Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Head of the WHO says the whole H1N1 pandemic panic was because of the potential death, carnage and human suffering, not because of her links to pharmaceutical companies. Honest   (cbc.ca) divider line
    More: Unlikely, World Health Organization, Health and Human Services, Institute of Medicine, conflicts of interest, national governments, flu virus, pandemic, drug companies  
•       •       •

3831 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jun 2010 at 3:30 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



83 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-06-09 12:52:48 PM  
rgcred.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


Oh PFFFT. Like THESE guys know anything about pandemics.
 
2010-06-09 1:09:04 PM  
I don't know. Who?
 
2010-06-09 1:21:33 PM  
Queue all the keyboard scientists with no concept of how pandemics are prevented.
 
2010-06-09 1:49:29 PM  
Three scientists out of 22 who worked on the guidelines were named as having received some money from pharmaceuticals. The scientists did not work at the drug companies, but were paid for things like speaking at meetings sponsored by them.

*jerk off motion*

Excuse me while I fail to be impressed. And I'm very much attuned to conflicts of interest in medicine.
 
2010-06-09 1:54:05 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: Queue all the keyboard scientists with no concept of how pandemics are prevented.



By President Madagascar?
 
2010-06-09 2:14:50 PM  
WHAT?
 
2010-06-09 2:48:55 PM  

ne2d: WHAT?


2nd base
 
2010-06-09 3:15:32 PM  
So let's say there is a fake pandemic, who makes it up?
 
2010-06-09 3:33:17 PM  
YYYEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

/can't believe that wasn't done yet
 
2010-06-09 3:33:55 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: Queue all the keyboard scientists with no concept of how pandemics are prevented.


With magnets?
 
2010-06-09 3:35:25 PM  
WHO, me?
leconcombre.comView Full Size
 
2010-06-09 3:35:27 PM  

Makh: So let's say there is a fake pandemic, who makes it up?


Exactly.
 
2010-06-09 3:35:38 PM  
I know they sold each individual dose of vaccine for a loss, but think of all the volume profits!
 
2010-06-09 3:36:10 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: Queue all the keyboard scientists with no concept of how pandemics are prevented.


Shut...down...everything?

While admitting I know approximately nothing about public health, hindsight's always 20/20 with some people. If the WHO had said there was no cause for concern, take your vitamins, get lots of rest, and millions of people died or became seriously ill, many of the same people would biatch then, too.

Newsflash: not everything is perfectly predictable when it comes to medicine and health.
 
2010-06-09 3:39:14 PM  
farm4.static.flickr.comView Full Size


Well, money talks.
 
2010-06-09 3:39:40 PM  
*cough*
 
2010-06-09 3:39:52 PM  
Next we will learn that the Secretary of Defense has links to arms manufacturers!

I don't see an issue with the head of a disease prevention agency having contact with pharma suppliers per se. But don't let that spoil the conspiracy theory.
 
2010-06-09 3:41:27 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


What Who may look like
 
2010-06-09 3:41:40 PM  
Remember. If a pandemic is prevented, everyone goes "it was fake fear-mongering!" If a pandemic isn't prevented, everyone goes "why wasn't this prevented!"
 
2010-06-09 3:42:15 PM  

tnpir: Oh PFFFT. Like THESE guys know anything about pandemics.


This is exactly what I came in here for.
 
2010-06-09 3:42:33 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: Queue all the keyboard scientists with no concept of how pandemics are prevented.


Cue all of the idiots who thought they knew what they were talking about and telling everyone to get one NOT showing up in this thread and admitting it was a scam for a big company to make money.

What's funny is it'll be the liberals defending big pharma when they don't admit they were wrong.
 
2010-06-09 3:43:56 PM  
Who wants the first bite?

i282.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2010-06-09 3:44:04 PM  
conflicts of interest should be revealed, lest you pave the way for things just like this to come out.
 
2010-06-09 3:44:49 PM  
The world needs a good pandemic to wipe out the weak.
 
2010-06-09 3:45:22 PM  

ne2d: WHAT?


[image from premierproductions.ca too old to be available]
 
2010-06-09 3:46:36 PM  

pearls before swine: I know they sold each individual dose of vaccine for a loss, but think of all the volume profits!


Of course they did! They wanted to get X for them, but got only X-y for them instead. The cost is X/100, but since they didn't sell them for what they *wanted* to sell them for, they sold each one for a loss! I bet you believe everything accountants say. And they're second only to lawyers and just ahead of used-car salesmen when it comes to being "selectively truthful".
 
2010-06-09 3:49:31 PM  
It was probably a little of both. First of all if your whole life is spent studying epidemics and pandemics - well as the old saying goes "when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail." and the fact that such an event might be financially lucrative wouldn't get her second guessing the idea that it could be one.

