The 'false' pandemic: Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu, claims Euro health chief

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:03:14 -0800, "Peter B"
wrote:


Hopefully I will have it tracked down within the next several days.

Thank you.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:03:14 -0800, "Peter B"
wrote:


Hopefully I will have it tracked down within the next several days.

Thank you.


Ok, here are a few links. The breast cancer links of late I didn't find
consistent rates on at this time. There were more reports of elderly
women not receiving a life extending drug, or slow reaction times on
breast cancer, but I could not find substantial denials of care other
than about 8 or more years ago.

Here is a little of what I did find, and there is a lot more on the
subject for search engines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...treatment.html

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 12:01AM GMT 16 Dec 2007

A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims
of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing
body.


Steven Ertelt
LifeNews
February 10, 2009

Critics of the new economic stimulus bill Congress is considering are
concerned that, buried in it, is a new plan for rationed health care.
Betsy McCaughey, the former Lt. Governor of New York, has written a
widely circulated editorial with the analysis.

Rationed health care is not a new fear for the pro-life movement.

The British government has been condemned for years for its nationalized
health care system which puts off important surgeries and other health
care for patients.

If instituted in the United States, pro-life advocates have been
concerned it could lead to the denial of lifesaving medical treatment or
euthanasia of patients.

http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...xtract/6/8/740
1995 Report of highest mortality breast cancer rates in the world

If you wish more in-depth on something, let me know.

And urine pH test strips from VRWLab are considered a controlled
substance! So create false fear then force persons to run to the
doctor. If persons just monitored pH to keep it =7 and =8 most health
problems would disappear.

on 1/11/10 11:10 AM john said the following:
The 'false' pandemic: Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu, claims
Euro health chief

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lth-chief.html

The swine flu outbreak was a 'false pandemic' driven by drug companies that
stood to make billions of pounds from a worldwide scare, a leading health
expert has claimed.

Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers
of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation's
decision to declare a pandemic.

This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring 'enormous gains', while
countries, including the UK, 'squandered' their meagre health budgets, with
millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease.


A resolution proposed by Dr Wodarg calling for an investigation into the
role of drug firms has been passed by the Council of Europe, the
Strasbourg-based 'senate' responsible for the European Court of Human
Rights.

An emergency debate on the issue will be held later this month.

Dr Wodarg's claims come as it emerged the British government is desperately
trying to offload up to £1billion of swine flu vaccine, ordered at the
height of the scare.


Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year ordered the NHS to plan
for up to 65,000 deaths
The Department of Health warned of 65,000 deaths, set up a special advice
line and website, suspended normal rules so anti-flu drugs could be given
out without prescription and told health and local authorities to prepare
for a major pandemic.

Planners were told to get morgues ready for the sheer scale of deaths and
there were warnings that the Army could be called in to prevent riots as
people fought to obtain drugs.

But with fewer than 5,000 in England catching the disease last week and just
251 deaths overall, Dr Wodarg has branded the H1N1 outbreak as 'one of the
greatest medical scandals of the century'.

He said: 'We have had a mild flu - and a false pandemic.'

He added the seeds of the scare were sown five years ago, when it was feared
the much more lethal bird flu virus would mutate into a human form.

The 'atmosphere of panic' led to governments stockpiling the anti-flu drug
Tamiflu and putting in place 'sleeping contracts' for millions of doses of
vaccine

Dr Wodarg said: 'The governments have sealed contracts with vaccine
producers where they secure orders in advance and take upon themselves
almost all the responsibility.

'In this way the producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without
having any financial risks.

'So they just wait, until WHO says "pandemic" and activate the contracts.'

He also claims that to further push their interests, leading drug companies
placed 'their people' in the 'cogs' of the WHO and other influential
organisations.


Sue Armitage with her children Daisy and Ralph who could not go on holiday
after catching swine flu
He added that their influence could have led the WHO to soften its
definition of a pandemic - leading to the declaration of a worldwide
outbreak last June.

Dr Wodarg said: 'In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines
against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and
official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm
governments worldwide.

