At the risk of boring regular readers rigid, I must return to swine flu. Today I presented my report to the Council of Europe's Health Committee. Through the wonders of modern publicity large chunks of what I said is now available on video on the Council of Europe site. Had I known that beforehand, I might have better organised my rambling rant. There is a great temptation to over simplify remarks when they are being translated into several other languages.
I wonder how 'mass placebo therapy' or 'exaggeration on stilts' translates into Turkish and Russian? The debates do seem to work but I'm not always certain that we are all agreeing on the same meanings.
One of the joys today was giving evidence with the editor of the splendid British Medical Journal. We have never met before but we cooed in harmony and just avoided saying it was the Pharmas that did it.The BMJ, in a joint investigation with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, found that three scientists involved in putting together the 2004 guidance had previously been paid by Roche or GSK for lecturing and consultancy work as well as being involved in research for the companies.
The Council of Eurpe website carries this story and video today.
PACE Health Committee denounces ‘unjustified scare’ of Swine Flu, waste of public money
Strasbourg, 04.06.2010 – The handling of the H1N1 pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), EU agencies and national governments led to a “waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public”, according to a report by the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) made public today in Paris.
The report, prepared by Paul Flynn (United Kingdom, SOC) and approved today by the committee ahead of a plenary debate at the end of this month, says there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO”, resulting in a distortion of public health priorities.
Presenting his report, Mr Flynn told the committee: “this was a pandemic that never really was”, and described the vaccination programme as “placebo medicine on a large scale” (see video below).
In its adopted text, the committee identifies what it calls “grave shortcomings” in the transparency of decision-making about the outbreak, generating concerns about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on decisions taken. Plummeting confidence in such advice could prove “disastrous” in the case of a severe future pandemic, it warns.
In particular, the WHO and European health institutions were not willing to publish the names and declarations of interest of the members of the WHO Emergency Committee and relevant European advisory bodies directly involved in recommendations concerning the pandemic, the parliamentarians point out.
However, attending the meeting was Fiona Godlee, the Editor-in-Chief of the British Medical Journal, who told the parliamentarians that, according to an investigation by her journal, scientists who drew up key WHO guidelines on stockpiling flu vaccines had previously been paid by drug companies which stood to profit.
The WHO has been “highly defensive”, the committee said, and unwilling to accept that a change in the definition of a pandemic was made, or to revise its prognosis of the Swine Flu outbreak.
The committee sets out a series of urgent recommendations for greater transparency and better governance in public health, as well as safeguards against what it calls “undue influence by vested interests”. It also calls for a public fund to support independent research, trials and expert advice, possibly financed by an obligatory contribution of the pharmaceutical industry, as well as closer collaboration with the media to avoid “sensationalism and scaremongering in the public health domain”.
The report is due to be debated by parliamentarians from all 47 Council of Europe member states on Thursday 24 June during PACE’s summer session in Strasbourg.
The Daily Mail Reports
By FIONA MACRAE swine flu pandemic was a 'monumental error', driven by profit-hungry drug companies spreading fear, an influential report has concluded. It led to huge amounts of taxpayers' money being wasted in stockpiling vaccines, it added. Paul Flynn, the Labour MP charged with investigating the handling of the swine flu outbreak for the Council of Europe, described it as 'a pandemic that never really was'. The report accuses the World Health Organisation of grave shortcomings in the transparency of the process that led to its warning last year. The MP said that the world relied on the WHO, but after 'crying wolf', its reputation was in jeopardy. The report questions whether the pandemic was driven by drug companies seeking a profit. Mr Flynn said predictions of a 'plague' that would wipe out up to 7.5million people proved to be 'an exaggeration', with fewer than 20,000 deaths worldwide.The pandemic that never was: Drug firms 'encouraged world health body to exaggerate swine flu threat'
Last updated at 11:49 PM on 4th June 201
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284133/The-pandemic-Drug-firms-encouraged-world-health-body-exaggerate-swine-flu-threat.html#ixzz0px4N7GjX
Widespread warnings were issued about the swine flu 'pandemic'
Declaring a swine flu pandemic was a 'monumental error', driven by profit-hungry drug companies spreading fear, an influential report has concluded.
