Being skeptical about H1N1

robindch

onq wrote: »

If you're going to start limiting meaningful discussion of disease because of your liking for what you may consider politically correct semantics you'll do very little talking.

I must confess that you're beginning to lose me here. Are you trying to say that thinking that 14,000 dead people is a bad thing is somehow "politically correct"?

onq wrote: »

robindch wrote:

You've also failed to show that the reasonable precautionary steps which have been taken by national governments and international organizations to ensure that populations are vaccinated against a virus which at the time of purchase was known to be highly contagious, but of disputed lethality, constitute scare tactics in the broadest sense.

I haven't raised the issue, but in actual fact the statistics for vaccinated and unvaccinated populations of young people seem to weigh against vaccination.

With respect, the issue here is whether vaccination works or not, and whether it is the appropriate response to a worldwide pandemic.

Are you saying that vaccination doesn't work? And if it does work, that vaccinating people as a precautionary measure is a bad thing?

onq

robindch wrote: »

I must confess that you're beginning to lose me here. Are you trying to say that thinking that 14,000 dead people is a bad thing is somehow "politically correct"?

No. You've wasted several reply cycles questioning my use of the word "limited".
You either don't understand its meaning or you don't understand its context - you chose.

With respect, the issue here is whether vaccination works or not, and whether it is the appropriate response to a worldwide pandemic.

Respect doesn't arise when dealing with a mindless killer like a virus.
There are two issues here:

1. Whether the outbreak justifies the term Pandemic or not - I accept your comments in terms of the WHO's definition, but I question whether or not their definition is appropriate given the "limited" number of deaths that can be traced directly to swine flu.

2. Whether the cure is worse than the disease - statistically the jury appears to be out with some reports claiming problems and some claiming results.
The reports that claim problems seem to point to the cure causing statistically more problems than the disease.
In that sense while it may have been effective in some instances it wasn't in others.

So its not just about whether its effective or not per se, its about whehter its positve results outweigh the negative ones in terms of the overall population.
These negative results are not disputed and without them I would not challenge your assertion that its about whether its effective or not.

Are you saying that vaccination doesn't work? And if it does work, that vaccinating people as a precautionary measure is a bad thing?

I'm saying that while it may work in some cases in others it doesn't and in still others is causes more problems than it solves. Its not simply about whether it works or not.

In the other thread I referred to above this issue was raised :

In post #168 on page 12 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055786529&page=12

studiorat has uttered the immortal riposte:

"I don't think anyone mentioned that they were safe. Did they?"

No indeed.

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

I'm doubtful if you're an adult and I'm uncertain of your level of comprehension, but I'm not afraid of you.

Wearing my moderator hat briefly, your comments are out of order here. As you're a relative newbie, I'll forgive and forget this instance. But any more name calling or finger pointing will result in cards or bans. Just FYI.

onq wrote: »

1. Whether the outbreak justifies the term Pandemic or not - I accept your comments in terms of the WHO's definition, but I question whether or not their definition is appropriate given the "limited" number of deaths that can be traced directly to swine flu.

I'm kinda speechless at this response. A disease is declared a "pandemic" if it has global reach and it is unrelated to the lethality of the disease. How difficult can you really find this very simple idea?

onq wrote: »

2. Whether the cure is worse than the disease - statistically the jury appears to be out with some reports claiming problems and some claiming results.

The jury is out only if you call to duty the kind of medically-uninformed buffoons that run sites like that idiotic "globalresearch" panicsite.

Virtually everybody who's had medical training, or indeed, who knows anything about real medicine at all, was convinced of the benefits of vaccines in the 19th century.

From what little coherent information you've written to date, it seems that your single source of information on this -- a panicsite produced by a few single-issue fanatics -- is clearly still having severe trouble keeping itself current with developments in 19th century medicine, let alone 21st century.

onq

robindch wrote: »

Wearing my moderator hat briefly, your comments are out of order here. As you're a relative newbie, I'll forgive and forget this instance. But any more name calling or finger pointing will result in cards or bans.

I refer to post #15 and comments made to me by King Mob:

"Are you a biological terrorist?"
"You taking things out of context, twisting facts and generally making **** up?"

In this regard you were silent and I took it to mean a certain amount of robust exchange was countenanced by you. My mistake.

Just FYI.I'm kinda speechless at this response. A disease is declared a "pandemic" if it has global reach and it is unrelated to the lethality of the disease. How difficult can you really find this very simple idea?

I understand what you think is the definition..
And according to your site of record, Wiki, it appears your understanding of the WHO definition may be at fault:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

"Definition and stages

"According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a pandemic can start when three conditions have been met:[1]

* emergence of a disease new to a population;
* agents infect humans, causing serious illness; and
* agents spread easily and sustainably among humans.

"A disease or condition is not a pandemic merely because it is widespread or kills many people; it must also be infectious. For instance, cancer is responsible for many deaths but is not considered a pandemic because the disease is not infectious or contagious."

I have a problem calling the swine flu a pandemic because its not that lethal - most cases in Ireland and elsewhere cited underlying conditions as being present. Put whatever interpretation you like on this and it still means you cannot exclusively blame swine flu for those deaths.

Mind you I can understand why you'd be misled by the WHO since its watered down its own aide-memoire discriptions of pandemics. That website goes on to say.

"In planning for a possible influenza pandemic the WHO published a document on pandemic preparedness guidance in1999, revised in 2005 and during the 2009 outbreak, defining phases and appropriate actions for each phase in an aide memoire entitled WHO pandemic phase descriptions and main actions by phase[3]. All versions of this document refer to influenza. The phases are defined by the spread of the disease; virulence and mortality are not mentioned."

My underline. The gist of this seems to be that removing virulence and mortality allows the WHO to call almost any widespread disease a Pandemic, which paves the way for more scare mongering in years to come.

Far from "preparing" us for some putative real pandemic, the WHO's poorly thought out approach over the Asian Bird Flu and the Swine Flu will end up them being ignored like the boy who cried wolf should anything really serious come along.

