A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dangers of Tamiflu ... more cover up



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 25th 06, 12:37 AM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dangers of Tamiflu ... more cover up

LOL ... exactly the responses I would anticipate from Probert and
Moran ... more Vac Quack Flack ...

Haven't read this whole page myself but the writers here but those who
seem more informed (and not attached in any way to the Barrett Quack /
ACSH / Junk science Disinformation Campaign ... seem to have many
different references and opinions.

Tamiflu cures nothing ... and Rumsfield will make his fortune on this
unproven and potentially dangerous vaccination.


http://www.gnn.tv/blogs/10123/Tamifl..._stop_Bird_Flu


G03262 Tamiflu -It Kills Rats! Does it stop Bird Flu?
B10123 / Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:37:50 / Sci-Tech
Tamiflu FDA Patient Information [attached]
Tamiflu – It Kills Rats! Does it stop Bird Flu?

Roche Lab’s Tamiflu (Oseltamivir) is an anti-enzyme drug that’s being
sold and sought widely in light of the much-fanned hue and cry over
the potential flu.

Damn those birds (and call my broker)!

Tamiflu isn’t a new drug. It shows up in Roche’s roster back in 1999 –
after they bought if from Gilead Pharmaceuticals, which designed it in
1996.

Tamiflu is intended for short-term treatment.

Vomiting and naseau were increased in young adults and elderly persons
taking the drug – (independent of each other, apparently – vomiting
rates increased ahead of naseau).

But there were no egregious effects on humans reported in the
short-term drug trial.

From the label2:

“Those events reported numerically more frequently in patients taking
TAMIFLU compared with placebo were nausea, vomiting, bronchitis,
insomnia and vertigo.”

The effects of the drug, in a short course in the small test sample,
is to decrease the duration of the flu by a period of approximately
1-2 days, but not to prevent illness.

Will Tamiflu be effective against a new flu?
(“Is there a new flu,” is a separate question.)

Tamiflu is supposed to interfere with the activity of the
neuraminidase enzyme, a protein which has been associated with flu
viruses.

I don’t know enough about that to comment – maybe you do –

Is this enzyme associated with other processes?
Is the drug absolutely specific to one enzyme?
Is it cross-reactive?
How does it affect immunity?
The drug doesn’t strengthen natural immunity – it disables a protein –
so what else does it do?
Dead Meese Tell No Tales…
According to Roche, the manufacturer, we don’t know much about the
drug, but we know that in animals, the drug comes through breast milk


and it did kill the baby rats in the study.

From the Canadian Medical Journal- Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) unsafe in
infants under 1 year old3
“The unpublished trial described by the FDA involved 7-day-old rats
being fed a single dose of 1000 mg/kg of oseltamivir — about 250 times
the dose recommended for children.”

“The treatment was toxic, often killing the animals, and brain levels
of the drug were 1500 times those of adult animals exposed to the same
dose.”

“It is hypothesized that an immature blood–brain barrier may cause the
toxicity.”

From Roche Labs – ‘Dear Doctor’ letter to Medical Professionals4
“Roche Laboratories Inc. is writing to inform you of new preclinical
safety data that have implications for the use of Tamiflu®
(oseltamivir phosphate) in very young children.

“Tamiflu is indicated for the treatment of uncomplicated acute illness
due to influenza infection in patients 1 year and older who have been
symptomatic for no more than 2 days.

“Tamiflu is also indicated for the prophylaxis of influenza in adult
patients and adolescents 13 years and older.”

“Tamiflu is not indicated for either treatment or prophylaxis of
influenza in patients less than 1 year of age.”

Well, it’s probably fine. A fine, fine product.

After all, I wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions, or cause a
panic, just because I haven’t had time to learn all I can about the
drug’s in vivo chemistry..

‘cause hey – neither has the manufacturer…!

From the Tamiflu label2:
Key Phrases: “Has Not Been Established,” “Has Not Been Studied” and
“Is Not Known”

TAMIFLU is indicated for the treatment of uncomplicated acute illness
due to influenza infection in patients older than 1 year of age who
have been symptomatic for no more than 2 days.
Efficacy of TAMIFLU in patients who begin treatment after 40 hours of
symptoms has not been established.
Efficacy of TAMIFLU in the treatment of subjects with chronic cardiac
disease and/or respiratory disease has not been established.
Efficacy of TAMIFLU in the treatment of subjects with chronic cardiac
disease and/or respiratory disease has not been established. No
difference in the incidence of complications was observed between the
treatment and placebo groups in this population.
..
No information is available regarding treatment of influenza in
patients with any medical condition sufficiently severe or unstable to
be considered at imminent risk of requiring hospitalization.
..
Safety and efficacy of repeated treatment or prophylaxis courses have
not been studied.
Efficacy of TAMIFLU for treatment or prophylaxis has not been
established in immunocompromised patients.
Serious bacterial infections may begin with influenza-like symptoms or
may coexist with or occur as complications during the course of
influenza.
TAMIFLU has not been shown to prevent such complications.
..