It led to huge amounts of taxpayers' money being wasted in stockpiling vaccines, it added.
Paul Flynn, the Labour MP charged with investigating the handling of the swine flu outbreak for the Council of Europe, described it as 'a pandemic that never really was'.
The report accuses the World Health Organisation of grave shortcomings in the transparency of the process that led to its warning last year.
The MP said that the world relied on the WHO, but after 'crying wolf', its reputation was in jeopardy.
The report questions whether the pandemic was driven by drug companies seeking a profit. Mr Flynn said predictions of a 'plague' that would wipe out up to 7.5million people proved to be 'an exaggeration', with fewer than 20,000 deaths worldwide.
Britain braced itself for up to 65,000 deaths and signed vaccine contracts worth £540million.
The actual number of deaths was fewer than 500 and the country is now desperately trying to unpick the contracts and unload millions of unused jabs.
The focus on swine flu also led to other health services suffering and widespread public fear.
Pharmaceutical companies, however, profited to the tune of £4.6billion from the sale of vaccines alone.
Mr Flynn said: 'There is not much doubt that this was an exaggeration on stilts. They vastly over-stated the danger on bad science and the national governments were in a position where they had to take action.
'In Britain, we have spent at least £1billion on preparations, to the detriment of other parts of the health system. This is a monumental failure on the WHO's part.'
The Council of Europe inquiry heard allegations that the WHO had downgraded its definition for declaring a pandemic last spring - just weeks before announcing there was a worldwide outbreak.
Critics said the decision to remove any need to consider the deadliness of the disease was driven by drug companies desperate to recoup the billions of pounds they had invested in developing pandemic vaccines after the bird flu scares.
But the WHO said its basic definition of a pandemic never changed.
Mr Flynn said: 'It doesn't make any sense as to why they should have changed the definition a month before declaring an outbreak.
'In this case, it might not just be a conspiracy theory, it might be a very profitable conspiracy.'
A Daily Mail investigation earlier this year revealed more than half of the swine flu taskforce advising the Government on its strategy had ties to drug companies.
Eleven of the 20 members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies had done work for the pharmaceutical industry or are linked to it through their universities.
Concerns about drug companies' influence are also highlighted by a separate investigation by the British Medical Journal and the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
It found that key scientists behind the WHO's advice on stockpiling pandemic flu pills such as Tamiflu had financial ties with the drug companies that stood to profit. The WHO last night firmly rejected all the criticism.
Spokesman Gregory Hartl said: 'There is no question of this being a fake pandemic. If fits the criteria for a pandemic, which is a new virus to which human beings have little or no immunity and which has spread around the world.
'It spread from zero to 74 countries in the space of 9 weeks - that's a pandemic.'
He said that not all ties to drug companies were necessarily conflicts of interest.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284133/The-pandemic-Drug-firms-encouraged-world-health-body-exaggerate-swine-flu-threat.html#ixzz0px1LViYZ
[URL=http://maikisenpbarni.mega-strip.ru/catalog-internet-prikoli/itemid401.html][IMG]http://www.v-kontakte-vhod.ru/templates/cmsdle/images/vkontakte-vhod.png[/IMG][/URL]
онлайн магазин футболки купить футболки сборной хорватии. футболки esquire, [url=http://maikifisdiadis.goldenshara.net/catalog-samie-luchshie/itemid334.html]улътрафиолет футболки[/url]. футболки в обтяжку заказать обтягивающюю футболку tecktonik.
котопес парные футболки, футболка как у гейма. интернет магазин футболки адидас, [url=http://maikitaisectiura.javafaq.nu/catalog-igri/itemid182.html]футболки которые светятся в ультра фиолете[/url]. где купить майку halfe-life 2, destroy pop футболки.
футболка street, футболка пистолет. red fort футболки москва, [url=http://t-shirtscrosemop.netkom.ru/catalog-prikolnie-risunki/itemid128.html]яркие забавные футболки[/url]. надписи на футболки армия, каталог модных футболок.
