swine flu scam? | Journal of Public Health | Oxford Academic
https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/32/3/296/1555409

Journal of Public Health, Volume 32, Issue 3, September 2010, Pages 296–297, https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdq059
Published: 04 August 2010

Issue Section: Editorials
There is a conspiracy theory about nearly everything. So claims that swine flu was a scam come as no surprise. ‘This was a pandemic that never really was’ according to Paul Flynn, MP who prepared a recent report on the flu pandemic for the Council of Europe.1 The report expresses alarm about the way the pandemic was handled. It criticizes the proportionality of the response and argues that over reaction led to waste of public money, distortion of public health priorities and unjustified fears about health risks. It identifies ‘grave shortcomings’ in the transparency of decision-making processes and concerns about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) comes in for particular criticism for failing to publish the declarations of interest of members of its Emergency Committee, the group advising director general Dr Margaret Chan on the pandemic response.

These themes are taken up by Cohen and Carter2 in the British Medical Journal. They found that key scientists had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from advice they gave to WHO. However, declarations made by members of the Emergency Committee, and of other WHO committees that helped produce influenza preparedness plans, have never been disclosed by WHO. Even the identities of the 16 member Emergency Committee remain a closely guarded secret.

Conflicts of interest have been defined by the US National Academies as: ‘any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it could significantly impair the individual's objectivity, or could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization’.3 There are many ways in which conflicts of interest can influence professional behaviour. The General Medical Council in its guidance for doctors focuses almost exclusively on the doctor–patient relationship.4 But conflicts of interest can equally arise in postgraduate education, guideline development, research conduct, programme evaluation and public policy formulation.

When it comes to policies on pandemic flu, there is an inherent conflict between the pharmaceutical industry, WHO and the global health system. Almost inevitably, they all draw on the same pool of experts. The issue is therefore not so much about avoiding conflicts of interest but about properly dealing with them. As Friedman points out, ‘there is no moral or ethical failing in having a conflict of interest; the problem occurs when conflicts are not disclosed appropriately and when conflicts are allowed to bias research, teaching or practice’.5 There are several possible strategies. At the very least, public disclosure of conflicts of interest is essential to maintain transparency. The US National Academies have gone further and ruled that no individual can be appointed to serve on one of its committees if that individual has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions of the committee.3 However, such an approach may bar experts who have important information to contribute. Another option is to consult the relevant experts, but exclude them from decision-making. For example, the American College of Chest Physicians has developed a three-point plan to address this tension when developing practice guidelines.6 First, equal emphasis is placed on intellectual and financial conflicts with explicit criteria for both. Second, a person without conflicts of interest is given primary responsibility for each guideline chapter. Thirdly, experts with conflicts of interest can collect and interpret evidence, but only panel members without conflicts of interest can be involved in developing guideline recommendations. Drug regulation agencies often have very formalized procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest. For example, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) maintains a database of members' conflicts of interest. These are evaluated to determine ‘level of risk’, and information on individuals deemed ‘high risk’ is referred to an assessment group who may restrict the individual from taking part in specific activities. However, even such apparently stringent procedures have been criticized in favour of following a precautionary principle that completely prohibits any involvement of individuals with conflicts of interest.7

So was swine flu a scam? Did the pharmaceutical industry manipulate a fake pandemic? Were the scientific experts, consciously or unconsciously, part of a conspiracy to promote anti-viral stockpiles and boost vaccine sales? Corporate influences on epidemiology have a long history.8 The tobacco industry has undertaken elaborate campaigns to undermine WHO activities on tobacco control in the past.9 More recently, the alcohol beverage industry and the food industry have come under scrutiny for possible attempts to influence public opinion, regulation and the conduct of science.10,11 But the swine flu affair smells more of cock-up than conspiracy.

Ultimately, the issue boils down to a problem of confidence in public policy-makers. There is a great deal at stake financially. Decisions made within WHO led to national governments committing millions of pounds to buy anti-virals and vaccines. The public, politicians and national governments need to be convinced not only that the right decisions are made, but that they are also made for the right reasons. It is vital that such influential decisions are made in the clear light of day and that the decision-making bodies involved can demonstrate that they have effective mechanisms to deal with conflicts of interest. In this regard, the WHO arrangements can be seen to be woefully inadequate. Indeed, Chan, responding to the BMJ article, concedes that ‘WHO needs to establish, and enforce, stricter rules of engagement with industry’.12

Next time we need to be more transparent in our decision-making,13 more adept at communicating risk to the public14 and more flexibly in responding to the pandemic, whatever form it takes.15 In the meantime, WHO needs to put its house in order.