Hepatic Impairment: The safety and pharmacokinetics in patients with
hepatic impairment have not been evaluated.
Because animal reproductive studies may not be predictive of human
response and there are no adequate and well-controlled studies in
pregnant women,
TAMIFLU should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit
justifies the potential risk to the fetus.

Nursing Mothers: In lactating rats, oseltamivir and oseltamivir
carboxylate are excreted in the milk. It is not known whether
oseltamivir or oseltamivir carboxylate is excreted in human milk.
..
TAMIFLU should, therefore, be used only if the potential benefit for
the lactating mother justifies the potential risk to the breast-fed
infant.
“Only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the
fetus?”
How scientific!!

How Exciting!!

References:

Hoffman/La Roche Tamiflu Info Page
2 FDA/Roche Tamiflu PDF

3 Canadian Medical Journal – Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) unsafe in infants
under 1 year old

4 From Roche Labs – Dear Doctor letter

Backtrack – Nov 17, 2005
US reviewing deaths of Tamiflu patients

Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:53 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. regulators have asked Roche AG for more
information about the deaths of 12 children who took the flu-fighting
drug Tamiflu….
Vote: Avg: 3.00 Votes: 2 Comments: 11 [Add] RECENT COMMENTS
COMMENT:
This is from “Recombinomics.com” – I don’t know the site – will have
to look into it.
“The in vivo test of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) is consistent with prior in
vitro studies which strongly suggest that use of Tamiflu at the
recommended dosage will produce little benefit.
Recombinomics Commentary
July 18, 2005
Of 80 mice infected with H5N1 virus, 20 received a placebo, 30 were
given oseltamivir at one of three dosage levels for five days,
and 30 received the drug at one of three dosage levels for eight days.
None of the mice receiving a placebo survived. *Only five of 10 mice
given the highest daily dose of oseltamivir for five days survived.
Although oseltamivir suppressed the virus in the mice, the virus
continued to grow if the drug was stopped after five days*.
Mice given the drug for eight days fared better. Survivors included
one of 10 mice given the lowest daily dose, six of 10 given the
middle-range daily dose, and eight of 10 given the highest daily dose.
The eight-day dose of oseltamivir allowed more time for virus levels
to fall and less chance for avian flu to rebound after the drug was
stopped.
The above description of the in vivo test of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) is
consistent with prior in vitro studies which strongly suggest that use
of Tamiflu at the recommended dosage will produce little benefit.
Many countries have stockpiled Tamiflu and more have placed orders.
However, the amount of Tamiflu ordered was based on the assumption
that a course of 10 pills would be effective for 10 days of prevention
or 5 days of treatment.
However, this assumption was not supported by in vitro data and now is
also not supported by in vivo data.
http://www.recombinomics.com/News/07...o_Tamiflu.html

Liam @ 10/26/05 23:43:14From newmediaexplorer.org
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp...killing_us.htm
Avian Flu – Is Specialization Killing Us?
Could specialization in medicine be keeping us from finding an
effective way to prevent a potentially disastrous bird flu epidemic?
Specialization in medicine – as in other branches of science and art –
is an asset, but it also has its drawbacks. Invariably, specialized
knowledge tends to develop where the money is, where grants and
facilities are available.
We have a myriad of experts analyzing the latest virus in great
detail, dissecting it, defining its genetic sequences and its
potential dangers.
That is where the money is: development and manufacture of vaccines
and drugs to counter that one specific threat, that specific mutation
of the virus.
With all this attention on the details, we seem to miss the bigger
picture.
Could there be other, much better means of preventing a pandemic than
tailor-making a vaccine or drug? Perhaps yes, but we are not looking –
because all the money is in vaccine research, drug development and
genetics.
More