They are in the health warning buisness. They look a little overly cautious since the H1N1 turned out to be nothing much but they'd have lost all credibility if it had been a major epidemic and they hadn't sounded the warnings.
 
2010-06-09 3:50:37 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Three scientists out of 22 who worked on the guidelines were named as having received some money from pharmaceuticals. The scientists did not work at the drug companies, but were paid for things like speaking at meetings sponsored by them.

*jerk off motion*

Excuse me while I fail to be impressed. And I'm very much attuned to conflicts of interest in medicine.


Exactly. It's been pointed out that very few scientists in this field have NOT got money from a pharma company at one time or another - so who should they have consulted, farmers?

I personally did not get the shot and think the whole thing was overblown, but this? Meh.
 
2010-06-09 3:54:15 PM  
 
2010-06-09 3:55:53 PM  
Here's the thing, if you're a leading expert in your field AND have ties with for-profit companies who have paid you in the past for speaking, consulting etc. then you better damn well disclose it up front.

I'm required to disclose ANY outside business activity to my company and have it documented on my U4 in order to prevent any conflicts of interest. This is required of me and I'm just insurance/securities licensed and work for a bank.

I don't think three members of a 22 member panel would make that big of a difference even if she was on the take. But hey what do I know?

/Both sides have thier panties in a bunch for no good reason
 
2010-06-09 3:57:02 PM  
"Village Spared from Deadly Storm" -The Shipping news (movie quote)
 
2010-06-09 3:58:03 PM  
It's called conflict of interest lady. Whether you did it despite your relationship to the drug companies or because of it doesn't matter because you were lying from a professional perspective just by omitting that little fact.

In a situation when there is a potential conflict of interest you first tell everyone the nature of the potential conflict, and second you then remove yourself from the decision making process for that particular subject.

That's the professional thing to do. If you have any remaining sense of professional ethics, you should now offer your resignation, along with an apology for letting things proceed without taking measures against the conflict of interest.

It doesn't matter if you don't give a crap about them, or your association with the company is merely on paper, the perception is everything. The fact that your decision could be influenced is enough.

I don't understand why people don't get this when it's drilled into their heads in manadatory ethics courses in University and in professional conduct standards in the various professional associations.
 
2010-06-09 4:01:40 PM  
At least we'll be spared another Destroy All Humans sequel.
 
2010-06-09 4:04:29 PM  

dusty15893: Here's the thing, if you're a leading expert in your field AND have ties with for-profit companies who have paid you in the past for speaking, consulting etc. then you better damn well disclose it up front.

I'm required to disclose ANY outside business activity to my company and have it documented on my U4 in order to prevent any conflicts of interest. This is required of me and I'm just insurance/securities licensed and work for a bank.

I don't think three members of a 22 member panel would make that big of a difference even if she was on the take. But hey what do I know?

/Both sides have thier panties in a bunch for no good reason


You're required to disclose outside business activity to your company because public corporations and banks have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

The reason you do so is so that your employer can make sure that you're not part of the decision making process for making a loan or other facility available to some business you have an interest in, so that it can be said that the bank dealt at arm's-length with its customers.

Here, the WHO panel members are accused, at most, of accepting speaking fees to give talks or lectures to employees of those companies. There just not enough there to make out a conflict of interest. If the panel members had a financial stake in those companies, sure, they should disclose. But without more, such as a suggestion that a panel member got paid a very generous fee for speaking at a conference, I don't think there's any indication of corruption. This is completely overblown.
 
2010-06-09 4:12:08 PM  

Ikahoshi: It's called conflict of interest lady. Whether you did it despite your relationship to the drug companies or because of it doesn't matter because you were lying from a professional perspective just by omitting that little fact.

In a situation when there is a potential conflict of interest you first tell everyone the nature of the potential conflict, and second you then remove yourself from the decision making process for that particular subject.

That's the professional thing to do. If you have any remaining sense of professional ethics, you should now offer your resignation, along with an apology for letting things proceed without taking measures against the conflict of interest.

It doesn't matter if you don't give a crap about them, or your association with the company is merely on paper, the perception is everything. The fact that your decision could be influenced is enough.

I don't understand why people don't get this when it's drilled into their heads in manadatory ethics courses in University and in professional conduct standards in the various professional associations.


Oh come on. You really think there's a real appearance of impropriety because some member of a panel gave a talk about viral mutations at an industry conference sponsored by a company that manufactures vaccines, and was compensated for her airfare and her time? Really?

And if the panel member had decided to disclose some conference five years prior out of an abundance of caution, and cynics had taken that to mean that we shouldn't listen to the WHO's recommendations, and we'd seen huge numbers of seriously ill people because no one took the vaccine, what then?
 