Conflict of interest: M.R.E. is a member of the UK Scientific Pandemic Influenza Advisory Committee and the UK Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies.

References
1 Flynn P. Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, The Handling of the H1N1 Pandemic: More Transparency Needed, 2010 http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2010/20100329_MemorandumPandemie_E.pdf
Google ScholarWorldCat
2 Cohen D, Carter P. WHO and the pandemic flu ‘conspiracies, Br Med J, 2010, vol. 340 pg. c2912
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
3 General Medical Council, Conflicts of Interest—Guidance for Doctors, 2008 http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/conflicts_of_interest.asp
4 Friedman PJ. The troublesome semantics of conflict of interest, Ethics Behavior, 1992, vol. 2 (pg. 245-51)10.1207/s15327019eb0204_2
Google ScholarCrossrefPubMedWorldCat
5 National Academies, Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports, 2003 http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html
6 Guyatt G, Akl EA, Hirsh J, et al. The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution, Ann Intern Med, 2010, vol. 152 (pg. 738-41)
Google ScholarCrossrefPubMedWorldCat
7 Lexchin J, O'Donovan O. Prohibiting or ‘managing’ conflict of interest? A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies, Soc Sci Med, 2010, vol. 70 (pg. 648-51)
Google ScholarCrossrefPubMedWorldCatPubMed
8 Pearce N. Corporate influences on epidemiology, Int J Epidemiol, 2008, vol. 37 (pg. 46-53)10.1093/ije/dym270
Google ScholarCrossrefPubMedWorldCat
9 Godlee F. WHO faces up to its tobacco links, Br Med J, 2000, vol. 321 (pg. 314-5)10.1136/bmj.321.7257.314
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
10 Babor T, Miller P, Edwards G. Vested interests, addiction research and public policy, Addiction, 2010, vol. 105 (pg. 4-5)10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02664.x
Google ScholarCrossrefPubMedWorldCat
11 Brownell KD, Warner KE. The perils of ignoring history: big tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is big food?, Millbank Quart, 2009, vol. 87 (pg. 259-94)10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
12 Chan M. WHO response to article on conflicts of interest, Br Med J, 2010, vol. 340 pg. c2912 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/340/jun03_4/c2912#236800
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
13 Godlee F. Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu, Br Med J, 2010, vol. 340 pg. c2553
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
14 Abraham T. The price of poor communication, Br Med J, 2010, vol. 340 pg. c2952 10.1136/bmj.c2952
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat
15 Doshi P. Calibrated response to emerging infections, Br Med J, 2009, vol. 339 pg. b3471 10.1136/bmj.b3471
Google ScholarCrossrefWorldCat

Billions wasted over swine flu, says Paul Flynn MP - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/10396382

Billions of pounds in public money were wasted worldwide on buying drugs to combat a swine flu "pandemic that never was", says Newport West MP Paul Flynn.

He has compiled a report on the H1N1 virus for the Council of Europe.

He told BBC Wales' Dragon's Eye the World Health Organisation (WHO) made a "terrible mistake" in causing panic.

WHO said it reminded the public in its pandemic assessments that most people had mild symptoms and made a full recovery without medical treatment.

Dr Tony Jewell, chief medical officer for Wales, said: "It is easy with hindsight to say things should have been done differently."

Mr Flynn, one of the 47 parliamentarians from across Europe who sits on the human rights-focused Council of Europe, said: "They [WHO] frightened the whole world with the possibility that a major plague was on the way."

He added: "The result of that was that the world spent billions and billions of pounds on vaccines and anti-virals that will never be used. It is huge waste of money."

Mr Flynn's report will be debated by the Council of Europe later.

He claimed that the decision by WHO, a body of the United Nations, to declare a pandemic had been influenced by pharmaceutical companies.

He said: "The firewall that should exist between the commercial interests, the pharmaceutical bodies, and the scientists has been breached.

"We know the only people who benefited were pharmaceutical companies. They had a huge influence in defining what a pandemic is."

Mr Flynn said WHO was not being transparent in not explaining who had sat on the emergency committee that had declared H1N1 a pandemic.

'Resources distorted'
He said as a result "resources and priorities in health services in dozens of countries were distorted".

Globally, more than 15,000 people died as a result of the H1N1 virus compared to the two to four million deaths that had been predicted by WHO, he said.

"The mistake was to say this was the most dangerous form of flu. It created vast over-buying that wasn't necessary," said Mr Flynn.