The jury is out only if you call to duty the kind of medically-uninformed buffoons that run sites like that idiotic "globalresearch" panicsite.

I find that quality of a site rests on the competence and integrity of the contributors and many of those who contribute to Globalresearch are of international stature and certainly not buffoons. Ad hominems aren't appropriate.

Virtually everybody who's had medical training, or indeed, who knows anything about real medicine at all, was convinced of the benefits of vaccines in the 19th century.

And they only realised the risks of inadequately tested products in the 1960's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

From what little coherent information you've written to date,

"...I'm uncertain of your level of comprehension..."

...it seems that your single source of information on this -- a panicsite produced by a few single-issue fanatics -- is clearly still having severe trouble keeping itself current with developments in 19th century medicine, let alone 21st century.

As you can see from the above I've learnt to read Wiki too but I'll admit to having been sidetracked by medicine from the 1960's which still has lessons to teach us today.

ONQ.

King Mob

Couple of points.

One, I wasn't actually accusing you of being a terrorist, I was trying to point out how your pointed questions to Malty T where pretty much an accusation.

Two, the WHO or any other health body has never once defined a pandemic by death rate.
This document here from 1999 defines a pandemic:

The Pandemic will be declared when the new virus sub-type has been shown to cause several outbreaks in at least one country, and to have spread to other countries, with consistent disease patterns indicating that serious morbidity and mortality is likely in at least one segment of the population

http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/influenza/whocdscsredc991.pdf

Worded a bit differently but not dependant on death rate.

This 1999 document was revised in 2005 to match the WHO's new 6 stage alert system.
The current wording for the definition was added then.

In 2009 the alert system was updated to include post pandemic stages.
Also there was a slight change in how a "new subtype" is defined.

What most of the tabloid experts and conspiracy theorists jump on was that part of the web page was changed because it wasn't an accurate representation of the definition of a pandemic.
It stated that pandemics lead to enormous death tolls, even though not one official document said similar.
And of course the media and Conspiracy theorists take this and sensationalise it till "WHO fix a line on their website" becomes "WHO change definition as part of global conspiracy."

Third, as for Thalidomide if you actually read beyond the usual anti science propaganda and nonsense you can what really happened.

Thalidomide was licensed in England but was pulled as soon as birth defects where proven (not by tabloid science, but by actual science.)
In fact most people don't know that the FDA refused to give permission to market the drug in America due to lack of adequate testing.

Afterwards many many laws where brought in from stopping untested drugs from being sold and stricter testing standards were adopted.

So saying, "they were wrong about thalidomide" is pretty much a non issue.
Especially when discussing vaccines, given the enormous good they've done.
Smallpox for one.
A disease that caused upwards of 300 million death last century alone, gone thanks to vaccines.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Couple of points.

One, I wasn't actually accusing you of being a terrorist, I was trying to point out how your pointed questions to Malty T where pretty much an accusation.

I was aware of your original intent but that wasn't why I posted the quotation in post #55 above.

<suggestion that non-lethal diseases are worthy of being called pandemics on the basis of rate and extent of spread alone snipped>

Spending huge money on treatment for a non-lethal dasease isn't good governance.
If a disease doesn't kill you you'll recover and have a stronger natural resistance.
Broad spectrum treatments are widely discredited in the fight against disease.
Persistent use in the last century only bred Superbugs which are spreading.

The issue of mortality is a clearly implied term in anything classed as "serious".
Issuing illogical definitions merely exposes the WHO as a shill for Big Pharma.
Worse this amounts to boosting broad spectrum policy under another name.

Third, as for Thalidomide if you actually read beyond the usual anti science propaganda and nonsense you can what really happened.

<pointless defense of the American FDA snipped>

The point was that robindch referriing back two centuries in support of vaccination was a non-argument.
Events in the last century had given us ample proof of the dangers of inadequately tested treatments.
Mass vaccination are appropriate in the fight against lethal, virulent disease - swine flu hype isn't one.
Inadequately tested treatments are never appropriate and the current farce needs a public inquiry.

The US attitude to health was already shown by the Gulf War Syndrome reference.
To that I add the EPA's disgraceful "no-risk" assurances to New Yorkers after 9/11.

<side bar about smallpox snipped >

Thanks to the good looking Milkmaids who pointed us towards the vaccine

ONQ.

pH

onq wrote: »

Spending huge money on treatment for a non-lethal dasease isn't good governance.
If a disease doesn't kill you you'll recover and have a stronger natural resistance.

ONQ.

Look, the 1918 flu pandemic was real, virulent, infected 500 million people and killed 50 million.

Once again this outbreak wasn't as serious as feared, and it followed on the back of a series of media-driven global health fears - AIDS, avian flu, salmonella, BSE, CJD - if there's one thing you can find in common among all of them is early on you can find the media bigging up whichever experts are prepared to make the most doomsday-like predictions.

It would be interesting to read a reasoned account of why the initial Mexican reports seemed to indicate a more virulent and deadly strain than was experienced around the world, but given the fact that we could have been looking at something similar meant that an immunization program was a proportional response.

Especially when you consider how governments hadn't much time to react, public pressure on the govt to do something quick to order vaccine before other countries had it all.

Anyway, here's David Icke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkiclMWy3Ns

robindch

onq wrote: »

I have a problem calling the swine flu a pandemic because its not that lethal

It's hardly worth pointing out for the umpteenth time that widespread lethality is not a requirement for a pandemic.

If you use your own private definition of the word "pandemic" (as you are), then, in all fairness, you're not going to gain many supporters by getting upset that other people use it differently.

onq wrote: »

I find that quality of a site rests on the competence and integrity of the contributors and many of those who contribute to Globalresearch are of international stature and certainly not buffoons. Ad hominems aren't appropriate.

I've no idea why you think these deluded people are competent -- their shoddy, panicky, third-rate, paranoid arguments can be cut to pieces with the most basic research.

robindch

pH wrote: »

Anyway, here's David Icke

Pity there's no vaccine against stupidity...

