get into a car. I buy a car with a good safety rating, for both driver and passengers.

If I don't have an accident, does that mean I overestimated the risk? Was the time I invested in checking safety features wasted? The money spent on seatbelts, airbags, and whatever premium is on the car for being safer then others....was it all wasted and for nothing?

With hindsight, I could argue that yes...it absolutely was. I didn't ever need the stuff, so I gained no benefit (and paid significant cost) to ensure I had it in the first place.

On the other hand, when I was making the decision to buy the car...could I have known this? No. From that perspective, it was a "risk averse" decision....one where I made a conscious choice to take active measures to minimise an difficult-to-quantify risk, to a degree that I felt was warranted, at the only time I could make that choice.

When it comes to the decisions made regarding Swine Flu, the question of "did they get it wrong" should be interpreted in the same light. Its not a case of looking at the outcome to date with hindsight and asking "did the risk materialise", but rather whether or not the information available at the time was sufficient to justify the risk-averse decision which was made.

I tend to believe that the decsions initially made were the correct ones, but that as the pandemic unfolded, some paths were followed more because we were already on them, then because they were really necessary.

Do I believe that there was sufficient information available at the start to confidently say that the risk was far lower? No, I don't. Some people differ.

Going back to my car analagy, there's plenty of people who feel that its perfectly safe for them to drive a battered up heap, with wheels out of track, loose steering, bald tyres, not wearing a seatbelt. I'm not going to say such people are wrong...just that they obviously are differently risk-averse to me.

Do I believe that pharma, the WHO, or anyone deliberately set out to over-hype the issue for profit? With the exception of the media, no, I don't....but I'd be open to the possibility that they did, given evidence.

caseyann · 28-05-2010 10:29AM

Seems to be a little more scare mongering going on with these flu's and viruses going around.
The measles break outs among secondary schools.

Where i live three times since Christmas and after, guys in white masks and the army turned up at the school and took certain classes out with monitors beeping.

enno99 · 28-05-2010 11:44AM

bonkey wrote: »

I put on my seatbelt when I get into a car. I buy a car with a good safety rating, for both driver and passengers.

If I don't have an accident, does that mean I overestimated the risk? Was the time I invested in checking safety features wasted? The money spent on seatbelts, airbags, and whatever premium is on the car for being safer then others....was it all wasted and for nothing?

With hindsight, I could argue that yes...it absolutely was. I didn't ever need the stuff, so I gained no benefit (and paid significant cost) to ensure I had it in the first place.

On the other hand, when I was making the decision to buy the car...could I have known this? No. From that perspective, it was a "risk averse" decision....one where I made a conscious choice to take active measures to minimise an difficult-to-quantify risk, to a degree that I felt was warranted, at the only time I could make that choice.

When it comes to the decisions made regarding Swine Flu, the question of "did they get it wrong" should be interpreted in the same light. Its not a case of looking at the outcome to date with hindsight and asking "did the risk materialise", but rather whether or not the information available at the time was sufficient to justify the risk-averse decision which was made.

I tend to believe that the decsions initially made were the correct ones, but that as the pandemic unfolded, some paths were followed more because we were already on them, then because they were really necessary.

Do I believe that there was sufficient information available at the start to confidently say that the risk was far lower? No, I don't. Some people differ.

Going back to my car analagy, there's plenty of people who feel that its perfectly safe for them to drive a battered up heap, with wheels out of track, loose steering, bald tyres, not wearing a seatbelt. I'm not going to say such people are wrong...just that they obviously are differently risk-averse to me.

Do I believe that pharma, the WHO, or anyone deliberately set out to over-hype the issue for profit? With the exception of the media, no, I don't....but I'd be open to the possibility that they did, given evidence.

So If the vendor of this said vechile was to tell you the particular journey you were embarking on has a heightened risk factor and you need extra protection As there is a serious risk
But to his knowledge this extra equipment has not been tested or
guarenteed.
also elements of this extra equipment can adversley cause the normal safety eqipment of the vehicle to fail in certain circumstances and be dangerous in the normal use of the car
and the manafacturer of this equipment has been given a government waiver against any liability
would that affect your decision

bonkey · 28-05-2010 12:26PM

enno99 wrote: »

So If the vendor of this said vechile was to tell you the particular journey you were embarking on has a heightened risk factor and you need extra protection As there is a serious risk
But to his knowledge this extra equipment has not been tested or
guarenteed.
also elements of this extra equipment can adversley cause the normal safety eqipment of the vehicle to fail in certain circumstances and be dangerous in the normal use of the car
and the manafacturer of this equipment has been given a government waiver against any liability
would that affect your decision

I'd first ask whether or not the vendor could know the journey had heightened risk. If they had reasonable grounds to believe it did, then they certainly had reasonably grounds to suggest that additional steps should be considered.