WHO has rejected Mr Flynn's conclusions, saying they had not exaggerated the dangers.

In a statement, it said: "In every assessment of the pandemic, WHO consistently reminded the public that the overwhelming majority of patients experienced mild symptoms and made a rapid and full recovery, even without medical treatment."

Mr Flynn said governments, while "damned if they acted, and damned if they didn't," did have a choice in how they responded to the warning from WHO.

While the UK spent £500m on anti-viral drugs that will now never be used, Poland spent nothing, explained Mr Flynn.

The UK ordered 90 million doses of H1N1 vaccine and 4.63 million doses were used in England.

Vaccines and public awareness campaigns cost Wales £35m, according to official figures.

'Clear response'
Dr Jewell said: "Our response to the pandemic has been clear.

"When the infection first arrived, we didn't know how severe it would be and the potential impact. Therefore the only prudent course of action was to plan for a worst-case scenario - based on scientific advice. To do otherwise would have been irresponsible."

A spokesperson for the Department for Health, in England, said that pandemic decisions had been based on advice from independent experts.

"The response was the result of careful preparation and thoughtful consideration, this continues to be the case.

"It is important that we learn lessons. A review into the WHO's handling of the pandemic is currently underway and this is happening in the UK too. This will ensure we remain one of the best prepared countries in the world for any future pandemics."

Mr Flynn said that while WHO had done incredible work, including eliminating smallpox, it had "cried wolf four times".

He said: "With Sars, CJD, avian flu and swine flu, none of them justified the billing as mass killers.

"WHO can't go on crying wolf and expect to have its views respected."

WHO convened a panel earlier this year to conduct a "credible and independent review" of how it and national authorities handled the outbreak.

Two experts on the panel resigned recently because of their close ties to the UN health body and concerns over conflict of interest.

WHO accused of losing public confidence over flu pandemic | World Health Organization | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/28/who-public-confidence-flu-pandemic

Loss of credibility could endanger lives, says vice chair of Council of Europe's health committee
Sarah Boseley
Sun 28 Mar 2010 18.37 BST
The World Health Organisation and other public health bodies have "gambled away" public confidence by overstating the dangers of the flu pandemic, according to a draft report to the Council of Europe.

The report, by the Labour MP Paul Flynn, vice chair of the council's health committee, says that a loss of credibility could endanger lives.

"This decline in confidence could be risky in the future," says the report, seen by the Guardian. "When the next pandemic arises many persons may not give full credibility to recommendations put forward by WHO and other bodies. They may refuse to be vaccinated and may put their own health and lives at risk."

In Britain, says Flynn, the discrepancy between the estimate of the numbers of people who would die from flu and the reality was dramatic. "In the United Kingdom, the Department of Health initially announced that around 65,000 deaths were to be expected. In the meantime, by the start of 2010, this estimate was downgraded to only 1,000 fatalities. By January 2010, fewer than 5,000 persons had been registered as having caught the disease and about 360 deaths had been noted," says his report.

The public health minister, Gillian Merron, told Flynn in a meeting for the report that a Cabinet Office investigation was looking into Britain's handling of the outbreak and would report some time after June. Countries across Europe reacted very differently to the pandemic, says the report. Not all mounted high-profile vaccination campaigns, as did the UK.

Flynn's draft accuses the WHO of a lack of transparency. Some members of its advisory groups are flu experts who have also received funding, especially for research projects, from pharmaceutical companies making drugs and vaccines against flu.

"The neutrality of their advice could be contested," says the report. "To date, WHO has failed to provide convincing evidence to counter these allegations and the organisation has not published the relevant declarations of interest. Taking such a reserved position, the organisation has joined other bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency, which likewise, have still not published such documents."

Flynn's report was commissioned by the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly, which is holding an inquiry into the handling by European bodies and governments of the flu pandemic. The second evidence session will be held in Paris tomorrow. The witnesses will include the Polish health minister, Ewa Kopacz, who will explain why her government decided not to order any H1N1 vaccines.

At the first evidence session, in January, some experts criticised the dramatic comparisons made last year between the novel strain of H1N1 circulating in Europe and the devastating Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. Professor Ulrich Keil, epidemiologist and director of the WHO collaborating centre on epidemiology of the University of Münster in Germany pointed out in evidence that the Spanish flu broke out in the very different circumstances of the first world war, where infections were easily transmitted by undernourished soldiers and there was an absence of medicines such as penicillin.