King Mob

onq wrote: »

I was aware of your original intent but that wasn't why I posted the quotation in post #55 above.

So why did you post it?

onq wrote: »

<suggestion that non-lethal diseases are worthy of being called pandemics on the basis of rate and extent of spread alone snipped>

That's not a suggestion. That's how pandemics have always been defined

onq wrote: »

Spending huge money on treatment for a non-lethal dasease isn't good governance.

Unless of course it has a chance of becoming lethal.
If the government didn't prepare as they did we'd be hearing a very different conspiracy theory.

onq wrote: »

If a disease doesn't kill you you'll recover and have a stronger natural resistance.

Unless of course it gives you pneumonia or another opportunistic infection.
If there was only some way to confer resistance to a virus without suffering the symptoms.
Oh wait, they have that: vaccines.

onq wrote: »

Broad spectrum treatments are widely discredited in the fight against disease.
Persistent use in the last century only bred Superbugs which are spreading.

That's not how vaccines work. But hey that sure does sound scary alright.

Unless you're referring to antivirals like tamiflu.
Cause then the WHO and other warned to use them sparingly to prevent the virus gaining immunity to antivirals.

onq wrote: »

The issue of mortality is a clearly implied term in anything classed as "serious".

And that's also in the current definition. It also refers to morbidity as serious but makes not mention to a death rate.
Look through the entire document and see if you can find a single definition of a pandemic that depends on a death rate.
And bear in mind that this is from 1999, ten years before the definition was supposedly changed.

onq wrote: »

Issuing illogical definitions merely exposes the WHO as a shill for Big Pharma.
Worse this amounts to boosting broad spectrum policy under another name.

And can you show a single offical source that ever used death rate to define a pandemic.
Seems your confusing the actual term for the Hollywood version.

onq wrote: »

<pointless defense of the American FDA snipped>

The point was that robindch referriing back two centuries in support of vaccination was a non-argument.
Events in the last century had given us ample proof of the dangers of inadequately tested treatments.

And we can point back to events in the last century that give us ample proof of the effectiveness of vaccines.
Do you really want to play a numbers game?

In fact cause most of those "dangers of inadequately tested treatments" probably have ****e all to do with vaccines.
I dare you to show one example of where a vaccine has cause huge amounts of harm.

onq wrote: »

Mass vaccination are appropriate in the fight against lethal, virulent disease - swine flu hype isn't one.
Inadequately tested treatments are never appropriate and the current farce needs a public inquiry.

And the swine flu vaccine had been adequately tested, despite what the anti science sites like to tell you.
There have been no reports of major side effects from it, and not a single death.

onq wrote: »

The US attitude to health was already shown by the Gulf War Syndrome reference.
To that I add the EPA's disgraceful "no-risk" assurances to New Yorkers after 9/11.

And this is relevant but pointing out triumphs of modern medicine isn't?

And are you suggesting that the government act on a non lethal and possibly non existent disease like GWS?

onq wrote: »

<side bar about smallpox snipped >

Thanks to the good looking Milkmaids who pointed us towards the vaccine

ONQ.

Yea and thanks to the scientists and doctors who made it happen too.

onq

pH wrote: »

Look, the 1918 flu pandemic was real, virulent, infected 500 million people and killed 50 million.

And this followed on the loss of the millions in WWI which made it even worse in effect.

Once again this outbreak wasn't as serious as feared, and it followed on the back of a series of media-driven global health fears - AIDS, avian flu, salmonella, BSE, CJD - if there's one thing you can find in common among all of them is early on you can find the media bigging up whichever experts are prepared to make the most doomsday-like predictions.

If it were just the media you wouldn't be too worried, but I accept your comments about "experts" commenting to hype it up. I also understand the dilemman faced by any government about whether to comment negatively or not. Nevertheless the IMC stood four square behind daily reports of imminent deaths with nearly every one citing an underlying condition presented as a death from swin flu - not good enough.

It would be interesting to read a reasoned account of why the initial Mexican reports seemed to indicate a more virulent and deadly strain than was experienced around the world, but given the fact that we could have been looking at something similar meant that an immunization program was a proportional response.

A query raised at the time by myself and others in other forums was how they noticed the death was from swine flu, in Mexico, where like all Latin America human life is a commodity. It seemed to me that with conditions there on the ground like they were you could only "discover" it if you had been told where it was.

Especially when you consider how governments hadn't much time to react, public pressure on the govt to do something quick to order vaccine before other countries had it all.

This raises the question as to how best to stop the spread of a potential pandemic.
I think that the answer centres - just like preventing terrorism - on monitoring people using intercontinental transport, however Orwellian that might at first appear.

Anyway, here's David Icke

>>ABDUCTED<<<

I'm sorry, my foil beanie slipped down over my antenna and I couldn't scan the screen properly BZZT!

ONQ.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

<snippedcomments about definitions until...>
Unless you're referring to antivirals like tamiflu.
Cause then the WHO and other warned to use them sparingly to prevent the virus gaining immunity to antivirals.

This is as bad as the post pointing out they never said it was safe.

And that's also in the current definition. It also refers to morbidity as serious but makes not mention to a death rate.
Look through the entire document and see if you can find a single definition of a pandemic that depends on a death rate.
And bear in mind that this is from 1999, ten years before the definition was supposedly changed.
And can you show a single offical source that ever used death rate to define a pandemic.
Seems your confusing the actual term for the Hollywood version.

What's the point of referring to morbidity at all then?
As I said if its not that lethal why get worked up about it?

And we can point back to events in the last century that give us ample proof of the effectiveness of vaccines.
Do you really want to play a numbers game?

I wasn't disputing the effectiveness of vaccines but untested treatments - read the post.

In fact cause most of those "dangers of inadequately tested treatments" probably have ****e all to do with vaccines.
I dare you to show one example of where a vaccine has cause huge amounts of harm.

Read the post and stop putting words in my mouth - oh, and calm down will you?