Liam @ 10/28/05 11:25:48[from a letter just sent to a couple fellow
journalists]:
Expansion of clinical diagnosis is commonplace for the WHO. It’s a
fearful reaction to a much-fanned hyperbolized paradigm –
Read below from the NEJM on 2 vietnamese children who died, after
being pumped with very potent (abrasive) iv anitbiotics, for a
diarrhea illness, and suffering spinal taps and a generally panicked
response to their illness.
They died, there’s nothing to say it wasn’t flu – except they had no
respiratory illness (the second child only developed minor respiratory
sypmtoms after many days of intensive drugging, needle-pricks, lumbar
punctures, etc – but it was still not considered meaningful in his
diagnosis).
Not a minor point.
They also lived in a crowdwd, rural area with shared, polluted water,
high endemic dysentary (diarrhea) and encephalitis.
The report notes that there was no flu illness in the area, the local
birds were healthy, and no family members or other local children were
ill-
As a result of the inconsistencies in the report, the NEJM report
notes:
now anything should be considered as flu.
“After the diagnosis was established in November 2004, the hamlet and
house of the two children were surveyed and their parents and
neighbors were interviewed. The family lived in a one-room house. The
parents had no other children. Water from a nearby canal was used for
washing and, after boiling, for drinking. Patient 1 swam regularly in
this canal, as did other children in the neighborhood. At the time of
the children’s illnesses, the family owned apparently healthy fighting
cocks. Many chickens and ducks were present in the hamlet and canal
during early 2004, but none were ill. All were culled in February as
part of routine measures to contain the outbreak of influenza H5N1 in
poultry. The parents did not handle poultry from markets. Before the
children were admitted, they were cared for by both parents and
several close relatives. No febrile illnesses were reported in the
parents, close relatives, or other residents of the hamlet.”
....................
“These cases have important clinical, scientific, and public health
implications. In both cases, the clinical presentation led to
diagnoses of gastrointestinal infection and acute encephalitis, which
alone or in combination are common clinical syndromes in southern
Vietnam. Patient 1 had no respiratory symptoms and a normal chest
radiograph less than 24 hours before she died. Although Patient 2
showed signs of pneumonia during the last day of his life, a
respiratory illness was not considered his most relevant clinical
problem. Recently, another patient with influenza H5N1 was described
with an initial presentation of fever and diarrhea alone.
These cases emphasize that avian influenza A (H5N1) should be included
in the differential diagnosis of a much wider clinical spectrum of
disease than previously considered and that clinical surveillance of
influenza H5N1 should focus not only on respiratory illnesses, but
also on clusters of unexplained deaths or severe illnesses of any
kind.
Awareness of the full clinical spectrum is essential to appropriate
management of the illness, since treatment with antiviral agents is
likely to be beneficial only when it is started early in the course of
illness.”—————-
The media fascination is with the 1918 flu – so let’s look at it
briefly.
1918 – people were severely ill (and always have been) throughout the
world, in times of stress, poverty, ecomonic dissolution, and, lest we
forget – the most brutal, taxing war ever waged.
The fact that the flu was especially virulent in the immediate end and
aftermath of the most senseless, bloody, violent, and economically
damaging human conflict of all time should not be surprising to
epidemiologists.
But epidemiology has been replaced, as all things have, by the pursuit
of genetics and microbiological sleight of hand – analysis of sub-
gene fragments by polymerase chain reaction – an error-prone cloning
method that gives permission to technology-addled and driven lab
jockeys to abandon old-fashioned viral isolation (and claim it as
unecessary).
(Even old-fashioned isolation of a virus still didn’t prove
pathogenicity – see Polio as an example).
But illness is real, and flu is real. And we’ve all had it, and we’ll
all have it again.
Many thousands of people die of the flu annually – 10’s of thousands
in this country –
but it would be fairer to say, they die ‘with’ the flu. Most of the
deaths are among persons who are elderly or infirm, and some among
children with compromised health (in poverty, etc).
The current fascination in medicine seems to be with the notion that
death is an unnatural facet of human experience – and should always be
considered a great tragedy and crime.
I think we’ve gone particularly crazy in our all-out pursuit of single
causes of illness as the bringer of inexplicable and unfair mortality
– and we’ve left every reasonable analysis of the prerequisites for
human health behind us, and out of our analysis.
In sum,
It’s not enough to say that there was an especially virulent brand of
flu in 1918, thus there should be one now – without noting that the
populations affected were starved, afraid, poor, hungry, desolate, had
been dislocated from country to country, experienced the bloodiest use
of chemical warfare – had lost income, home, stability, food stores,
fields, farms, family members, husbands and fathers, mother and
children for years preceding and overlapping the flu.
It’s not enough to talk about 1918 without mentioning that aspirin – a
blood thinning drug, had just been released as a non-prescription
drug, and was probably being consumed as liberally as you might take
vitamin C – what was the effect of the drugs in use on sick patients?
Why all the aspirated blood in the 1918 flu? It surely is an uncommon
symptom, but what if you’ve been coughing like a maniac and your blood
has been thinned hourly.Will you aspirate more blood then?
It’s not enough to say that millions died despite medical care,
without noting that that aspirin, quinine and formaldehyde were the
chief treatments for illness at that point, besides broad-spectrum
antibiotics which weaken the body (disable mitochondria) and are
ineffective against viruses.
(It is worth noting that in the NEJM report on 10 young patients
putatively diagnosed (PCR’d) with the avian flu (eight of whom died),
all were dosed with corticosteroids – an immune and T-cell
suppressing/deactivating drug that is so well-known for it’s
immune-compromising properties, that Dr. AIDS, Anthony Fauci (head of
NIAID at the NIH), actually wrote papers on it warning against the
diagnosis of AIDS in anyone on the drugs, as the effects of the drugs
were indistinguishable from clincal AIDS. IE – The drugs caused Immune
Deficiency Syndrome…. Back to the 2004 NEJM report on vietnamese flu –
it was noted with bewilderment that the patients all had low
(inverted) TCells. Before they died. Shocking. Shocking!)
Was it a strong virus? I assume it was. Was the human population in
tatters? You bet.
It’s not enough to say that the world fell under a dark spell and
science pulled us out (I know no one here said it – but PBS has been
busy selling the idea for the past few nights, courtesy of narration
by Brad Pitt, and it’s a silly, irksome thing) – and so science –
tamiflu, vaccinations, etc – will save us again.
This flu epidemic is being marketed, by persons whose fear is being
actively inflamed, by persons whose critical thinking has been
replaced by academic marketing of abstract technologies.
If a terrible flu comes around, here’s what will save us –
Rest; clean hot water; both isolation from the healthy and from the
terribly sick – in a clean, restful, environment; the absence of
panic; good, basic nutrition (salts, electrolytes);
– and personal responsiblity – the missing ingredient in all of our
decisions these days – personal responsibility – the ability and
willingness to deal with illness as a necessary and basic part of
life. But nothing will ‘save’ all of us from death – ever. Nor should
we want it to be so. Do we really believe, as some futurists
postulate, that we might be able to live for 1000 years?
Would you really want to?
We’re the birds these days – behaving very mucy like farmed chickens,
pecking around the feedlot, waiting to be told where to go, how to
live, and maybe, unfortunately, when to die.
Anyhoo…
sorry for the mood. Those PBS specials are really, really irritating!
Public Brainwashing Service.