2010-06-09 4:18:09 PM  
This isn't directly related to the article, however my Grandpa received the vacccine in December of last year. A week and a half later he was admitted to the hospital for loss of motor function, then paralysis.

It was later determined he had contracted guillain barre syndrome. Within a week, several other people who had received the vaccine recently had come down with guillain barre like symptoms. Given how rare GB is, and that 6 people from the same town came down with it at the same time, and the only thing that they had in common was they all had the H1N1 shot within two weeks of being admitted...

Long story short, my grandfather passed away after a long battle, eventually slipping into a comma. They found bacterium in his blood that was also found in random tested samples of the vaccine.

Not a troll, not a smear campaign attempt. We buried him less than two months ago. Go fark yourself WHO.

/Did not get the vaccine
//Thinks for himself, opposed to letting the media spoon feed me
 
2010-06-09 4:20:39 PM  
Can we trust anyone anymore?
 
2010-06-09 4:23:56 PM  

RowdyPants: Can we trust anyone anymore?


George W. Bush.
 
2010-06-09 4:24:39 PM  

PrinceofFark: This isn't directly related to the article, however my Grandpa received the vacccine in December of last year. A week and a half later he was admitted to the hospital for loss of motor function, then paralysis.

It was later determined he had contracted guillain barre syndrome. Within a week, several other people who had received the vaccine recently had come down with guillain barre like symptoms. Given how rare GB is, and that 6 people from the same town came down with it at the same time, and the only thing that they had in common was they all had the H1N1 shot within two weeks of being admitted...

Long story short, my grandfather passed away after a long battle, eventually slipping into a comma. They found bacterium in his blood that was also found in random tested samples of the vaccine.

Not a troll, not a smear campaign attempt. We buried him less than two months ago. Go fark yourself WHO.

/Did not get the vaccine
//Thinks for himself, opposed to letting the media spoon feed me


I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather. However, the WHO didn't make the vaccine. I think they had a good faith belief that there was a major public health risk.
 
2010-06-09 4:25:55 PM  

ne2d: WHAT?


Say what again. SAY WHAT AGAIN. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfarker.
 
2010-06-09 4:27:22 PM  

indylaw: I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather. However, the WHO didn't make the vaccine. I think they had a good faith belief that there was a major public health risk.


When you look at the number of fatalities from H1N1 compared to the number of average yearly fatalities from normal flu, I don't think you can say that anymore. At least, not with a straight face.
 
2010-06-09 4:27:59 PM  

Stranger on the Town: ne2d: WHAT?

Say what again. SAY WHAT AGAIN. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfarker.


What ain't no country *I* ever heard of. They speak English in What?
 
2010-06-09 4:28:42 PM  
This is why you disclose these little details beforehand.
 
2010-06-09 4:28:49 PM  

indylaw: PrinceofFark: This isn't directly related to the article, however my Grandpa received the vacccine in December of last year. A week and a half later he was admitted to the hospital for loss of motor function, then paralysis.

It was later determined he had contracted guillain barre syndrome. Within a week, several other people who had received the vaccine recently had come down with guillain barre like symptoms. Given how rare GB is, and that 6 people from the same town came down with it at the same time, and the only thing that they had in common was they all had the H1N1 shot within two weeks of being admitted...

Long story short, my grandfather passed away after a long battle, eventually slipping into a comma. They found bacterium in his blood that was also found in random tested samples of the vaccine.

Not a troll, not a smear campaign attempt. We buried him less than two months ago. Go fark yourself WHO.

/Did not get the vaccine
//Thinks for himself, opposed to letting the media spoon feed me

I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather. However, the WHO didn't make the vaccine. I think they had a good faith belief that there was a major public health risk.


I understand their position in this. I truly believe they knew as well as the pharmaceutical companies, that this was a low / no risk variant of a strain that has been around for awhile.

This was another cash grab, and the WHO is the public facing entity in this case. Part of their role should be to properly educate the public. I guess I could rant at the "media" for sensationalizing all of it, but that is really what the media is there for, love them or hate them.

They mass produced this junk so fast there was no possible way to test all of the batches. They just test a sample size and hope for the best if the results come back as "acceptable".

I believe I saw a study where 3/4 North American doctors do NOT give their own children these type of vaccines. Enough said.
 
2010-06-09 4:31:19 PM  

PrinceofFark:
I understand their position in this. I truly believe they knew as well as the pharmaceutical companies, that this was a low / no risk variant of a strain that has been around for awhile.

This was another cash grab, and the WHO is the public facing entity in this case. Part of their role should be to properly educate the public. I guess I could rant at the "media" for sensationalizing all of it, but that is really what the media is there for, love them or hate them.