And the swine flu vaccine had been adequately tested, despite what the anti science sites like to tell you.
There have been no reports of major side effects from it, and not a single death.

3 questions:

Is Tamiflu a vaccine?
Did I diss the vaccine?
Are you going to stop putting words in my mouth?
<snip>

And are you suggesting that the government act on a non lethal and possibly non existent disease like GWS?

No. I never said it was a disease.
Read the post and stop putting words in my mouth.
<snip>

ONQ.

Zombrex

onq wrote: »

Those words with "if" in the middle of them are not a statement so cannot be an accusation.

Those words with "?" at the end form a question - again, not an accusation.

HTH



ONQ.

PS Neither you nor he actually addressed the issues raised.

Ah, the FOX News style of discussion and debate

"Is Obama a racist Muslim immigrant who hates this country? Tune in after the break" :P

King Mob

onq wrote: »

This is as bad as the post pointing out they never said it was safe.

The WHO did say to use them sparingly to prevent the virus from gaining immunity. How ever in the absence of a vaccine there was little else that could be used to limit the spread.

And they were pretty clear about the safety of Tamiflu as well what with all the warnings on the side of the box.

onq wrote: »

What's the point of referring to morbidity at all then?
As I said if its not that lethal why get worked up about it?

Because "a clear pattern of morbidity and morality" is part of the definition of a disease.
It doesn't refer to a death rate.

onq wrote: »

I wasn't disputing the effectiveness of vaccines but untested treatments - read the post.
Read the post and stop putting words in my mouth - oh, and calm down will you?

So you agree that the vaccines are safe and effective then?
Or do you think that Tamiflu is untested?

onq wrote: »

Is Tamiflu a vaccine?

Nope never said it was. No one did in fact.

onq wrote: »

Did I diss the vaccine?

Yes. You keep referring to it as untested. You continuously reference sources that claim the vaccine is dangerous.

onq wrote: »

Are you going to stop putting words in my mouth?

I'm not putting words in your mouth.

onq wrote: »

<snip>
No. I never said it was a disease.
Read the post and stop putting words in my mouth.
<snip>

ONQ.

So then why did you bring it up at all?

pH

onq wrote: »

A query raised at the time by myself and others in other forums was how they noticed the death was from swine flu, in Mexico, where like all Latin America human life is a commodity. It seemed to me that with conditions there on the ground like they were you could only "discover" it if you had been told where it was.

Now that is tinfoil hat time - are you saying that H1N1 doesn't exist? or was deliberately released in Mexico? How backwards and "Latin American" do you think Mexico is that their health system can't detect a flu epidemic among their citizens?

What scenario are you actually hinting at here, as opposed to the truth, that an outbreak of flu was analysed by local healthcare and reported "up the chain" so to speak?

if you want to follow the WER (Weekly Epidemiological Record) from the time have a look here: http://www.who.int/wer/2009/en/

You seem to be hinting at some really nutty tinfoil hat stuff here.

This raises the question as to how best to stop the spread of a potential pandemic.
I think that the answer centres - just like preventing terrorism - on monitoring people using intercontinental transport, however Orwellian that might at first appear.

And until you're running the EDCD what you think or guess might work is irrelevant. The 1918 Spanish Flu spread in a world with much fewer people, only a fraction of the mass transport we have today, and what existed was curtailed drastically by the fact there was a world war on.

Frankly, despite how much you value your own opinion, we'll leave figuring how how to prevent worldwide spread of communicable diseases to the experts, shall we?

I'm sorry, my foil beanie slipped down over my antenna and I couldn't scan the screen properly BZZT!

Whether it be lizard people, 2012 or Swine flu, as a rule of thumb if you're on the same side of a debate as Icke - you're wrong.

pH

Sorry to double post but this statement needs its own response

onq wrote:

Issuing illogical definitions merely exposes the WHO as a shill for Big Pharma.

Have a look at what the WHO are actually doing and saying, for example take a look at their latest 2009 report entitled

Tackling global health risks prevents premature deaths (Link to press release - link to full report in PR)

Now let's see how much shilling for "Big Pharma" they're doing

Global life expectancy could be increased by nearly five years by addressing five factors affecting health – childhood underweight, unsafe sex, alcohol use, lack of safe water, sanitation and hygiene, and high blood pressure, according to a report published by WHO today.

These are responsible for one-quarter of the 60 million deaths estimated to occur annually.

Global health risks describes 24 factors affecting health. These are mixture of environmental, behavioural and physiological factors, such as air pollution, tobacco use and poor nutrition.

This seems an honest assessment of the risks, and in no way "shills" particular diseases and health issues that "Big Pharma" can make billions from. In fact, if you look at the issues raised they're primary ones with little or no money to be made by throwing modern high-cost patented drugs at them.

If anything, it appears to be the opposite to what you're claiming.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

<snip rehash of WHO and Tamiflu safety disclaimers>
So you agree that the vaccines are safe and effective then?

No, I accept vaccines could be effective. I didn't agree they were safe. Read the post.

Or do you think that Tamiflu is untested?

I didn't say one way or the other. I referred to the treatment which was inadequately tested. Tamiflu wasa part of it.

Nope never said it was. No one did in fact.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Yes. You keep referring to it as untested. You continuously reference sources that claim the vaccine is dangerous.

No I referred to the treatment as inadequately tested. You keep missing this distinction. Over, like, SEVEN reply cycles...

I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Yes, you are.

So then why did you bring it up at all?

Its a discussion forum.
Its the kind of place were things get "brung up".
Why else would we be here?

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

No, I said it was effective. Read the post.

So then do you believe they are safe?
Why do you post sources that claim the vaccines aren't safe or effective?

onq wrote: »

I didn't say one way or the other. I referred to the treatment which was inadequately tested. Tamiflu wasa part of it.

No I referred to the treatment as inadequately tested.

So which part of the treatment is untested or unsafe?

onq wrote: »

Ohhh yes you are...