One of the central questions of the Council of Europe inquiry, says Flynn, "concerns the possibility for representatives of the pharmaceutical industry to directly influence public decisions taken with regard to the H1N1 influenza, and the question of whether some of their statements had been adopted as public health recommendations without being based on sufficient scientific evidence". He cites as an example the decision to recommend two doses of flu vaccine for children, which was later questioned.

"Various factors have led to the suspicion that there may have been undue influence by the pharmaceutical industry, notably the possibility of conflicts of interest of experts represented in WHO advisory groups, the early stage of preparing contractual arrangements between member states and pharmaceutical companies as well as the actual profits that companies were able to realise as a result of the influenza pandemic," says the draft report, which will be finalised when all the evidence has been taken, at the end of April.

PETER_PAN: to bolí, nebýt schopen argumentace, viď?

RAGAMUFF: je smutné, že si neuvědomuješ, že tyhke sarkastické úšklebky tě ve skutečnosti více ponižující než to, že si se předtím dopustil demagogie. Opět se ukazuje, jak strašně moc lidem záleží na jejich neleštěném egu a i to je lresne důvodem, byť né v tvém případě, proč se naše úžasná civilizace řítí do zadele. Díky tomuto zjevnému egoismu se daří psychopatům směšně snadno kontrolovat masy tím, že je rozdělí.
Obdobná situace je teď mezi SMIS a spolkem Resetheus. Vědci ze SMIS jsou tak moc přesvědčení o jejich nedotknutelném vzdělání a neomylnosti, že ani nemají zapotřebí věcně reagovat na "nepohodlné" dotazy z Resethea (ohledně prokázání existence viru) a ze strany Fürsta padají jen dětinské úšklebky. Koho mi jen připomíná...?^^

RAGAMUFF: pokud tvrdíš, že konvenční trhavina či termit běžné vytváří pyroklastický mrak naprosto schodný s erupcí sopky, dodej pro takové tvrzení důkaz. Zajisté dokážeš najít nějaký test, experiment, kontrolovaný, kde to bude demonstrováno, replikováno. Pokud nic takového nejsi schopný doložit, pak předkládáš ničím nepodloženou hypotézu. V tuto chvíli si tedy pyroklastický mrak nevysvětlil.

Nikde jsem nenapsal ani slovo o rozmetaných lidech. Přečti si prosím znovu, co jsem skutečně napsal. Zde tedy "vysvětluješ" něco, co ale nemá se skutečnými forenzními nálezy téměř nic společného. Doporučuji opět doplnit základní informace, co se z lidí vlastně našlo, potažmo například z vybavení kanceláří. To obsahují i oficiální vyjádření.

Nikde jsem nenapsal ani slovo o vodíkové bombě. Opět tedy reaguješ na něco, co sis vymyslel a následně se to snažíš jakoby obhájit. Doporučuji nastudovat pečlivě co je to vodíková bomba a co je to termonukleární bomba. Do začátku ;)

Zdá se, že o mnou nadhozené hypotéze vůbec nic nevíš, podle té závěrečné otázky, bez urážky. Doporučuji tedy nejprve studovat a až poté případně zavrhnout. Tedy za předpokladu, že ti je konfirmační zkreslení cizí.

Buď si můžeš přečíst knížku:

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B08B384LQS/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=1O94W8GKEP029

A nebo se jednoduše podívat na web:
911media.de
http://www.911media.de/#autoid1009793/

Odkazuji záměrně na podrobný fyzikální model, protože se stručnou odpovědi by ses s největší pravděpodobností nespokojil a následovala by nekonečná série doplňujících otázek.

PLAYER: Nemyslím si že cenzurují, jen GORG tu nechce kecy okolo. Tebou níže popsané jevy jsou podle mě snadno vysvětlitelné.

Při reakci termitu se uvolňuje bílý kouř, a to spolu prachem ze sutin vytvořilo tenhle mrak. Nikdo neříká že použili termit tvořený směsí prášků. Každý větší či menší výbuch vytvoří "mushroom cloud".


Nechápu proč si myslíš že by běžná trhavina nedokázala ty lidi rozmetat. Podle mě bez problému.

Prostě koukám na kolaps wtc7 a 1a2 a žádnou vodíkovku nebo něco podobnýho v tom nevidím.

https://preview.redd.it/snck2c5wlk491.gif?format=mp4&v=enabled&s=cb058ce823df0c6228b607f3a209137f7388c606

Naopak, vydím tam přesne to co bych čekal, sekvenci menších výbuchů které odklánějí nařezané svislé podpěry, tak jak je potřeba aby jsi složil budovu. Přesně tak jak to dělají demoliční čety, akorát asi s jinýma prostředkama.