печать на футболках в перово, футболки ьфксёщ зщдщ. футболка цск, [url=http://tshirtsneba.netkom.ru/catalog-antibrend/itemid395.html]цены от armani футболки[/url]. футболки х/б ставрополь купить футболку ливерпуль.
футболки мозилла, купить майку с рисункам л2. футболка сибирь, [url=http://t-shirtssimin.netkom.ru/catalog-politicheskie/itemid534.html]косово это сербия футболка[/url]. модные футболки купить вязаные футболки.
Posted by: Futbolkimaikiv | August 04, 2011 at 02:40 PM
A pandemic of swine flu was a monumental error; led by profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies who fear an influential report has concluded. This is great stuff.
Posted by: דומיין בעברית | July 28, 2011 at 05:52 AM
Thanks, Mister Relph, that's very useful information for me that I have not had before. I will try to put it to good use.
Posted by: keylogger for Mac | May 06, 2011 at 03:03 AM
November 2010
“Medicine has got it seriously wrong about flu viruses.. . .they are rarely fatal. It’s what happens next that is the problem. Researchers have discovered that secondary, bacterial infections are far more likely to be fatal, and account for the majority of deaths associated with flu viruses . . . In an analysis of the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918 . . . researchers have discovered that most deaths were caused by bacterial infections, such as pneumonia . . .The same pattern can be seen today, say the researchers from the US’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Of the deaths recorded in the recent swine flu (H1N1) outbreak, around 55% were caused by a secondary bacterial infection . . .” (Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2010;doi:10.1086/657144)
This brings to mind the book “The Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza” (Benchmark Homeopathic Publications, USA) written by J Perko, PhD, CCN, in which Ms Perko reports that during the influenza epidemic of 1918, the only really effective treatment (and the medical establishment will hate this) was homeopathy. Homeopathic treatment had a mortality rate near zero for experienced prescribers, compared to the 30-50 million deaths where aspirin was the most common medicine. At present it is my belief that the treatment options for a future flu epidemic are not much greater than in 1918.
And so to the Codex Alimentarus. Codex began when the UN authorized the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization to develop a universal food code. Their purpose was to 'harmonize' regulations for dietary supplements worldwide and set international safety standards (note those words) for the purposes of increased trade. Pharmaceutical interests stepped in and began exerting their influence. Instead of focusing on food safety, Codex is using its power to promote worldwide restrictions on vitamins and food supplements, severely limiting their availability and dosages.
While the stated goal of Codex is to establish unilateral regulations for dietary supplements in every country, the actual goal is to outlaw health products and information on vitamins and dietary supplements, except those under their direct control. See The Natural Health Information Centre website www.natural-health-information-centre.com/codex-alimentarius.html.
Some of us know a little about drugs companies. In my opinion, some of them lie and falsify. How safe is that? When they are sometimes found out, they may pay a heavy fine, whine about the cost of ‘research’, and go on to the next line of attack on the sick. There have been “recent disclosures that most studies in the medical literature are marketing dressed up as research” said Joanna Evans on the website “What Doctors Don’t Tell You’ (http://community.wddty.com/blogs/lynnemctaggart/archive/2010/11/02/Ghostly-medicine.aspx). She continues; “For as many as 90,000 published drug trials, a drug company hired a PR firm – a ‘medical education and communication company’ (MECC) – to carry out its clinical trials, engaged a ‘ghost’ to write an article with a positive spin, enlisted a prominent academic to put his name to the paper he’s had nothing to do with – and then succeeded in getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal. This widespread action came to light a few months ago during the discovery process of a class-action lawsuit against drug manufacturer Wyeth by 14,000 women who developed breast cancer . . . A few months later the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, which produces evidence-based consumer-health information, encountered ‘serious obstacles’ in trying to wrest all sponsored published and unpublished studies from Pfizer on its antidepressant reboxetine. Eventually, it emerged that the company had withheld three-quarters of its patient data from unpublished trials. After these hidden data were finally handed over, the Institute concluded that the drug was ‘overall an ineffective and potentially harmful antidepressant’. Safety standards? Ms Evans further says that “These disclosures undermine the entire edifice of modern medicine. The British Medical Journal now plans to encourage efforts to ‘re-evaluate the integrity of the existing base of research evidence’ – in other words, virtually the whole of existing medical research needs to be done all over again.’” We must not forget the thousands more animals who will be used and abused in this process.