Such as?

onq wrote: »

Its a discussion forum. Its were things get "brung up".

ONQ.

So why is it relevant to this discussion?

I'm sensing a lot of backtracking and moving the goalposts on your part.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So then do you believe they are safe?

There is always a risk.

Why do you post sources that claim the vaccines aren't safe or effective?

Stop puttingwords in my mouth. Its not an effective debating technique.

So which part of the treatment is untested or unsafe?

The claim was that the treatment was inadequately tested.

Such as?

"Why do you post sources that claim the vaccines aren't safe or effective?"
I didn't do this - you're question presupposes that I did - it effectively puts those words in my mouth. Its another colloquial expression. I'm assuming English is your first language BTW or that you are flient in it - if not please advise.

So why is it relevant to this discussion?

The relevance or otherwise of anything I say here can be questioned, but the usualy credible form of debate for the opponent to show why the other persons comments are NOT relevant, not to ask him why they aren't.

I'm sensing a lot of backtracking and moving the goalposts on your part.

You're "sensing" this?
Make a point showing where I've backtracked.

Let me help you with coming to grips with my comments.

So far, on several occasions you've misunderstood what I wrote.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote and jumped at conclusions - for example you've completely misunderstood the phrase "inadequately tested treatement".

You've recently referred to me as somone who was attacking the vaccine, who claimed it was unsafe [I've stated neither, a such] and in the post to which I'm replying you tried to expand my comments into saying that the treatment is unsafe by asking me which part I sais was unsafe when I referred to it as "inadequately tested".

You're now trying to cover your tracks with questions.

Perhaps the mods here have accepted your technique as being the appropriate way to debate a serious subject, the ad hominems and the dissing of sources as means of denigrating an opponent, but I was tought to attack the issue, not the man.

Even now I'm attacking you're technique, not you personally and you don't see words with letters replaced by stars [***] in my posts.

Keep it clean, address the issues, don't put words in your opponents mouth.

I shouldn't have to tell you and it shouldn't be me telling you this.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

There is always a risk.

And there was always a risk of the swine flu becoming more lethal.
But for reason you don't think this isn't a problem they should have prepared for?

onq wrote: »

The claim was that the treatment was inadequately tested.

And the question is still relevant.
So which part of the treatment is untested or unsafe?

We know that antivirals work. We know that antivirals prevent the spread of a virus, both in the body and in a population.
Which part isn't tested?

And what isn't it untested for? Safety? Effectiveness?

And who exactly says it's untested.

onq wrote: »

"Why do you post sources that claim the vaccines aren't safe or effective?"
I didn't do this - you're question presupposes that I did - it effectively puts those words in my mouth. Its another colloquial expression.

Oh yes you did.

onq wrote: »

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/atlantic-monthly-on-flu-vaccines-the-main-points/

And of course global research has many articles repeating the same myths about vaccines.

onq wrote: »

The relevance or otherwise of anything I say here can be questioned, but the usualy credible form of debate for the opponent to show why the other persons comments are NOT relevant, not to ask him why they aren't.

You brought up GWS as an example of how the US handles things poorly. You weren't clear why you brought it up or how it's relevant.
Can you explain now why you brought it up?

The only reason I can see that it's relevent is that the anti-vax pseudo-scientists like to pretend that vaccines caused GWS, and frequently bring it up when spreading thier misinformation.

onq wrote: »

You're "sensing" this?
Make a point showing where I've backtracked.

On plenty of things.

For example you called Tamiflu a "inadequately tested cocktails of drugs containing known toxic substances".
But now say: "The claim was that the treatment was inadequately tested"

Also when you accused Malty T of being a big pharma shill then backtracked over how it wasn't an accusation.
And of course you bring up Gulf War Syndrome but refuse to explain why.

So you can deflect these points by pretending to criticise my posting style all you like, but no one is buying it.

robindch

onq wrote: »

I referred to the treatment which was inadequately tested. Tamiflu was a part of it. [...] No I referred to the treatment as inadequately tested. You keep missing this distinction.

Oseltamivir phosphate -- the active ingredient in Tamiflu -- has been tested in open and closed trials for thirteen years, has been taken by tens of millions of people, and pubmed lists over one thousand scientific papers documenting its effects.

If thirteen years, millions of people and over one thousand papers qualifies as "inadequate testing", could you please explain what you believe is adequate testing, and the medical grounds for your belief.

robindch

Looks like the allegations by paranoid conspiracy theorists like the idiots over at globalresearch.ca have struck a raw nerve. The WHO released the following strongly-worded statement a few days ago:

World Health Organization wrote:

Statement of the World Health Organization on allegations of conflict of interest and 'fake' pandemic

Providing independent advice to Member States is a very important function of the World Health Organization (WHO). We take this work seriously and guard against the influence of any improper interests. The WHO influenza pandemic policies and response have not been improperly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.

WHO recognizes that global cooperation with a range of partners, including the private sector, is essential to pursue public health objectives today and in the future. Numerous safeguards are in place to manage conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest among members of WHO advisory groups and expert committees. Expert advisers provide a signed declaration of interests to WHO detailing any professional or financial interest that could affect the impartiality of their advice. WHO takes allegations of conflict of interest seriously and is confident of its decision-making independence regarding the pandemic influenza.

Additional allegations that WHO created a 'fake' pandemic to bring economic benefit to industry are scientifically wrong and historically incorrect.

• Lab analyses showed that this influenza virus was genetically and antigenically very different from other influenza viruses circulating among people
• Epidemiological information provided by Mexico, the US and Canada demonstrated person-to-person transmission.
• Clinical information, especially from Mexico, indicated this virus also could cause severe disease and death. At the time, those reports did not indicate a pandemic situation, but taken together sent a very strong warning to WHO and other public health authorities to be ready for one.
• As the pandemic evolved, clinicians identified a very severe form of primary viral pneumonia, which was rapidly progressive and frequently fatal, that is not part of the disease pattern seen during seasonal influenza. While these cases were relatively rare, they imposed a heavy burden on intensive care units.
• Geographical spread was exceptionally rapid.
  • On 29 April 2009, WHO reported lab confirmed cases in 9 countries.
  • About 6 weeks later, on 11 June, WHO reported cases in 74 countries and territories in more than two WHO regions. It is this global spread which led WHO to call for increasing phases and finally, to announce that a pandemic was underway.
  • By 1 July, infections had been confirmed in 120 countries and territories.