'They have made them squander tight healthcare resources for inefficient
vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the
risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.'
He does not name any Britons with conflicts of interest.

But last year, the Daily Mail revealed that Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist
who advises the Government on swine flu, also holds a £116,000-a-year post
on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.

GSK makes anti-flu drugs and vaccines and is predicted to be one of the
biggest beneficiaries of the pandemic.


A young girl is given an inoculation at a medical centre in Cockermouth,
England. Millions were given vaccines against swine flu, with pharmaceutical
companies being paid huge sums by the government
The Department of Health says that although the disease appears to be on the
wane, it cannot rule out a third surge and urges all those entitled to the
jab to have it.

Professor David Salisbury, the Government's head of immunisation said there
were 'no grounds whatsoever' for Dr Wodarg's claims, saying people with
conflicts of interest were kept out of the decision-making process.

A GSK spokesman said: 'Allegations of undue influence are misguided and
unfounded. The WHO declared that H1N1 swine flu met the criteria for a
pandemic.

'As WHO have stated, legal regulations and numerous safeguards are in place
to manage possible conflicts of interest.'

The company, which still employs Sir Roy, said he had declared his
commercial interests and had not attended any meetings related to the
purchase of drugs or vaccine for either the Government or GSK.



Read mo

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:26:09 -0800, "Peter B"
wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote


Here is a little of what I did find,

Thank you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...treatment.html

A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims
of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing
body.

Newspapers for some reason are really not good at covering medical and
scientific issues. This was never clearer than in the MMR fiasco but
still lives on. Perhaps it is because of the need for eye-catching
headlines or the stupidly tight deadlines for even non-urgent stories
which means few are researched properly.

Firstly, all healthcare systems have some form of "rationing" system.
This may be by insurance companies refusing to fund certain treatments
(a decision made purely upon a commercial basis), state services
refusing certain interventions or the simple fact that large swathes
of a population don't have any form of insurance cover or means to pay
for treatment.

The story about Hifu is a good example of a newspaper turning a
non-story into a drama. Hifu has a slightly lower success rate than
other treatments but is certainly less uncomfortable. It has a long
term success rate which is now appearing to be lower than other
treatments. It is also significantly more expensive than alternative
and possibly more effective treatments. Should a new treatment with
few benefits and significantly higher costs than an existing one be
paid for by the health provider?

The UK organisation set up to evaluate treatments is the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence (NICE). it was set up to
try to minimise what is known here as "Postcode lottery" treatment.
The National Health Service is made up of a number of local Health
Authorities which together cover the UK. Before NICE each Health
Authority made it's own mind up on what treatments to fund. These
decisions were inconsistent and often based far more upon a few
consultants ability to present a good case than on evidence.

NICE set out to remedy that by having an evidence based assessment
system for many treatments. It is building a comprehensive database
of treatments and effectiveness. http://www.nice.org.uk/

NICE is pretty transparent and has several functions only one of which
is the assessment of new drugs and treatments. For new treatments as
part of its process it releases its preliminary conclusions to
affected organisations before making final pronouncements. One
unfortunate side effect of this is that if someone doesn't like the
conclusion, no matter how sensible it may be, then they have an
opportunity to try to raise press interest to get it changed. This
isn't an evidence based approach.

NICE is certainly not perfect but it is a lot better than its
predecessor. It gets criticism precisely because it wants evidence -
not guesses. It is certainly more transparent and open than probably
any other health system private or public.

Critics of the new economic stimulus bill Congress is considering are
concerned that, buried in it, is a new plan for rationed health care.

All health care is rationed. In the USA at the moment the treatments
available to a lawyer, a self employed plumber and a youth disabled
since birth for identical ailments are going to be different. That is
rationing.

The British government has been condemned for years for its nationalized
health care system which puts off important surgeries and other health
care for patients.

If there was any significant evidence to support that I have not seen
it. I have certainly seem some quite absurd stories circulated by
minor politicians in the USA such as a ludicrous claim that heart
bypass surgery in the UK is unavailable to anyone over 60, a great
surprise to an 85 year old friend of mine as he recovered from his.