Liam @ 11/03/05 11:43:00Been talking about the bird flu – and about
the stink of bs coming from it.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre..._summary.shtml
Tamiflu It Kills Rats Does it stop Bird Flu
Bird Flu – Reality or Manipulation
Here’s the net result if it goes through-
Bye Bye freedom of information act,
Bye Bye fda.
From the Atlantic Journal-Constitution:
“The agency, commonly referred to as BARDA, would be given a
first-year budget of $1 billion and some unusually strong powers.”
“It would have authority to shield drug manufacturers from liability
lawsuits in the event a drug used to counteract a bioterrorism event
or disease outbreak caused death or injury.”
“It also would be granted a blanket exemption from the federal Freedom
of Information Act.”
..............
The bill is so rotten even the CDC doesn’t like it!!!
“The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology said in
a letter to Burr that it was “troubled over the impact this new agency
might have on existing programs at the National Institutes of Health
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, particularly in an
era of limited funding for discretionary spending.[ed – Money Money
Money Money Money Money Money – Muh -Nay.]”
[thanks Michael Kane of fromthewilderness.com for this – mkane.gnn.tv
]
Frist urges germ spies
Bill would cloak war on bioterror
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...bioterror.html
By JEFF NESMITH
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/05/05
Washington — A bill moving rapidly through the Senate would create a
secretive national research center to respond to bioterrorism threats
and natural disease outbreaks.
Some scientists cautioned Friday that the new agency could draw funds
away from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in
Atlanta and the National Institutes of Health, and disrupt their work.
The bill, co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.),
would shift the main responsibility for developing bioterrorism
countermeasures out of the Department of Homeland Security and into a
new Biological Advanced Research and Development Agency in the
Department of Health and Human Services.
The agency, commonly referred to as BARDA, would be given a first-year
budget of $1 billion and some unusually strong powers.
It would have authority to shield drug manufacturers from liability
lawsuits in the event a drug used to counteract a bioterrorism event
or disease outbreak caused death or injury.
It also would be granted a blanket exemption from the federal Freedom
of Information Act.
The bill creating BARDA was introduced by freshman Sen. Richard Burr
(R-N.C.) on Oct. 17 and approved the next day by the Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Frist is one of five Republican co-sponsors, and the bill is believed
to be his project.
In a June speech at Harvard University, Frist warned that the world
may soon face “a front of unchecked and virulent epidemics, the
potential of which should rise above your every other concern.”
“I propose an unprecedented effort, the creation of a Manhattan
Project for the 21st century, not with the goal of creating a new
destructive agent, but to defend against infectious diseases and
biological weapons.”
Burr’s press secretary, Doug Heye, confirmed Friday that BARDA would
be the agency to carry out that project.
Heye said Burr’s staff was negotiating with aides to Sen. Edward
Kennedy (D-Mass.) in an effort to get a bipartisan bill to the Senate
floor as soon as possible.
Scientific organizations, some of which have been critical of delays
by the Department of Homeland Security in identifying and
counteracting bioterrorism threats, warned that the bill could disrupt
existing disease agencies like the CDC and the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The institute recently created a network of 10 regional centers for
research on bioterrorism, including one at Duke University in Burr’s
home state of North Carolina.
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology said in
a letter to Burr that it was “troubled over the impact this new agency
might have on existing programs at the National Institutes of Health
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, particularly in an
era of limited funding for discretionary spending.”
“Our concern is BARDA might duplicate, constrain or even eliminate
these programs,” said Dr. Bruce Bistrian, a Harvard Medical School
researcher who is president of the federation.
Other scientific organizations voiced similar concerns.
“Creation of a new and additional agency … does not appear to be the
best solution,” Stanley Maloy, president of the American Society of
Microbiology, said Friday in a letter to Burr.
Spokespersons for NIAID and the CDC said the agencies do not comment
on pending legislation.
Maureen McCarthy, director of research and development at the
Department of Homeland Security, was asked at a recent Center for
Strategic and International Studies conference to comment on the BARDA
bill.
“We believe firmly that the organization of the biodefense world right
now as it’s established and the roles and responsibilities of the
agencies is working and we’re supportive of the current structure that
exists,” she said in a recorded response.
Groups representing scientists, the media and others have complained
that the agency would get an unprecedented exemption from scrutiny.
“This bill breaks new ground in the area of government secrecy,” said
Steven Aftergood, director of a Federation of American Scientists
project on official secrecy.
Aftergood said other federal agencies can legally deny access to
government documents if they decide the material deserves an exemption
under the federal Freedom of Information Act. But BARDA would have
blanket exemption for any FOIA requests, he said.
“It is an insult to the public,” Aftergood said.
“These provisions turn the concepts of ‘open government’ and
‘democracy’ on their heads,” said the Coalition of Journalists for
Open Government in a letter to senators. “To our knowledge, an entire
agency has never received a blanket exemption from compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act.
“Even those agencies which deal with sensitive national security
information on a regular basis — including the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of
Defense — must comply with FOIA,” the letter states.
Rutgers University biologist Richard Ebright called the bill
“essential and overdue” because it would bring central coordination to
U.S. biodefense efforts, which he said have been marked by
“duplication, waste and minimal progress.”
“Unfortunately,” he said, “the Burr bill also calls for unprecedented,
nearly absolute, exemptions of the coordinating agency from public
accountability and of contractors from liability.
“These exemptions need to be sharply curtailed, or even stripped from
the bill,” he said.
Heye, Burr’s press secretary, said that “this agency will be about
providing information, not withholding it.” He said the measure was
meant to remove barriers to the development and production of drugs to
defend Americans against infectious disease threats and bioterrorism
events.”
The bill states:
“Information that relates to the activities, working groups, and
advisory boards of the BARDA shall not be subject to disclosure under
section 552 of title 5, United States Code, unless the Secretary or
Director determines that such disclosure would pose no threat to
national security. Such a determination shall not be subject to
judicial review.”
Section 552 is the Freedom of Information Act.
Although the measure does not require BARDA’s director to respond to
FOIA requests, it contains no requirement that employees of the agency
maintain secrecy about matters that are deemed to involve national
security.