The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible. We welcome any legitimate review process that can improve our work.

An explanation of how WHO uses advisory bodies in responding to the influenza pandemic was made publicly available on the WHO web site on 3 December 2009.

Meanwhile, GR is still claiming it's all a hoax.

onq

Let me rephrase that.

Testing a part of a part of a treatment is not an adequate means of testing a medical

The Gulf War Syndrome was due to the combination of treatments, which gave rise to a new complaint.

ONQ.

onq

It looks like more and more people are questioning the whole Swine Flu Pandemic issue.

---

Was swine flu threat exaggerated?
To date, the swine flu pandemic has killed more than 13,500 people worldwide. It is a significant number, but nowhere near some of the more ghastly estimates which surfaced when the H1N1 virus began in Mexico last June.
The figure contrasts with the 35,000 people who die in the US alone from common influenza every year.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/0119/1224262627670.html


Drug firms 'drove swine flu pandemic warning to recoup £billions spent on research'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246370/Drug-firms-drove-swine-flu-pandemic-warning-recoup-billions-spent-research.html#ixzz0dmDYqfcR



India questions WHO's false alarm on swine flu

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-questions-WHOs-false-alarm-on-swine-flu/articleshow/5477875.cms


The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will hold a secret hearing next week into the apparent manipulation by BigPharma of the World Health Organization's (WHO) global H1N1 flu campaign. Experts predict the secrecy will be maintained by the PharmaMedia that controls mainstream news.

http://www.sodahead.com/world-news/pharmamedia-to-squelch-eu-councils-secret-probe-into-h1n1-vaccine-fraud-and-worldwide-genocide/question-838251/

---

Whatever you may think about sodahead.com the rest of these articles are from mainstream media outlets.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Let me rephrase that.

Testing a part of a part of a treatment is not an adequate means of testing a medical

So what part of the Tamiflu treatment is not tested?
Who says it's not tested?

Do you still stand by your claim that tamiflu is a "Cocktail of drugs containing known toxic substances"?

onq wrote: »

The Gulf War Syndrome was due to the combination of treatments, which gave rise to a new complaint.

ONQ.

Says who exactly?
And didn't you say that GWS wasn't a disease?

Also you've yet to show a single source that ever defined a pandemic depending on a death rate.

Looks like the media are using crappy science reporting like they always do.

Turtwig

I'm sorry I kinda fell out of sync with this thread. So apologies if this has already being addressed.

"Cocktail of toxic substances."
(Assuming above statement is true.)
So what?
Sodium is a violently reactive substance that you wouldn't really want to ingest in it's metallic form. Chlorine is a nasty gas that was used during WWI and WWII. Mix these two toxic substances together and you get Sodium-Chloride or table salt. Which is only harmful in large doses.

robindch

onq wrote: »

Whatever you may think about sodahead.com the rest of these articles are from mainstream media outlets.

The Daily Telegraph is well-known for producing silly public health scare stories. It's not as bad as globalresearch, but it's certainly in the same general vein.

Regardless of that, all you've produced so far is allegations of a conspiracy. You have failed to produce names, or documents, or bank transfer details, or indeed any evidence of any kind which substantiates your serious allegation that the WHO is in the pay of the drug companies. At this stage, your allegations reside in the realm of an unsubstantiated paranoid conspiracy theory.

onq wrote: »

I referred to the treatment which was inadequately tested. Tamiflu was a part of it. [...] No I referred to the treatment as inadequately tested. You keep missing this distinction.

Oseltamivir phosphate -- the active ingredient in Tamiflu -- has been tested in open and closed trials for thirteen years, has been taken by tens of millions of people, and pubmed lists over one thousand scientific papers documenting its effects.

If thirteen years, over one thousand papers and millions of people is "inadequate testing", could you please explain what you believe is adequate testing, and the medical grounds for your belief.

pH

onq wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246370/Drug-firms-drove-swine-flu-pandemic-warning-recoup-billions-spent-research.html#ixzz0dmDYqfcR

And here's a list of all the things the Daily Mail say will give you cancer, your point is?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=269512464297&ref=nf

Try to provide links that back up factually the claims you're making, links to other people who are expressing the same opinion as you don't add a lot.

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So what part of the Tamiflu treatment is not tested?
Who says it's not tested?

Its not adequately tested - don't paraphrase my words.

Do you still stand by your claim that tamiflu is a "Cocktail of drugs containing known toxic substances"?

Did I claim that?

And didn't you say that GWS wasn't a disease?

Nope.

Also you've yet to show a single source that ever defined a pandemic depending on a death rate.

Shocking that people would worry about something that isn't fatal.

Looks like the media are using crappy science reporting like they always do.

We agree on something, but not for the same reasons.

ONQ.

onq

pH wrote: »

And here's a list of all the things the Daily Mail say will give you cancer, your point is?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=269512464297&ref=nf

Try to provide links that back up factually the claims you're making, links to other people who are expressing the same opinion as you don't add a lot.

I thought skepticism trades on opinions.

ONQ.

onq

robindch wrote: »

Regardless of that, all you've produced so far is allegations of a conspiracy. You have failed to produce names, or documents, or bank transfer details, or indeed any evidence of any kind which substantiates your serious allegation that the WHO is in the pay of the drug companies.

This isn't a court of law, its a skeptics forum...:rolleyes:

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

Its not adequately tested - don't paraphrase my words.

Then which bit exactly isn't adequately tested?
What's inadequate about the testing that has been done.

I ask but I doubt you're going to answer any straight forward questions.

onq wrote: »

Did I claim that?