If instituted in the United States, pro-life advocates have been
concerned it could lead to the denial of lifesaving medical treatment or
euthanasia of patients.

The one thing the NHS is actually very good at is offering life saving
treatments. If you want euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary
where it has not been requested by the patient)) the country with the
highest rate by far in the world operates a private insurance funded
health service - the Netherlands. It also has amongst the lowest
spending in Europe on palliative care. Approximately one thousand
Dutch patients are euthanized each year by their doctors without
request or consent, a further 10,000 are killed with consent. Note
that this figure is for actual killings, not for the lessening of
pain or other symptoms while taking into account or appreciating a
possible life-shortening effect.

http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...xtract/6/8/740
1995 Report of highest mortality breast cancer rates in the world

No longer, the 2007 figure was about 27. Breast cancer is
interesting because (like many cancers) one factor which makes more
difference to overall survival rates than any other is early
detection. For some reason people in the UK do not go to see doctors
for minor symptoms and what has been consistently found is that the
initial consultation occurs far later into the cancer than in most
other countries. This has a significant impact upon survival. Why
this reticence exists is unclear. There is no financial cost in going
to see a doctor and unlike say Japan where cancer for many years was
seen as a degrading and socially unacceptable illness no stigma
attached.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:26:09 -0800, "Peter B"
wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote


Here is a little of what I did find,

Thank you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...treatment.html

A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims
of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS
rationing
body.

Newspapers for some reason are really not good at covering medical and
scientific issues. This was never clearer than in the MMR fiasco but
still lives on. Perhaps it is because of the need for eye-catching
headlines or the stupidly tight deadlines for even non-urgent stories
which means few are researched properly.

Firstly, all healthcare systems have some form of "rationing" system.
This may be by insurance companies refusing to fund certain treatments
(a decision made purely upon a commercial basis), state services
refusing certain interventions or the simple fact that large swathes
of a population don't have any form of insurance cover or means to pay
for treatment.


I know there are choices made by all health systems, the problem is
remediation of denied treatments. In a social system the process if it
exists gets quite lengthy or complicated. Somewhat so also in the
private sector but a lawyer can get the system moving even to the point
of treating someone with basically zero chance of recovery.

In speaking with friends in the UK their idea's regarding denied care
varied, some as you have said, others stated with full acceptance that
the State might require the funds elsewhere and it was for the greater
good. While I can understand the logic, I don't accept the premise and
would far prefer private continuing medical services until the last
dollar dropped out of existence.

Emergency medical care cannot be denied in the US. Insurance or no.
Elective can be denied unless the ins policy specifically allows for it.
There are multiple ways of getting insurance, most that do not have it
base it on their ideas of whether or not it is immediately important to
them. Of ocurse the young seldom feel the need to purchase it unless
they are handicapped.

The story about Hifu is a good example of a newspaper turning a
non-story into a drama. Hifu has a slightly lower success rate than
other treatments but is certainly less uncomfortable. It has a long
term success rate which is now appearing to be lower than other
treatments. It is also significantly more expensive than alternative
and possibly more effective treatments. Should a new treatment with
few benefits and significantly higher costs than an existing one be
paid for by the health provider?

The UK organisation set up to evaluate treatments is the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence (NICE). it was set up to
try to minimise what is known here as "Postcode lottery" treatment.
The National Health Service is made up of a number of local Health
Authorities which together cover the UK. Before NICE each Health
Authority made it's own mind up on what treatments to fund. These
decisions were inconsistent and often based far more upon a few
consultants ability to present a good case than on evidence.

NICE set out to remedy that by having an evidence based assessment
system for many treatments. It is building a comprehensive database
of treatments and effectiveness. http://www.nice.org.uk/

NICE is pretty transparent and has several functions only one of which
is the assessment of new drugs and treatments. For new treatments as
part of its process it releases its preliminary conclusions to
affected organisations before making final pronouncements. One
unfortunate side effect of this is that if someone doesn't like the
conclusion, no matter how sensible it may be, then they have an
opportunity to try to raise press interest to get it changed. This
isn't an evidence based approach.