Liam @ 11/05/05 10:26:27The unpublished trial described by the FDA
involved 7-day-old rats being fed a single dose of 1000 mg/kg of
oseltamivir — about 250 times the dose recommended for children
250 times the recommended child dose of just about any drug you care
to mention (aspirin, whatever) would probably kill the child, let
alone the thumb-size baby rat. I have doubts as to whether that study
is really entirely applicable to what would actually happen to a child
recieving it from breast milk. I have no doubt that Tamiflu is
ineffective trash being pushed to fatten Roche’s bottom line, but I’m
not sure that the rat study is telling you anything much. What would a
sub-lethal dose to a child do? What is the nature of its toxicity? Is
it bioaccumulative? Is it toxic inherently or only in volume? I don’t
think anybody knows as of yet. At least Roche notified doctors who
might prescribe it, and the possibility of pediatric complications is
now known. There’s not enough information there to draw any conclusion
about real-world effects, so while it’s interesting, I’m not sure it’s
that important yet.

Snark @ 11/05/05 12:32:25Snark –
yup – probably low-toxicity, but it’s worth noting that it did kill
baby rats in the dose that they chose to test it –
And that the researchers were shocked by the result.
It’s worth noting that the drug comes through mammalian breast milk,
and that no long-term studies have been done.
Doesn’t bother me that people take pharmaceuticals – could care less,
really – if they’ve had a chance to peruse the studies and the
material.
But nobody does, as you probably know well.
So, view it as a p.s.a., just helping to spread the word to the few
who are curious to look under the hood of the medical infrastructure….
So, what do you know about neuraminidase?

Liam @ 11/06/05 14:37:36Snark –
ps – the drug becomes most interesting in light of the flu ramp-up,
the BARDA act,
etc.
Given the panic, it’s likely that anything offered with government
blessing will be popped like vitamin C by folks who become
irrationally fearful.
I haven’t seen this warning – about infant rat deaths – anywhere but
here (and buried in the Roche site)...
What happens when a nervous mother gets the thing and pumps it into
her newborn?
Know what I mean? People get awfully frightened by official warnings –
it’s tough to get them to think about what’s really happening.
So…
(see MK’s blog , and the previous flu discussion).