Another recent example of ‘safety standards’: Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) knowingly sold adulterated drugs, including its popular Paxil antidepressant, for six years. GSK allowed millions of its drugs onto the market between 2001 and 2005 that either were contaminated with microorganisms or had no therapeutic value. Aside from Paxil, the other contaminated drugs were Bactroban, an ointment for skin infections, and an anti-nausea drug, Kytril. GSK was fined $750m.
Then we come to the bodies (apparently dead to the general public) who are supposed to oversee good practise in bringing safe drugs to the market – us. The Home Office, NICE, MCA, SGA, FDA etc. Are these institutions not supposed to safeguard the public against such scams as have been instanced above? If THEY cannot do so, why should the public have any confidence whatsoever in any further institution/s imposed from above? I’ll tell you why not: because most of these bodies, if not all, are heavily influenced by the very drugs companies they ought to be wary of. A Daily Mail investigation earlier this year revealed more than half of the swine flu taskforce advising the Government on its strategy had ties to drugs companies. Eleven of the 20 members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies had done work for the pharmaceutical industry or are linked to it through their universities. The Government’s Medicine Control Agency, who act for the pharmaceutical industry, is trying to ban supplements on the grounds of ‘public safety’. Yes, I know. It is unbelievable.
MEPs have received many millions of protests against the European Parliament’s arrogant restriction of our right to health supplements of our choice. But, for example, on 13 March 2002 the majority of MEPs (supposed representatives of the people) voted for that very restriction. Why did they so vote? I believe it was because there are twice as many pharmaceutical-paid lobbyists in the European set-up as there are MEPs. Influence, influence, nod, wink, etc. The UK’s Medicines Control Agency’s deliberations are, as far as I know, kept secret. No government minister or official can publish any information it finds out about a drug company or its research and, as Bryan Hubbard points out in his above-mentioned book, “ . . .This extraordinary state of affairs, the most extreme protection enjoyed by any industry group is enshrined in Section 118 of the 1968 Medicines Act, a section originally designed to protect commercial secrets, but which is used as a blanket ban on all information, including that which the public should have the right to know. It ‘protects’ the public from knowing about adverse drug reactions, deaths caused by the drug or even the types of drugs, good or bad.” Under the Freedom of Information Act in the USA, the FDA can disclose over 90% of its records (so I’m told). But apparently even such possible disclosure has had no effect on preventing the scams mentioned above. So something isn’t working.
Remember ‘safety standards’? I come to the villainy of clinical trials. It is rare for clinical trials to include children, pregnant women and the elderly. It is usually healthy young students who try out drugs which may eventually only be taken by the elderly, or children, for example. There do not appear to be any specific requirements laid down for clinical trials – how many people should be involved, should it be a ‘double-blind’ or not, and so on. Quoting from the book ‘Secrets of the Drugs Industry’ by Bryan Hubbard (What Doctors Don’t Tell You publication, 2002): “Sir William Asscher, former Chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, in a private meeting, said: ‘ . . . by the time a drug is licensed, we really know very little in the case of a new chemical entity about its possible risks.’ Despite this knowledge gap, the Medicines Control Agency prides itself on being the fastest regulator in Europe, granting a licence on average within 70 days, so making Britons the world’s guinea pigs.” And quoting from the same book, here are some more ‘safety standards’ for you:
“One early-stage trial, involving a group of university students, was for a drug laced with an industrial pollutant. Unfortunately, none of the students had been told of the deadly cocktail in the drug, nor were they told that the manufacturer was already being sued over the safety of the drug they were being asked to test. In another study, a cancer research centre in America recruited volunteers to test a new drug. The doctors involved failed to tell the recruits that previous volunteers had died while testing the drug, and that they had a direct financial interest in the success of the drug (Lancet, 2002; 359:1167). . . .In another test, this time on a diabetes drug, the manufacturer hid data showing that the drug could cause liver failure. The drug was therefore granted a licence, but was withdrawn when it was suspected of causing the deaths of 391 patients . . .”