9 11 3rd Tower Collapse WTC7 Compilation Raw Footage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WNk674LZrI



Téhle teorii nepřikládám žádnou váhu, naopak, ale zeptám se na jednu věc:

Takže to provedli třema nezávisle odpálenýma vodíkovejma pumama? WTC1 pak 2 a pak WTC7?

RAGAMUFF: napamatuji se. Stacili by napsat, co podle tebe zpusobilo mnou nize popsane jevy, klidne mi to muzes napsat do SZ, pokud se tu cenzuruji prispevky. Ale ty vlastne nechces.

PLAYER: Mohl bych, ale nechci, už jsme se o tom bavili, ale asi to bude mázlý.

RAGAMUFF: muzes byt konkretni? Jsem otevreny diskusi a zatim jediny, kdo zohlednil veskere dostupne dukazy a ne pouze ty, ktere by vyhovovaly jeho teorii (Richard Gage a spol.) a nasledns predlozil velmi oresvedcivou hypotezu, je nemecky fyzik Heinz Pommer, pripadne pred nim Dimitri Khalezov.

PLAYER: V tomhle se bohužel neshodneme, ale alespoň oba nesouhlasíme s oficiální verzí. Respektuju tvůj názor ale nemohu se sním ztotožnit.

Poslal jsem to sem protože ACE elevator wtc renovation nelze nic najít.

XMEDA: Nic moc, ale dobrá příležitost tam nacpat řezací nálože

Maker of suicide pod plans to launch in Switzerland - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59577162



The pod can be 3D printed and placed anywhere
By Jane Wakefield
Technology reporter
The company behind a 3D-printed pod which can help carry out assisted suicide has said it is confident it could be used in Switzerland as early as next year.

Sarco commissioned a Swiss legal expert, who found that the machine did not break any laws in the country.

But other lawyers questioned his findings.

And assisted-suicide organisation Dignitas said it would be unlikely to meet "much acceptance".

Assisted suicide, in which somebody is given the means to end their own life, is legal in Switzerland. About 1,300 people died there in this way in 2020.

Both assisted suicide and euthanasia, in which a doctor ends the life of somebody who wants to die, are illegal in the UK.

Legal debate
The current method used in Switzerland is to provide the person with a series of liquids that, if ingested, will end the person's life.

By contrast, the pod - which can be placed anywhere - is flooded with nitrogen, reducing the oxygen levels rapidly.

The process would make the person inside lose consciousness and die in approximately 10 minutes.

The suicide pod is activated from the inside and also has an emergency button to exit.

Daniel Huerlimann, a legal expert and assistant professor at the University of St Gallen, was asked by Sarco to explore whether the use of the suicide pod would break any Swiss laws.

He told the BBC that his findings suggested the pod "did not constitute a medical device", so would not be covered by the Swiss Therapeutic Products Act.

He also believed it would not fall foul of laws governing the use of nitrogen, weapons or product safety.

"This means that the pod is not covered by Swiss law," he said.

But Kerstin Noelle Vkinger, a doctor, lawyer and professor at the University of Zurich, told Swiss newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung: "Medical devices are regulated because they are supposed to be safer than other products. Just because a product is not beneficial to health does not mean that it is not also affected by these additional safety requirements."

And Dignitas told the BBC: "For 35 years now, through the two Swiss Exit groups and for 23 years also with Dignitas, Switzerland has the practice of professional accompanied suicide with trained staff, in co-operation with physicians.

"In the light of this established, safe and professionally conducted/supported practice, we would not imagine that a technologised capsule for a self-determined end of life will meet much acceptance or interest in Switzerland."

Dr Death
If the machine gets the go-ahead for use in Switzerland, the pod will not be offered for sale in the conventional way.

Instead, the capsule's creator Dr Philip Nitschke, said he planned to make the blueprints available so anyone could download the design. This will be made available for free.

His aim is to "de-medicalise the dying process", he said in an interview published on the Exit International website, a voluntary assisted dying charity which he founded.

"We want to remove any kind of psychiatric review from the process and allow the individual to control the method themselves."

He has long campaigned for the right to die, earning him the nickname "Dr Death".

Currently there are two prototypes of the Sarco pod, with a third being printed in the Netherlands.

Dr Nitschke has previously faced criticism for the pod, with some saying that its futuristic design glamourises suicide.