Liam @ 11/06/05 14:45:16The Journalist Magazine German Version
English Version
Advance Of The Killer Ducks
Assuming we believe the media coverage of H5N1, then the world will be
afflicted in the near future by a world-wide epidemic caused by a
mutation of a bird flu virus with the fascinatingly eerie name H5N1.
On which facts are the horror reports based? An investigation.
By Torsten Engelbrecht, David Crowe, Jim West
On page 1 of the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit, Germany’s most
reputable print media along with Der Spiegel, we read with a shudder:
“Death on quiet wings – the bird flu is on the advance.”
Furthermore, what is to be understood in the article under
“forthcoming attack of the killer ducks” seems as if it is about
creating a title for the second part of the Hollywood’s movie shocker
“Outbreak”, as the paper writes: “H5N1 plays Blitzkrieg”. Der Spiegel,
meanwhile, relies on the testimonies of David Nabarro, who was named
the UN’s chief coordinator in the fight against the bird flu at the
end of September: “A new flu pandemic can break out any moment – and
it can kill up to 150 million people.”
The Foreign Policy Journal quotes an expert of the US epidemic
authority Centers for Disease Control (CDC), who raised the death
count up to 360 million. While Reinhard Kurth, director of the
Robert-Koch-Institut (RKI), cannot be topped after his interview with
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (another very reputable newspaper
in Germany), saying that “a pandemic threatens potentially all six
billion human beings.”
With so much sentiment of apocalypse present in the media, one has to
be allowed to question the facts: Are the warnings covered up by
scientific data? Are there independent studies proving that the
H5N1-virus exists, that it is highly pathogenic in animals, and that
it can jump to humans and trigger a pandemic? And is there sound proof
that other factors (environmental poisons, foreign proteins, etc. can
be excluded as a cause for the illness of the birds?
More

Liam @ 11/06/05 14:47:50The BBC has reported that pickled, fermented
cabbage, garlic, ginger and capsicum (hot pepper) (as Kimchi) are
reported as curative/preventative:
Kimchi for flu
Makes sense, as all of these foods are immune boosters
(anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, enzyme rich, probiotic, anti-oxidants,
(anti-viral?)).
This from a natural health site – vit C for immune strength:
Better Than A Flu Shot – Vitamin C Does The Trick
from NewMediaExplorer.org
The flu season is upon us another time with a vengeance. This year, we
have a special propaganda bonus – the bird flu – although it has very
little to do with the flu that gives us the sniffles in any normal
year. There is no vaccine for the bird flu because it is a bird virus
that “has not yet mutated to be transmitted between humans” but we are
told to take a flu vaccine, just in case … as if that magically
protected us from anything than the virus strain it has been made of.
Last year, with vaccine maker Chiron out of commission for
contamination problems and the number of available vaccine doses cut
clear in half, nothing disastrous happened. In fact, the number of
deaths directly related to the flu virus is miniscule – completely out
of proportion to the hype and the yearly expense of vaccinating
millions of people.
But people are getting wiser. More and more we rely on simple things
like washing our hands, getting enough rest, eating well, and above
all stocking our system with a vital substance – vitamin C – to
increase resistance to all those “invading” microbes, not only last
year’s flu strain or a hypothetical mutated bird flu virus.
Here are a few comments by other authors on the flu and the shots.
Enjoy!
– - –
From: “WC Douglass”
Subject: Daily Dose – The mainstream C’s the light
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 November 11, 2005
The “Vitamin Vaccine”
The headline of the AP story read:
Government to Unveil Super-Flu Strategy
Well, hallelujah. We’re saved. The Feds are ready for this year’s flu
season – they’re on the case with all their needles and pinheads. Just
like in years past, now we can count on inefficient distribution,
obsolete vaccines, and marginal protection that breeds super-bugs and
may actually do more harm than good…
But hey, we’ve got a “strategy,” right?
I’ve got a better one. Steer clear of the government’s flu lines
altogether. You’re far more likely to catch influenza from the sickies
that flock to these things than you are to get any actual protection
from the flu.
So, how do you protect yourself? A great start is to make sure you get
enough vitamin C. I’m not talking eating an extra orange or about
making sure you get the “USRDA” of vitamin C from Centrum or some
other multivitamin. I mean aggressively and systematically stocking
your body with a daily supplementation of immune-boosting,
free-radical fighting vitamin C.
How does flooding your system with vitamin C work to defeat
infections?
It isn’t because of the vitamin itself – not exactly, anyway. It’s
because some of the substances we use to give ourselves extra vitamin
C are rich in extra electrons that bind up and neutralize free
radicals in the body, the source of most disease.
One of the best substances to do this with is sodium ascorbate (a form
of ascorbic acid). You can buy supplements of this substance, or you
can administer it intravenously, if you’re comfortable with that
(check with your doctor first). Evidence shows that not only is sodium
ascorbate effective in helping people resist influenza and other types
of infections, but that it also is astonishingly effective at
eliminating flu symptoms.
Even the American Cancer Society notes that dietary vitamin C “may
have a protective role” in reducing cancer risk. Heck, for them,
that’s a parade of an endorsement! And in even more good news on the
vitamin C front…
************************************************** **
Reliving the 70s – in a good way!
New research shows that high doses of IV vitamin C (specifically from
ascorbate) can fight cancer, an effect first suggested back in the
1970s.
According to the study, published in a September issue of The
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, intravenous Vitamin C
(not oral!) led to the formation of hydrogen peroxide in the blood.
This process caused the destruction of many cancer cells, while
leaving healthy cells alone…
Hmmm. I wonder where the medical establishment has heard something
like this before? Could it have been from lil’ ol’ me?
As you probably know, I’ve been singing the praises of IV hydrogen
peroxide therapy for decades, and have used it in my travels to Africa
and other nations and eradicate much disease. It is truly miraculous
treatment when administered properly. And now it turns out that this
exact compound may be responsible for the eradication of cancer cells.
Of course, the establishment claims that more study is needed
(especially on animals) to prove these effects, but it sounds
encouraging to me…
Heck, anytime the mainstream gets around to “proving” something I’ve
been saying for years, I’m encouraged.
This IV vitamin C story’s developing – I’ll keep you posted.
Always C-ing years ahead of the mainstream,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD
more here