What conclusions may we come to? In my opinion, the answer is very simple: most safety standards are merely nominal; there is little transparency; there is much greed; the drugs companies via the EU are taking away our freedoms piece by piece; homeopathic medicine has been tried and tested for hundreds of years, is safe, and has proved its worth, especially regarding pandemic flu – people want to use this form of medication freely; pharmaceutical corporations and ‘safety standards’, is an oxymoron; and all the institutions, corporations and other bodies concerned with pharmaceuticals regard ‘outsiders’ as of little account, so these organisations do as they please. The arrogance of the WHO in not accepting any criticism of its panic measures and advice regarding its flu ‘epidemic’ is, I think characteristic of its high-handed know-it-all manner. I believe it holds the general public in contempt. Maybe the feeling is mutual.
To have truly publicly endorsed safety standards and 'harmonization', banish for ever lobbyists from the EU and WHO, for a start. Lobbyists are a pernicious evil, in my opinion.
I will end with a few of the comments of Denis Rancourt, PhD from his website
The ‘Medicine is Health’ Lie
“We’ve all heard some MD (medical doctor) interviewed on the radio gratuitously make the bold proposal that life expectancy has increased thanks to modern medicine. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“Life expectancy has increased in First World countries thanks to a historical absence of civil and territorial wars, better and more accessible food, less work and non-work accidents, and better overall living and working conditions. The single strongest indicator of personal health within and between countries is economy status, irrespective of access to medical technology and pharmaceuticals.
“It’s worse than that because medicine actually has a negative impact on health. Medical errors (not counting misattributed deaths from correctly administered “treatments”) are the third leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease and cancer, and there is a large gap between this conservative underestimate in the number of medical error deaths and the fourth leading cause of death
. . .
“One of the most dangerous places in society is the hospital. Medical errors include misdiagnoses, bad prescriptions, prescriptions of medications that should not be combined, unnecessary surgery, unnecessary or badly administered treatments including chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and corrective surgeries.
“The lie extends to the myth that MDs anywhere near understand the human body. And this well guarded lie encourages us to put our faith in doctors, thereby opening the door to a well orchestrated profit bonanza for big pharma. . .”
Posted by: Torvus | November 08, 2010 at 12:07 AM
But what does all this boil down to? Is it only WHO that is to blame? What about EU members' Health Administrations? In France, run by a former Drug Company Rep... Small wonder then that when the famous contracts were cancelled, Pharma still walked away with 48M€ penalties for the cancellations. Not bad for them... Win or lose, they win. What has come of all this noise that was made? What will be better in the future? As previously mentioned, within France the regulations are not always respected. And what can the consumer do about it? My complaint is vet medicine, which is sold often with Client Information Sheets which are seemingly deliberately inaccurate, apparently to hide the dangers of certain products. Then, if you are unlucky enough to fall into the trap and become a victim, well tough luck, or set yourself out on years of legal / administrative wrangling. Where has consumer protection gone? Worse is pretending that we have it when we don't, so consumers will trust when trust is the last thing to do. Take the current lawsuit on silicon implants. The regulatory body approved these despite the fact it should not have, according to the rules. Now, this regulatory body is facing a lawsuit for failing in its oversight role. But all this after-the-fact should not be necessary. The consumer should be protected as pretended, before any accidents or tragedies happen. And if this isn't the case, whether in France or any other EU member state, then what needs to be done to ensure that the consumer IS protected, no??? Mister Flynn, great hopes are placed on you. You picked up the ball to run with it, please don't fumble or let it fall and be forgotten now!
Posted by: Ralph S | October 20, 2010 at 06:54 AM
Each moment in history is a fleeting time , precious and unique .
Posted by: Air Jordan 13 | October 19, 2010 at 01:34 AM
Success covers a multitude of blunders.
Posted by: new balance | October 15, 2010 at 07:43 AM
Mr Flynn,
It was gratifying to have your expression of interest in our problems with vet meds in France. I am in touch with a small local group which is trying to raise the issue, but with no help from the proper French authorities, as previously indicated. I'm sure they will be pleased to send you the file they have put together.