Beyond that, it seems that you're making a suggestion that there were extraordinary risks relating to the vaccines used. Analagies can only be stretched so far....so I'm not going to try and address that point via analagy.

I would point out, however, that the predictions of all sorts of evil occurring as a result of the vaccination programs would appear to have been every bit as overstated as the WHO's case. How, then, should we judge said predictions and those who made it? By the same yardstick the WHO were judged for their position, or a different one?

K-9 · 28-05-2010 12:54PM

enno99 wrote: »

also elements of this extra equipment can adversley cause the normal safety eqipment of the vehicle to fail in certain circumstances and be dangerous in the normal use of the car

Is there any proof that it was dangerous?

enno99 · 28-05-2010 01:05PM

bonkey wrote: »

I'd first ask whether or not the vendor could know the journey had heightened risk. If they had reasonable grounds to believe it did, then they certainly had reasonably grounds to suggest that additional steps should be considered.

Beyond that, it seems that you're making a suggestion that there were extraordinary risks relating to the vaccines used. Analagies can only be stretched so far....so I'm not going to try and address that point via analagy.

I would point out, however, that the predictions of all sorts of evil occurring as a result of the vaccination programs would appear to have been every bit as overstated as the WHO's case. How, then, should we judge said predictions and those who made it? By the same yardstick the WHO were judged for their position, or a different one?

Not the case if you factor in the claims made about the vaccines affects on sterility which if true wont be known in full for years in the children that have been vaccinated

enno99 · 28-05-2010 01:14PM

K-9 wrote: »

Is there any proof that it was dangerous?

I know a child a family member who had a severe reaction to the vaccination he was 11 yrs old
It brought on vomiting he also collapsed and ran a severe high tempetaure for 2 days Thankfully he is ok now

bonkey · 28-05-2010 01:14PM

enno99 wrote: »

Not the case if you factor in the claims made about the vaccines affects on sterility which if true wont be known in full for years in the children that have been vaccinated

And the claims which would be more immediately evident?

bonkey · 28-05-2010 01:15PM

K-9 wrote: »

Is there any proof that it was dangerous?

A better question would be whether or not there is any indication that it carried risks above and beyond those carried by all flu vaccinations, and indeed those carried by all vaccinations in general.

enno99 · 28-05-2010 01:22PM

bonkey wrote: »

A better question would be whether or not there is any indication that it carried risks above and beyond those carried by all flu vaccinations, and indeed those carried by all vaccinations in general.

Would you not think an untested vaccine carries greater risk than a tested one

K-9 · 28-05-2010 01:47PM

enno99 wrote: »

I know a child a family member who had a severe reaction to the vaccination he was 11 yrs old
It brought on vomiting he also collapsed and ran a severe high tempetaure for 2 days Thankfully he is ok now

That is very sad, but I think we are all aware the vaccinations will cause reactions, which is why Bonkeys question is important. Any statistics to back up the level of dangerous reactions to it?

I don't know anybody who had a bad reaction to it barring a sore arms for a few days, doesn't mean it is safe either!

bonkey · 28-05-2010 01:57PM

enno99 wrote: »

Would you not think an untested vaccine carries greater risk than a tested one

Up until the point where testing was completed....yes, marginally. That marginal risk would be lowered by using a partially tested vaccine, whilst continuing with the testing....which is what actually happened.

It should be noted that the preparation of different flu vaccines is a well-established process, so that the marginal risks are actually quite well understood by those involved. They made a judgement call, as to whether or not the risks were merited. The end result was that there was additional layers of scrutiny and preparation put in place to handle any unforseen eventualities...thus reducing the marginal risk even more.

Were these additional layers of scrutiny and preparedness to handle the risks a waste of time? If we apply the whole "WHO overreacted" logic, shouldn't we conclude that they were. Indeed, giving that the vaccine passed testing as expected, shouldn't we conclude that the testing itself was a waste of time and an overreaction?

It should also be noted that the testing process cannot cover the long-term effects which you mentioned previously as being the potential side-effects we wouldn't have seen yet. So the carefully-monitored use of the vaccine before testing was completed did not increase or decrease those long-term potentialities.