Liam @ 11/14/05 12:32:21AVIAN FLU: THE PANDEMIC THAT WILL NEVER BE
Tim O’Shea – thedoctorwithin.com
You don’t have to be a master intellect to divine the conspicuous lack
of scientific consistency in the recent hysteria surrounding avian
flu, to which we are being daily subjected. It really doesn’t add up,
does it? Honestly, how can anyone seriously believe what we are being
told:
avian flu is caused by a distinct new virus – H5N1
it’s a real threat
60 people have died worldwide from it, so therefore
30% of the world’s population is in danger of extinction
millions of birds have died from it, and soon it will mutate to a
human form
drugs and vaccines will save us
the threat is imminent – no time to lose
It’s no wonder most people believe these erroneous notions: who’s
going to inform them otherwise? The articles trying to expose avian
flu as a scam seem more hysterical and less factual than the actual
media propaganda promoting it. So once again this website must set the
record straight by careful consideration of the fundamental arguments.
The difference will be that in this chapter all sources will be cited.
What are we being set up for? What are they selling now?
Some background may be helpful. If you’ve never considered the way
media work in the first place, perhaps the chapter entitled The Doors
of Perception [1] would be helpful.
WELL-WORN SCRIPT
Historical context is certainly relevant: avian flu is right on
schedule, with the winding down of the post 9/11 smallpox vaccine and
SARS vaccine programs. [6] In these two instances, appropriate
hysteria was whipped up, billions were spent, and magically – poof! –
both threats disappeared.
Nature abhors a vacuum – new funding requires new threats – ergo, we
need avian flu to take up the slack. As for marketing, it’s already in
place. Why change a successful sales strategy? In the fall of 2005,
the identical techniques by which SARS and smallpox vaccine terrorized
the American psyche were trotted out again, this time to sell avian
flu:
create hysteria by incessant media ops, painting a picture of
Armageddon; short on science, long on unsupported overstatement and
stock phrases that are repeated and repeated.
a constant stream of predictions from “scientific” sources who have
done no new actual studies, but instead re-interpret old material
offer a solution, an expensive solution involving unproven old
medicines and untested new ones
spend the money
never mention the threat again
Tried and true, works every time, a slam dunk. And best of all, people
don’t even see it as a pattern. Because in today’s world, nobody reads
any more.
So here’s the back story. Let’s start with what WHO says:
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND AVIAN FLU
The World Health Organization is a political body that has been around
since 1948, made up of 192 member countries, or more accurately, the
ministers of health from 192 countries. [3] Their main task is to hold
annual meetings in order to figure out what their stance on various
health issues should be, and also what they should do with their vast
annual budget of $1.1 billion. [4]
It is not difficult to see that WHO’s idea of health is anything but
the holistic ideals stated in their charter, and can be reduced to a
single blanket notion: that the diseases of the world are cured by one
remedy only – pharmaceutical drugs. This axiom is pervasive all
through the voluminous administrative and socio-political verbiage
extruding from their entire website. Lip service is paid to side
issues like clean water and nutrition, but overall the message is
clear: good health requires a ton of drugs.
WHO’s vision of health limits itself to a study of infectious and
deficiency diseases, whose solution is always the same: more drugs.
After even a cursory review of WHO documents, it is difficult to see
WHO as anything but an agent for the global pharmaceutical industry.
As a media agency themselves, WHO strives to be very topical and
current in their week- to-week focus. So of course they have a lot of
info on avian flu these days.
From the current WHO FAQ sheet on avian flu:
“Avian influenza, or “bird flu,” is a contagious disease caused by
viruses that normally infect only birds. Avian influenza viruses are
highly species-specific, but have, on rare occasions, crossed the
species barrier to infect humans. “In domestic poultry, infection with
avian influenza viruses causes two main forms of disease,
distinguished by low and high extremes of virulence. The so-called
“low pathogenic” form commonly causes only mild symptoms (ruffled
feathers, a drop in egg production) and may easily go undetected. The
highly pathogenic form is far more dramatic. It spreads very rapidly
through poultry flocks, causes disease affecting multiple internal
organs, and has a mortality that can approach 100%, often within 48
hours. [5] Rare occasions? Very rare, as we will see. And how is it
that the two “main forms” of the disease represent “low and high
extremes” of virulence? Very convenient for science, certainly, but
nature is seldom that accommodating. Virulence generally occurs across
a range, not just in two polar opposites. No sources are cited for
these “findings.”
They continue:
“The current outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, which
began in South-east Asia in mid-2003, are the largest and most severe
on record. Never before in the history of this disease have so many
countries been simultaneously affected, resulting in the loss of so
many birds.” “The causative agent, the H5N1 virus, has proved to be
especially tenacious. Despite the death or destruction of an estimated
150 million birds, the virus is now considered endemic in many parts
of Indonesia and Viet Nam.” [5] Right here is where propaganda creeps
in. Causative agent? H5N1 is a unproven theory, not the known cause.”
Figures of 100 or 150 million dead birds are common in today’s media
stories. Where are these figures coming from? Unfounded speculation.
But even if such figures were true, which is not likely, where is the
evidence that this particular virus was the cause? Again, wild
speculation, but as we will see, speculation that is calculated
towards a specific end. The more birds, the scarier it is, the better
the story.
The master stroke – stating that this new virus killed the 150 million
birds, with no clinical proof. How many were cultured for H5N1? Today
any bird that dies anywhere is likely to be counted in the flu
figures.
The WHO goes on to tell us that in 2003-2004 scientists found H5N1
virus in the poultry of 8 Asian nations. And since most of the tested
birds were dead, the inference is that the virus killed them. But
there’s no proof they died from the virus. Each bird would have had to
be cultured to know that.
Now since WHO lists no Asian countries in which no birds were found
with the virus, maybe this virus is common in normal birds. In other
words, anywhere they looked for the virus in birds, they found it. And
most of the subjects were dead, since they’re much easier to catch.
Anybody ever think of all this?
Such singlemindedness of reporting suggests a predetermined agenda.
More here