I don't know what action you may be contemplating, but a moments reflection will perhaps convince you that the French, by and large a nation of pet-lovers, will support moves to deal with dangerous vet drugs made even more dangerous by vet and pharma labs' unwillingness to inform, or plain vet ignorance about meds prescribed.
I think the H1N1 vaccine is just the tip of an iceberg which includes both human and pet meds. An overhaul in both areas is long overdue.
Do keep us advised of what you are doing in this regard. If we can be useful here, on the ground, it will be our pleasure.
Mister Ralph
Posted by: Anon | August 05, 2010 at 02:53 PM
Thanks, Mister Relph, that's very useful information for me that I have not had before. I will try to put it to good use.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | June 27, 2010 at 10:29 AM
The country where I am resident --France-- had none of their CoE reps signatory to the call for this investigation. I wonder why? The mountain the big pharma labs made out of the swine flu molehill is a flagrant example of what these labs are really all about. There are other examples, too, of course. The French found out in the recent fiasco that their Health Minister is a former lab rep! That (people finding out where she was coming from) didn't stop her from signing contracts for the vaccine, now translated into a tidy 48M€ penalty for subsequently cancelling these orders, when the promised pandemic did not materialize. The labs and their 'friends' are getting bolder and bolder! One area of personal interest is veterinary medicine, where the big labs don't need to do R&D, and are just repackaging human medicine for animals. Does this lead to better health for pets here, as well are greater profits for the labs? Forget it! Such killers as Rimadyl (a Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatory which had to be pulled from human medicine it was so deadly) and ketoconazole (Nizoral - a liver-toxic antifungal) are sold for animals w/o any warning about possible adverse effects and the symptoms to watch for (even though this is the law, and a Client Information Sheet is provided-- these just don't always tell the truth, as in the cases referred to-- which in any other industry would be call false advertising!). When an 'accident' occurs, it is easily chalked up to some other so-called 'pre-existing illness', even when it is clearly not. All the medical corps falls into line with this official brushoff (you would have to see this misguided 'solidarity' in action, to believe it!) and the public remains victimized and out cold as to responsibility. All so that the selling, and the accidents, can continue... Up yours, Mr Consumer! This may be happening in other EU countries, too, so vet meds and the way the labs market them also urgently need investigation. What say you, Mr Flynn?? We've had a peek under the rug and now it's too late to pretend we haven't really seen the dirt that we have seen...
(signed) Mister Ralph
Posted by: Abner | June 26, 2010 at 06:49 PM
The media panicked everyone up about swine flu and urged everyone to have a vaccination, but insisted that medical staff MUST have one. One nurse who refused I believe lost her job. I absolutely refused to go along with it, and a surprising number of people were sceptical, though quite a few got the jab, silly muffins. It is gratifying to see it mentioned more and more – the lobbying and financial and placement power of drugs companies to affect political and medical judgements. But why so slow to take action on this? Why so helpless? So easy to set up committees and deciding bodies yet so difficult to dislodge them or people within them? And how can these people remain anonymous? If initial action to establish agencies (eg WHO) was taken for the sake of helping suffering humanity, then apparently sod suffering humanity when it comes to keeping these same agencies in line when they are obviously on the make and/or sending out incorrect information. Yep - the next time the WHO or similar bodies cry wolf, who the hell is going to take any notice? Perhaps only governments who can't see a hoodwink if it bit them on the nose. The power of drugs companies MUST be strongly reined back and/or they ought to have their activities made very public - eg their financial cost to us, taxpayers, plus their financial political allegiances. We can then see who these leeches support and vice versa.
Posted by: Torvus | June 07, 2010 at 10:53 PM
It's amazing Chris. This is a major news item throughout Europe and many other parts of the world. Al Jazeera had a satellite truck outside our Friday meeting all day in Paris on Friday. Canada is following the issue closely. In Britain, it's been mainly the Daily Mail. They have been very good on this being justifiably cynical throughout.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | June 07, 2010 at 08:35 AM
I'm surprised noone is commenting on these shocking investigations, this pandemic frightened many, but should it turn out these were profit-driven fears, then I say punish the culprites accordingly!
Posted by: Chris Carter | June 05, 2010 at 02:00 PM