Third of WHO advisers received support from drug firms

WildBoots · 12-08-2010 09:36PM #1

No surprises there anyway :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

orourkeda · 12-08-2010 09:38PM

stoners

SuperInfinity · 12-08-2010 09:53PM

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

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

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

12-08-2010 09:54PM

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

WildBoots · 12-08-2010 09:59PM

Khalid Brief Viper wrote: »

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

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

orourkeda · 12-08-2010 10:03PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

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

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

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

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

starbelgrade · 12-08-2010 10:05PM

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

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2010 11:18PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

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

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

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

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

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2010 11:20PM

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

SoupyNorman · 12-08-2010 11:23PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

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

sesna · 12-08-2010 11:25PM

SoupyNorman wrote: »

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

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

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

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2010 11:27PM

sesna wrote: »

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

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

SoupyNorman · 12-08-2010 11:28PM

sesna wrote: »

Very few died...

I didnt quote numbers did I?

sesna · 12-08-2010 11:58PM

SoupyNorman wrote: »

I didnt quote numbers did I?

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

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

Dave! · 13-08-2010 12:17AM

sesna wrote: »

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

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

This.

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

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

bleg · 13-08-2010 11:48AM

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

ScumLord · 13-08-2010 12:20PM

bleg wrote: »

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

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

ancapailldorcha · 13-08-2010 03:47PM

ScumLord wrote: »

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

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

Wazdakka · 13-08-2010 03:51PM

This is news to you?

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

There's a mental amount of corruption going in.

eightyfish · 13-08-2010 04:18PM

WildBoots wrote: »

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

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

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

moonpurple · 13-08-2010 05:35PM

pharm companies are constantly gifting key people

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

which they can chose to fill in or not online

but they get the cheques anyway

and get back handers in many different ways

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

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

13-08-2010 05:36PM

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

Tar.Aldarion · 13-08-2010 05:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Yes tehy should, hence the story :pac:

They should be strung out

13-08-2010 05:56PM

It's insider trading like..

bleg · 13-08-2010 07:52PM

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

Also: Remember, it's the daily mail.

ancapailldorcha · 13-08-2010 08:19PM

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

bleg · 13-08-2010 08:21PM

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

ancapailldorcha · 13-08-2010 08:51PM

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

bleg · 14-08-2010 08:58AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Nodin · 14-08-2010 09:03AM

WildBoots wrote: »

No surprises there anyway :rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

Min · 14-08-2010 09:41AM

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

Third of WHO advisers received support from drug firms

Comments