Yep.

onq wrote: »

This time it may be inadequately tested cocktails of drugs containing known toxic substances instead of securitized sub-prime loans,

But you've moved the goalposts so much it's probably hard for you to keep up with yourself.

onq wrote: »

Nope.

Again tripping over yourself.

onq wrote: »

No. I never said it was a disease.
Read the post and stop putting words in my mouth.
<snip>

ONQ.

onq wrote: »

Shocking that people would worry about something that isn't fatal.

Swine flu is fatal. And it causes serious illness.
This is included in the definitions of a pandemic both now and in 1999.
It has never depended on a huge death rate.

You've claim that it was and that the WHO changed it.
Can you produce one single official WHO document that defines a pandemic on
death rate?

Chances are you're just going back to that one line on the website that conspiracy nuts and bad reporters go to.

onq wrote: »

We agree on something, but not for the same reasons.

ONQ.

No not really. You think there a big elaborate conspiracy behind it.

And again I come back to the same question.
How is the media going on about how the swine flu will kill us all any different to you yammering on about a big unprovable conspiracy?

onq wrote: »

I thought skepticism trades on opinions.

Nope.
Facts and evidence.

pH

onq wrote: »

I thought skepticism trades on opinions.

ONQ.

Isn't there a quote that goes "Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one" or something.

Opinions are pretty much irrelevant, anyway, one of your posts above hinted that Mexico (being all "Latin American") couldn't possibly have detected a new strain of flu (and anyway if they did no one would care) - so are you going to elaborate? You claiming that the flu doesn't exist at all or that it was deliberately started in Mexico (where the WHO could find it)?

robindch

onq wrote: »

This isn't a court of law, its a skeptics forum.

Are you saying that evidence isn't important?

Anyhow, as you've now avoided the question three times, I'm going to ask it again:

Oseltamivir phosphate -- the active ingredient in Tamiflu -- has been tested in open and closed trials for thirteen years, has been taken by tens of millions of people, and pubmed lists over one thousand scientific papers documenting its effects.

If thirteen years, over one thousand papers and millions of people is "inadequate testing", could you please explain what you believe is adequate testing, and the medical grounds for your belief.

I look forward to a straight answer to a straight question.

onq

You cannot claim you've tested a combination of treatments because one element in one of them has been tested.

You have to test the mixture in the prescribed doses, with all the other elements included.

The Gulf Ware showed that while individual treatments could give known side effects within a range of outcomes, the combination of treatments produced a deleterious effect.

ONQ.

Turtwig

onq wrote: »

The Gulf Ware showed that while individual treatments could give known side effects within a range of outcomes, the combination of treatments produced a deleterious effect.

Just curious, are you familiar with a poster known as JC?:D

King Mob

onq wrote: »

You cannot claim you've tested a combination of treatments because one element in one of them has been tested.

You have to test the mixture in the prescribed doses, with all the other elements included.

So what is the mixture of the Tamiflu treatment exactly?
Is it tamiflu?
What other elements are you refering to?

Is it possible that in the 13+ years of using and testing tamiflu they tested in combination with other drugs?

Why do you keep claiming this mixture of treatments (if it even exists) is untested anyway?
What basis other than your own insistence do you have to back it up?

onq wrote: »

The Gulf Ware showed that while individual treatments could give known side effects within a range of outcomes, the combination of treatments produced a deleterious effect.

ONQ.

Firstly, GWS is not really accepted as a real singular disease.
Second, noone has ever been able to show any possible cause for the wide range of reported symptoms in any scientific study.

How exactly do you know that GWS was caused by a combination of treatments?
And which treatments exactly?

And any chance you'll address my other points?

onq

King Mob wrote: »

<snip>

And any chance you'll address my other points?

What points?

You mean those unfounded assertions and questions you keep posting masquerading as points?

Nope, not really.

ONQ.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

What points?

You mean those unfounded assertions and questions you keep posting masquerading as points?

Nope, not really.

ONQ.

Yea, making unfounded assertions is a pretty bad thing to do.
You gonna back up your assertions?

Any assertions I make, I backed up with quotes from your own posts.

And why can't you answer my questions?

onq

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, making unfounded assertions is a pretty bad thing to do.
You gonna back up your assertions?

Any assertions I make, I backed up with quotes from your own posts.

And why can't you answer my questions?

My assertions were founded on reports you dissed without proof - another pretty bad thing to do.

Your assertions misinterpret my posts - I've tried to explain, but you don't seem to understand.

There's only so much one can do.

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

You cannot claim you've tested a combination of treatments because one element in one of them has been tested.

The active ingredient has been tested millions of times and examined in papers over one thousand times.

What do you believe has never been tested? And what are your medical grounds for claiming that this absence renders the entire body of evidence useless?

onq

King Mob wrote: »

So what is the mixture of the Tamiflu treatment exactly?

We don't know - I think that's the point.

Is it tamiflu?

W-e d-o-n-t k-n-o-w. . .

What other elements are you refering to?

The other elements Tamiflu was served up with

Is it possible that in the 13+ years of using and testing tamiflu they tested in combination with other drugs?

Anything is possible, but did they? W-e d-o-n-t k-n-o-w. . .

Why do you keep claiming this mixture of treatments (if it even exists) is untested anyway?
What basis other than your own insistence do you have to back it up?

I never said it was untested, I said it was inadequately tested - there you go again, putting words in my mouth.
This from the guy who claims his assertions are backed up with my posts. If you cannot quote accurately from my posts your arguments will be inherently flawed.

Firstly, GWS is not really accepted as a real singular disease.

That's possibly why its called Gulf War Syndrome, as opposed to Gulf War Disease...

Second, noone has ever been able to show any possible cause for the wide range of reported symptoms in any scientific study.

How do you show a possible cause is to blame - read my comment above - anything is possible.

How exactly do you know that GWS was caused by a combination of treatments?
And which treatments exactly?