In conclusion, while there was a slightly increased risk of an unexpected significant side-effect which would manifest in the short-term, the testing was completed and such effects did not materialise. Not only that, but increased scrutiny accompanied the decision to proceed before testing was complete. This scrutiny would mean that any such side-effect materialising in the short term (which is what testing would be designed to find) would be even more visible "in the wild".

None was found.

uprising2 · 28-05-2010 02:56PM

Bonkey and Humanji, bonkey would you drive your safe car if the manufacturers wouldn't?, would you not ask yourself WHY they won't drive it?
Humanji, are these miscarriages collateral damage?, and what exactly gave you the impression that I viewed deaths from H1N1 as collatoral damage, every death is tragic, but has the vaccine saved one life?.

The real effects of h1n1 vaccine may not be known for a while yet.

The Goal of Every H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine:
Immunotoxicity, Neurotoxicity and Sterility
http://preventdisease.com/news/09/103009_vaccine_sterility_immunotoxicity_neurotoxicity.shtml

Quote:
"Science dictates that only a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study can generate unbiased results in any clinical trial. In the history of vaccine development, no such study has ever been performed. It is only unscientific opinions and pharmaceutical propaganda which have propelled the mythological validity, safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Dozens of controlled studies have scientifically verified the immunotoxicty, neurotoxicity and sterility of common vaccine ingredients which destroy human health, yet they are all ignored by conventional medicine."

The H1N1 Vaccine - Know it in detail!
My conclusion is that the vaccine does contain known cancer causing substances that are toxic to humans. However, there is some discrepancy as to what dosages are considered highly toxic. So, at this point nobody can predict what the long term side effects will be. Furthermore, everybody’s body will react in a different way; just as some people can smoke all their lives and never develop cancer, whilst others can’t.

As anyone who deals in stocks and shares will know, the more a rumour is spread, the more likely it is a product will sell. The more likely it is that a product will sell, the more likely it is a company will find investors or the more likely it is prices of stock will go up and the company makes money all round.
http://www.venerinaconti.com/blogs/index.php/2010/01/30/the-h1n1-vaccine-know-it-in-detail?blog=1

H1N1 Vaccine Induced Abortion?
http://thehealthyhomeeconomist.blogspot.com/2009/11/h1n1-vaccine-induced-abortion.html

Is The H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Causing Miscarriages? 9 New Stories Of Pain And Loss From Pregnant Women Who Lost Their Babies After Receiving The H1N1 Vaccine.

http://organichealthadviser.com/archives/is-the-h1n1-swine-flu-vaccine-causing-miscarriages-9-new-stories-of-pain-and-loss-from-mothers-who-lost-their-babies-after-receiving-the-h1n1-vaccine

WINK, WINK............

It is my view that the "vaccine" caused more damage, both seen and soon to be seen than the PANDEMIC!:eek: ever did.

Edit:
Traffic Car Accident Deaths at a Record Low for 2009........ONLY 33,963 people died, so bonkey it would seem h1n1 is safer than driving.
http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=20100311_fatal_traffic_car_accidents_in_us_at_record_low_for_2009.htm

humanji · 28-05-2010 05:40PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Humanji, are these miscarriages collateral damage?, and what exactly gave you the impression that I viewed deaths from H1N1 as collatoral damage, every death is tragic, but has the vaccine saved one life?

Can you say it hasn't? Can you say conclusively that the miscarriages were caused by the vaccine?

Did the WHO cry wolf? No.
Did they overestimate the danger that was faced? Yes.
In future should we err on the side of caution? I certainly hope so.

fontanalis · 28-05-2010 05:41PM

What about the troofers crying wolf about the vaccine?

bonkey · 28-05-2010 09:32PM

fontanalis wrote: »

What about the troofers crying wolf about the vaccine?

How about showing a bit of respect, instead of the name-calling?

bonkey · 28-05-2010 09:40PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Bonkey and Humanji, bonkey would you drive your safe car if the manufacturers wouldn't?, would you not ask yourself WHY they won't drive it?

I'm not entirely sure what argument you're trying to make. I suspect its somehow related to some of the high-profile stories about small numbers of high-profile individuals either deciding not to take the shot, or cases such as that in Germany, where one vaccine was used in preference to another.

However, given that I'm guessing what it is that you're actually asking me about, I can't really answer, because I have no idea what it is you're really trying to say.

Quote:
"Science dictates that only a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study can generate unbiased results in any clinical trial. In the history of vaccine development, no such study has ever been performed. It is only unscientific opinions and pharmaceutical propaganda which have propelled the mythological validity, safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Dozens of controlled studies have scientifically verified the immunotoxicty, neurotoxicity and sterility of common vaccine ingredients which destroy human health, yet they are all ignored by conventional medicine."