They mass produced this junk so fast there was no possible way to test all of the batches. They just test a sample size and hope for the best if the results come back as "acceptable".

I believe I saw a study where 3/4 North American doctors do NOT give their own children these type of vaccines. Enough said.


And did you come up with this on your own, being an independent thinker and all? Or did you read it? I mean, you have to base your claims that this was just a cash grab on something concrete, right?

If you approach the world from a paranoid starting point, it will look like everyone's out to get you.
 
2010-06-09 4:35:51 PM  

untaken_name: indylaw: I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather. However, the WHO didn't make the vaccine. I think they had a good faith belief that there was a major public health risk.

When you look at the number of fatalities from H1N1 compared to the number of average yearly fatalities from normal flu, I don't think you can say that anymore. At least, not with a straight face.


Sure I can. It was a mistaken belief, but that doesn't mean that they were incompetent or acted with ulterior motives simply because the possibilities they warned about didn't come true.

You're warned by public health agencies to put on a condom to prevent the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases and reduce the risk that you'll have an unwanted pregnancy. If you don't wear a condom and yet never contract STDs or knock someone up, or conversely, if you always wear condoms and you still get AIDS or some girl you met at a bar is carrying your bastard child, that doesn't mean that the public health authorities were incompetent or on the take from Trojan.
 
2010-06-09 4:38:30 PM  

indylaw: PrinceofFark:
I understand their position in this. I truly believe they knew as well as the pharmaceutical companies, that this was a low / no risk variant of a strain that has been around for awhile.

This was another cash grab, and the WHO is the public facing entity in this case. Part of their role should be to properly educate the public. I guess I could rant at the "media" for sensationalizing all of it, but that is really what the media is there for, love them or hate them.

They mass produced this junk so fast there was no possible way to test all of the batches. They just test a sample size and hope for the best if the results come back as "acceptable".

I believe I saw a study where 3/4 North American doctors do NOT give their own children these type of vaccines. Enough said.

And did you come up with this on your own, being an independent thinker and all? Or did you read it? I mean, you have to base your claims that this was just a cash grab on something concrete, right?

If you approach the world from a paranoid starting point, it will look like everyone's out to get you.


That study aside, which I cannot validate the accuracy or integrity of, let's look at how many people actually died from this deadly contagion.

Then look at how many people died last year from:

- slipping in the bath tub
- the common cold
- just about any other flu out there
- farting
- etc, etc, etc

When you have a powerful fear geneator like the media outlets of radio, tv and the internet, you can cast such a wide net that no one is going to be able to escape the fear mongering.

The pharamceutical companies involved made record profits off of this. If you want me to track down the numbers, I don't mind at all. And every country had a gun to their head politically to get on board and buy up as much as possible.

Then, all of the sudden, one day, after everyone looking to cash out, did, the media suddenly dumped the story like a hot potato.

It's easy to do that when there wasn't anything there in the first place. I cannot see anyone honestly backing the WHO or the pharamceutical companies on this scam unless they are either trolling or really, really bored.

Usually I just roll my eyes at this type of thing and move on. I feel more passionate about this one since it took out a perfectly healthy family member.
 
2010-06-09 4:39:53 PM  
Complete non-story.

Also....
danielleandaj.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2010-06-09 4:41:11 PM  

indylaw: Sure I can. It was a mistaken belief, but that doesn't mean that they were incompetent or acted with ulterior motives simply because the possibilities they warned about didn't come true.

You're warned by public health agencies to put on a condom to prevent the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases and reduce the risk that you'll have an unwanted pregnancy. If you don't wear a condom and yet never contract STDs or knock someone up, or conversely, if you always wear condoms and you still get AIDS or some girl you met at a bar is carrying your bastard child, that doesn't mean that the public health authorities were incompetent or on the take from Trojan.


No, it's more like stating that if you don't wear condoms, you'll definitely get an STD, even if you're in a monogamous relationship. It's good for selling condoms, but it isn't the truth and Trojan would KNOW it wasn't the truth - it's the business they're in. When the WHO is getting reports of about 1/200th the number of deaths that normal flu causes each year, they should know that isn't a pandemic. If they don't then they aren't good enough at their job to exist and should be disbanded immediately. Whether it was simple incompetence or something darker doesn't really matter.
 
2010-06-09 4:42:38 PM  

jj325: The world needs a good pandemic to wipe out the weak.


Problem is, flu pandemics (at least the so-called "Spanish Flu") tend to wipe out the strong, young, and healthy, due to cytokine storms. The old, weak, and sick tend to die at about the same rate that they would from an ordinary flu.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.