« Exaggeration on stilts | Main | A dirty deal? »

June 04, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



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.

דומיין בעברית

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.

keylogger for Mac

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.


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. . .”

Ralph S

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!

Air Jordan 13

Each moment in history is a fleeting time , precious and unique .

new balance

Success covers a multitude of blunders.


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

Paul Flynn

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.


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


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.

Paul Flynn

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.

Chris Carter

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!

The comments to this entry are closed.