Well that's the core difficulty with medical research including research on the side effects or unwanted effects of treatments, vaccines or drugs - it can be impossible to determine a causal link, only a statistical one.

You should be able to infer from this the necessity to conduct widespread clinical trials of a drug, vaccine, treatment or combination of treatments before release.

And any chance you-<snip>

Let's see if you understand what I wrote above before we move on, shall we?

ONQ.

onq

robindch wrote: »

The active ingredient has been tested millions of times and examined in papers over one thousand times.

What do you believe has never been tested? And what are your medical grounds for claiming that this absence renders the entire body of evidence useless?

I didn't claim that - you are putting words in my mouth - does no-one in this forum know how to quote people accurately without misinterpretation?

I - quite specifically and on several occassions now - stated that the treatment was inadequately tested, the treatment being Tamiflu and another product.

Gulf War Syndrome showed the dangers of not testing drugs in combination to determine the effects of them on the human body.

I am surprised at the lack of understanding on this, of all forums, of this point.

ONQ.

robindch

onq wrote: »

I - quite specifically and on several occassions now - stated that the treatment was inadequately tested, the treatment being Tamiflu and another product.

Yes, and several times, I've asked you to substantiate that claim. So far, you haven't.

Are you agreeing that the active agent in Tamiflu has been adequately tested? And that your issue, therefore, is not with the active agent, but with the other compounds present in a normal Tamiflu dosage?

If so, then please explain what else is in Tamiflu that you're unhappy with, and the medical reasons -- supported in the scientific literature -- for your unhappiness.

King Mob

onq wrote: »

My assertions were founded on reports you dissed without proof - another pretty bad thing to do.

No some of your assertions where based on bad reports from a bad site.
Most of your assertions are based on your own insistence.

onq wrote: »

Your assertions misinterpret my posts - I've tried to explain, but you don't seem to understand.

There's only so much one can do.

ONQ.

So did you or did you not claim that the Tamiflu treatment was a cocktail of toxic chemicals?
Did you or did you not call GWS a disease?

It's hard to misrepresent something when I'm actually quoting in the post.

onq wrote: »

We don't know - I think that's the point.
W-e d-o-n-t k-n-o-w. . .
The other elements Tamiflu was served up with
Anything is possible, but did they? W-e d-o-n-t k-n-o-w. . .

So you don't know what's in tamiflu, but you claim that it contains "known toxic substances"?
How does that work?

How do you know that in the thirteen years of use and testing of tamiflu, they didn't test it with other ingredients?

And again can you actually back up your insistance of "inadequate testing" with something other than your own incredulity?

onq wrote: »

I never said it was untested, I said it was inadequately tested - there you go again, putting words in my mouth.
This from the guy who claims his assertions are backed up with my posts. If you cannot quote accurately from my posts your arguments will be inherently flawed.

So rather than answer the question you want to quibble about semantics?
That's what we call dodging the question.

onq wrote: »

That's possibly why its called Gulf War Syndrome, as opposed to Gulf War Disease...

Yay more semantics and more dodging the issue.
GWS is not completely recognised as a single condition.

onq wrote: »

How do you show a possible cause is to blame - read my comment above - anything is possible.

Well then since anything is possible, believing in silly conspiracy theories gives you GWS.
Anything is possible right?

Except you're didn't claim it was just "possible" you claimed it was the cause.
Can you actually back this up with anything resembling scientific evidence?

onq wrote: »

Well that's the core difficulty with medical research including research on the side effects or unwanted effects of treatments, vaccines or drugs - it can be impossible to determine a causal link, only a statistical one.

But you're claiming that there are side effects to mixing treatments.
How do you know that it was caused by this?
And what has this to do with tamiflu.

onq wrote: »

You should be able to infer from this the necessity to conduct widespread clinical trials of a drug, vaccine, treatment or combination of treatments before release.

And there has been 13 years of testing on tamiflu.

So again to recap, not only are you claiming a vast unprovable conspiracy, you are claiming that tamiflu might dangerous based nothing but your own bias.
How is this any different to what you think the government does?

King Mob

Oh and here's the ingredient list for the tamiflu tablets.
It took all of five minutes looking on the website to find, which indicates exactly how much research you did before you made your claims ONQ.

http://www.gene.com/gene/products/information/tamiflu/pdf/pi.pdf

It even includes the ink on the tablet.

So can you point out with ingredient is inadequately tested?
Can you point out the "Known toxic chemicals"?

Turtwig

King Mob wrote: »

So can you point out with ingredient is inadequately tested?
Can you point out the "Known toxic chemicals"?

Actually what onq has to do is explain why any ingredient, when consider mixed with every other ingredient, in Tamiflu leads to an overall toxic result in the final product. You can still have toxic chemicals in a concoction but they might actually implement no harm. Cyanide in wine is an example that springs to mind.

King Mob

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually what onq has to do is explain why any ingredient, when consider mixed with every other ingredient, in Tamiflu leads to an overall toxic result in the final product. You can still have toxic chemicals in a concoction but they might actually implement no harm. Cyanide in wine is an example that springs to mind.

Well toxic is a funny word.
Anything is toxic in the right dosage, water for example.
Or the fact that eating 22 bananas at once will give you potassium poisoning.
Or the fact that a tin of tuna contains more mercury that a single vaccine, yet the cranks say vaccines are the dangerous ones.

I was more trying to point out the fact that ONQ claimed in his first post that tamiflu contained "known toxic chemicals" but then in his last post said (repeatedly) that he didn't know what was in the tablets.

robindch

Looks like the ball is firmly in onq's court.

pH

robindch wrote: »

Looks like the ball is firmly in onq's court.

Except, to continue the tennis metaphor, CTs such as onq don't like just one ball in play, they serve a scatter-gun of "points", ignore any that are returned and call aces on the rest.

Diving into this one thread has reminded me how pointless it is arguing them, it's really easy to invent things, much harder to check facts and refute them, so it's like a tennis game where the CT always serves and can serve as many balls as they want, with any one not returned being a win.