NICE is certainly not perfect but it is a lot better than its
predecessor. It gets criticism precisely because it wants evidence -
not guesses. It is certainly more transparent and open than probably
any other health system private or public.


In theory I could support that concept public of private as long as all
records and meetings were open, meaning available for viewing in real
time. Taped for review as well. However, governing bodies are not to be
fully trusted, one of the founding principles of American Government.

Critics of the new economic stimulus bill Congress is considering are
concerned that, buried in it, is a new plan for rationed health care.

All health care is rationed. In the USA at the moment the treatments
available to a lawyer, a self employed plumber and a youth disabled
since birth for identical ailments are going to be different. That is
rationing.


The handicapped from birth only if they are a medical ward of the State
and that is based on a costs to benefit rational. The rest is based on
the insurance policy purchased or how much money one has independent of
insurance policies.

I know some insurance plans use cost rationing more than others. The
less efficient the company the higher the rationing. They pay people and
Doctors to oversee this, the reasoning behind their decisions is often
suspect.

The British government has been condemned for years for its
nationalized
health care system which puts off important surgeries and other health
care for patients.

If there was any significant evidence to support that I have not seen
it. I have certainly seem some quite absurd stories circulated by
minor politicians in the USA such as a ludicrous claim that heart
bypass surgery in the UK is unavailable to anyone over 60, a great
surprise to an 85 year old friend of mine as he recovered from his.


If you did a google search you will see that the bulk of the complaints
came from the UK and not just from yellow journelism. Hillary Clinton
did a great job in destroying a lot of what we had as a lot of companies
banded together out of fear. They were trying to mitigate the damages
forseen, but created other problems when her health plans fell apart due
to the dilifence of the American people. This is about the time that the
difficulties of the health care system and its costs to the UK became
known here publicly.


If instituted in the United States, pro-life advocates have been
concerned it could lead to the denial of lifesaving medical treatment
or
euthanasia of patients.

The one thing the NHS is actually very good at is offering life saving
treatments. If you want euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary
where it has not been requested by the patient)) the country with the
highest rate by far in the world operates a private insurance funded
health service - the Netherlands. It also has amongst the lowest
spending in Europe on palliative care. Approximately one thousand
Dutch patients are euthanized each year by their doctors without
request or consent, a further 10,000 are killed with consent. Note
that this figure is for actual killings, not for the lessening of
pain or other symptoms while taking into account or appreciating a
possible life-shortening effect.


I shudder at the idea of euthanasia. I recognize a need for the very old
and infirmed as it seems they go on forever even if they want to die. At
this time I cannot reconcile it.

http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...xtract/6/8/740
1995 Report of highest mortality breast cancer rates in the world

No longer, the 2007 figure was about 27. Breast cancer is
interesting because (like many cancers) one factor which makes more
difference to overall survival rates than any other is early
detection. For some reason people in the UK do not go to see doctors
for minor symptoms and what has been consistently found is that the
initial consultation occurs far later into the cancer than in most
other countries. This has a significant impact upon survival. Why
this reticence exists is unclear. There is no financial cost in going
to see a doctor and unlike say Japan where cancer for many years was
seen as a degrading and socially unacceptable illness no stigma
attached.

I am glad to hear it is no longer the case.
I wish there were a cure rather than just treatment regarding the
disease.

In principle I am against socialism. I am for helping the less fortunate
independent of the government.
We should be able to stand on our own two feet and not give control of
our lives over to the government and become effectively wards or slaves
of the State.

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:04:27 -0800, "Peter B"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote

In speaking with friends in the UK their idea's regarding denied care
varied, some as you have said, others stated with full acceptance that
the State might require the funds elsewhere and it was for the greater
good. While I can understand the logic, I don't accept the premise and
would far prefer private continuing medical services until the last
dollar dropped out of existence.