Liam @ 11/15/05 15:28:27US reviewing deaths of Tamiflu patients
Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:53 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. regulators have asked Roche AG for more
information about the deaths of 12 children who took the flu-fighting
drug Tamiflu, saying in a report released on Thursday that the cause
of the deaths was “extremely difficult to interpret.”
The Food and Drug Administration also said it was “concerning” that 32
psychiatric events, such as hallucinations and abnormal behavior, had
been reported in children who took Tamiflu, which is in high demand
because it is considered to be one of the best defenses against avian
flu in people.
Most of the reports came from Japan, the FDA said.
Roche, in a separate summary posted on the FDA Web site, said, “there
is no increase in deaths and neuropsychiatric events in patients on
Tamiflu versus influenza patients in general.”

Liam @ 11/17/05 12:52:54View Full Thread


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
  #2  
Old February 25th 06, 03:21 AM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dangers of Tamiflu ... more cover up

Ilena Rose wrote:
LOL ... exactly the responses I would anticipate from Probert


This thread is not about me.
  #3  
Old February 25th 06, 07:18 AM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dangers of Tamiflu ... more cover up


Ilena Rose wrote in message
...
LOL ... exactly the responses I would anticipate from Probert and
Moran ... more Vac Quack Flack ...

Haven't read this whole page myself but the writers here but those who
seem more informed (and not attached in any way to the Barrett Quack /
ACSH / Junk science Disinformation Campaign ... seem to have many
different references and opinions.

Tamiflu cures nothing ... and Rumsfield will make his fortune on this
unproven and potentially dangerous vaccination.


You are advertising your ignorance. Tamiflu is not a vaccination. To his
credit, Mr. Sheff does not make that error.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dangers of Tamiflu ... more cover up Ilena Rose Kids Health 4 February 25th 06 01:25 PM
Rumsfeld's growing stake in Tamiflu john Kids Health 1 November 3rd 05 11:55 PM
Irvings fire editor over breastfeeding cover [email protected] Breastfeeding 8 October 17th 05 10:28 PM
Irving news pulls breastfeeding cover, fires editor [email protected] Breastfeeding 3 October 12th 05 03:13 PM
Came from India few months back, Clarification about maternity Cover Vikas Pregnancy 0 May 16th 05 09:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.