Do you not find it problematic that the quote starts by saying that the only studies which are trustworthy are randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled......but then just goes on to refer to "controlled studies" which back up the stance it wants to take?

So, in effect its saying that the safety of vaccines can't be trusted because it hasn't had trials of the right nature....but the dangers of vaccines can be ascertained despite not having trials of the right nature.

Tieing back to the point you seemed to be making at the start....you ask if we should trust people who don't trust their own product....then ask us to accept a position on trials which don't meet the standard the person presenting them wants us to believe is the only trustworthy one!

Traffic Car Accident Deaths at a Record Low for 2009........ONLY 33,963 people died, so bonkey it would seem h1n1 is safer than driving.

And even fewer people died from taking the flu vaccine, so it would seem that it is safer then both. When it comes to the vaccine, though, you clearly don't base your position on death-toll or available statistics at all....which seems to be a case whereby you're making an argument based on a standard that your own position rejects....which is again ironic given that this is exactly what you seemed to be suggesting I not trust.

robtri · 28-05-2010 10:24PM

uprising2 wrote: »

but has the vaccine saved one life?.

Of the 14000 who died.. how many of them had the vaccine??

of the millions who have had the vaccine, how many have died as a result of taking the vaccine?

how many reports of swine flu worldwide was there

how many people have recived the vaccine?

My name is URL · 06-06-2010 03:10PM

I'll just leave this here =/

enno99 · 06-06-2010 04:11PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243034/Swine-flu-taskforces-links-vaccine-giant-More-half-experts-fighting-pandemic-ties-drug-firms.html

couple of names thrown in here

Richard tea · 26-04-2011 01:36PM

Did you get the swine flu jab? are you feeling sleepy lately?
I read in one of the papers over the weekend that the swine flu jab has caused narcolepsy in some people.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/state-indemnified-drug-firm-behind-swine-flu-vaccine-2628349.html

Im glad I didnt buy into this swine flu jab......OINK OINK:)

RoboClam · 26-04-2011 02:26PM

What you said:

Richard tea wrote: »

... the swine flu jab has caused narcolepsy in some people.

What your source says:

Five cases of narcolepsy following vaccination have been confirmed, but a causal association with the vaccine has not been established... It is important to note that further data are awaited from ongoing studies and a causal association with vaccination has not been established. The outcome of the ongoing EU review is expected to be available in July.

Maybe wait until July before jumping the gun?

Richard tea · 26-04-2011 02:31PM

RoboClam wrote: »

What you said:

What your source says:

Maybe wait until July before jumping the gun?

July it is so, But there is no smoke without fire

jtsuited · 26-04-2011 03:10PM

bonkey wrote: »

I put on my seatbelt when I get into a car. I buy a car with a good safety rating, for both driver and passengers.

If I don't have an accident, does that mean I overestimated the risk? Was the time I invested in checking safety features wasted? The money spent on seatbelts, airbags, and whatever premium is on the car for being safer then others....was it all wasted and for nothing?

With hindsight, I could argue that yes...it absolutely was. I didn't ever need the stuff, so I gained no benefit (and paid significant cost) to ensure I had it in the first place.

On the other hand, when I was making the decision to buy the car...could I have known this? No. From that perspective, it was a "risk averse" decision....one where I made a conscious choice to take active measures to minimise an difficult-to-quantify risk, to a degree that I felt was warranted, at the only time I could make that choice.

When it comes to the decisions made regarding Swine Flu, the question of "did they get it wrong" should be interpreted in the same light. Its not a case of looking at the outcome to date with hindsight and asking "did the risk materialise", but rather whether or not the information available at the time was sufficient to justify the risk-averse decision which was made.

I tend to believe that the decsions initially made were the correct ones, but that as the pandemic unfolded, some paths were followed more because we were already on them, then because they were really necessary.

Do I believe that there was sufficient information available at the start to confidently say that the risk was far lower? No, I don't. Some people differ.

Going back to my car analagy, there's plenty of people who feel that its perfectly safe for them to drive a battered up heap, with wheels out of track, loose steering, bald tyres, not wearing a seatbelt. I'm not going to say such people are wrong...just that they obviously are differently risk-averse to me.

Do I believe that pharma, the WHO, or anyone deliberately set out to over-hype the issue for profit? With the exception of the media, no, I don't....but I'd be open to the possibility that they did, given evidence.

Boom!!
that was the sound of that post kicking the bejaysus out of this thread.

Did the WHO cry wolf over swine flu?....Yes they did!

Comments