It is worth pointing out that a private health sector exists in the
UK, both insurance funded or simply pay for treatment. The private
sector has good, well equipped hospitals capable of carrying out the
most complex procedures.

All health care is rationed. In the USA at the moment the treatments
available to a lawyer, a self employed plumber and a youth disabled
since birth for identical ailments are going to be different. That is
rationing.

The handicapped from birth only if they are a medical ward of the State
and that is based on a costs to benefit rational. The rest is based on
the insurance policy purchased or how much money one has independent of
insurance policies.

Indeed, but that is all rationing in one form or another.

This is about the time that the
difficulties of the health care system and its costs to the UK became
known here publicly.

I suspect the information may have been "spun" by politicians. Firstly
"rationing" in the NHS is simply not a big issue. It attracts column
inches every now again in individual cases but by and large it isn't a
problem. Secondly the cost (throughout the world) of private and
state systems is broadly comparable in countries of equivalent living
standard. No system is notably cheaper and better than others.

I shudder at the idea of euthanasia. I recognize a need for the very old
and infirmed as it seems they go on forever even if they want to die. At
this time I cannot reconcile it.

I agree, one of the major criticisms of the Dutch system is that
euthanasia has largely replaced palliative care so the only option is
a quick death or lengthy pain. Their minimal palliative care services
are largely provided by charities and are still in the dark ages.

In principle I am against socialism. I am for helping the less fortunate
independent of the government.

That can be a difficult equation to balance.

We should be able to stand on our own two feet and not give control of
our lives over to the government and become effectively wards or slaves
of the State.

As I said, you can buy private care here if you wish.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:04:27 -0800, "Peter B"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote

In speaking with friends in the UK their idea's regarding denied care
varied, some as you have said, others stated with full acceptance that
the State might require the funds elsewhere and it was for the greater
good. While I can understand the logic, I don't accept the premise and
would far prefer private continuing medical services until the last
dollar dropped out of existence.

It is worth pointing out that a private health sector exists in the
UK, both insurance funded or simply pay for treatment. The private
sector has good, well equipped hospitals capable of carrying out the
most complex procedures.

All health care is rationed. In the USA at the moment the
treatments
available to a lawyer, a self employed plumber and a youth disabled
since birth for identical ailments are going to be different. That
is
rationing.

The handicapped from birth only if they are a medical ward of the
State
and that is based on a costs to benefit rational. The rest is based on
the insurance policy purchased or how much money one has independent
of
insurance policies.

Indeed, but that is all rationing in one form or another.

This is about the time that the
difficulties of the health care system and its costs to the UK became
known here publicly.

I suspect the information may have been "spun" by politicians. Firstly
"rationing" in the NHS is simply not a big issue. It attracts column
inches every now again in individual cases but by and large it isn't a
problem. Secondly the cost (throughout the world) of private and
state systems is broadly comparable in countries of equivalent living
standard. No system is notably cheaper and better than others.

I shudder at the idea of euthanasia. I recognize a need for the very
old
and infirmed as it seems they go on forever even if they want to die.
At
this time I cannot reconcile it.

I agree, one of the major criticisms of the Dutch system is that
euthanasia has largely replaced palliative care so the only option is
a quick death or lengthy pain. Their minimal palliative care services
are largely provided by charities and are still in the dark ages.

In principle I am against socialism. I am for helping the less
fortunate
independent of the government.

That can be a difficult equation to balance.


One of the interesting observations here is that the liberal is far less
likely to help their fellow man than a conservative. Arguments abound as
to why, but the bottom line is that a higher percentage of conservatives
give, even when there is no "reward" deduction from income taxes. This
includes Americans giving of themselves to help other distressed nations
in need, like Haiti is now.

We should be able to stand on our own two feet and not give control of
our lives over to the government and become effectively wards or
slaves
of the State.

As I said, you can buy private care here if you wish.


There is talk here of punitive damages against a Dr. who dabbles in both
sectors. You are either out, or in.

Another problem with having both is that you are required to fund both,
that is if one elects to stick with private health care.