But like the specters of war and terrorism are used to scare the masses into accepting the gradual implementation of an ever-expanding police state and a means to justify milking the taxpayers to fund government agencies and their corporate crony contractors, so too is the idea of Pandemic used to scare the world into buying vaccines for a disease that is not really a mortal threat and is not really fatal if a normal person were to catch it.
Like H1NI, the so-called swine flu.
Michael Adams from NaturalNews gives us the lowdown:
After months of stalling, the World Health Organization (WHO) has finally revealed the names of key pandemic advisors who influenced its decision to declare a phase six pandemic last year -- -- a decision that resulted in a financial windfall for vaccine manufacturers. As you'll see here, that list includes at least five expert advisors received money from vaccine companies.
Here's who received money from Big Pharma and then influenced the WHO decision to declare a pandemic:
Arnold Monto is a professor from the United States who has received money from virtually all the major vaccine manufacturers: GSK, Novartis, Roche, Baxter and Sanofi Pasteur. He has specifically been given grant money by Sanofi Pasteur to study influenza vaccines.
Nancy Cox works for the US Centers for Disease Control, which already maintains a pro-vaccine stance while utterly ignoring the importance of vitamin D in halting infectious disease. Nancy took funds from the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) to conduct work on vaccines.
John Wood works at Britain's National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC). They've taken money from Sanofi Pasteur, Novartis and several other companies focused on influenza vaccine research.
Maria Zambon is a professor at the UK Health Protection Agency Centre for Infection. She has received money from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL, Baxter and GSK.
Neil Ferguson is also a professor, and he has accepted money from Roche and GSK Biologicals.
There may be more to this story, too: The financial ties explained here are merely the ones that these people chose to publicly disclose to WHO. There may yet be other ties that currently remain a secret and will have to be dug up by some determined reporter...
There's the motive, in plain view for the world to see. One could easily say that the entire reason why H1N1 never actually became an epidemic, was thanks to the foresight and preparation of the WHO, taking action before it was too late.
Except, that's not what happened.
Why does it matter that WHO advisors took money from vaccine companies? It's simple: The decision to declare H1N1 swine flu to be a phase 6 pandemic was made by the WHO under advisement from these very people who received money from vaccine companies. And that decision, we now know, resulted in a windfall of profits for the vaccine companies.Got that...they didn't even use huge portions of the vaccines before the "threat" was declared over. In other words, the vaccines didn't end the outbreak.
Those profits, in turn, were burdened by the taxpayers whose expenditures were largely worthless because a huge portion of those vaccines are now expiring and have to be destroyed.
But I'm sure the vaccine manufacturers can't wait to sell millions of vaccines the next time their representatives "advise" the WHO to declare the next influenza outbreak a "phase 6 pandemic."
Asking a bunch of vaccine experts whether you should declare a pandemic is sort of like asking your insurance agent whether you need more insurance.
Well of course you do!
6 comments:
Well, whaddaya know, a conspiracy that is proven to be factually true.
A small group of influential people defrauded the taxpayers and pocketed millions of dollars.
In fairness, we would need to see the economic analysis that was performed in authorizing the vaccine purchase decisions.
I would hope that the advisors would have referenced some kind of model that showed things like infection rates, mortality likelihood, disability likelihood, etc. This could be used to assess whether vaccines represented value for money.
In an ideal world, such models would be public domain so that the assumptions that went into the model to arrive at a particular decision are transparent and subject to potential scrutiny.
This might be opposed on the grounds that it could create panics, but to be honest I don't think doing things behind closed doors works too well in today's world.
It is no secret that I live in a Third World village in rural Puebla. My best friend is a doctor. A doctor who reads constantly and keeps up with the latest. While Mexico City was still under a "lock-down" he did some reading and calling, and told me, "This is not going to be serious. We can handle it."
So, how could a small-town doctor figure it out so fast, and it took the finest minds almost a year.
In this village, he had one case. A woman who had just given birth was back within 4 days, near death's door. They shipped her to a hospital in Puebla, and it was weeks before they were sure she'd make it. She did lose her milk, of course,but she lived. Interestingly, no other member of her family, including the baby, got it.
Also, interestingly, he had noted several months earlier a form of 'grippe' which roughly translates into fever and sniffles, more or less, was unusually prevalent, and it was in a different form than usual. Alas, no one kept specimens. I drove a mother and her small baby to a hospital where they sucked mucus out of her lungs for 3 or 4 days to keep her alive.
Anonymous age 68
Dude, I'm sorry but Michael Adams from NaturalNews is an anti-science Woomeister kook. A nutcase. Look vaccines work; they're why most people don't know what an "iron lung" even is, and why kids don't die of whooping cough.
Nor is Vitamin D a cure-all.
Yes, the H1N1 proved less serious than some had feared. That's good, no? Sure a few companies probably made a few bucks on the vaccine -- though it's a drop in the bucket compared to, say, a cholesterol medication or an anti-depressent.
But that's no reason to embrace anti-science quackery.
Being open to unorthodox ideas is good. But that doesn't mean one should embrace anybody who is unorthodox.
Vaccines are a huge money maker for the medical establishment. It's even better when they don't get used like the H1N1 vaccine because then the medical establishment does not have to answer hard questions like why are so many children autistic when several decades ago it was non-existent. The medical establishment thinks money is more important than our children's health.
Oh Jesus.
Vaccines are not actually that big a moneymaker, because people don't take them all that much, and they typically prevent the disease you've being vaccinated for. I promise you, pharmaceutical companies would make a heck of lot more money treating polio than they ever did from the vaccine.
And think of the people who made iron lungs! A whole industry destroyed by vaccines.
As to the alleged vaccine/autism link, it's pure nonsense. The reason more children are autistic is that the diagnostic criteria have been expanded to include more people. The kid who would have been diagnosed with "childhood schizophrenia" now has autism. The weird kid in the back of the classroom has "Asberger's Syndrome," which makes him a high functioning autistic.
There is no credible scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism. Zero. Nada. And by the way, you're worried about drug company greed -- quite a few of the anti-vaccine types are selling things like very dangerous chelation therapy.
I don't deny that public health bureaucrats used the fear of H1N1 to expand their power, or that they exaggerated the danger. Because that's how bureaucracies work.
But just because somebody is anti-establishment doesn't mean they're right. And the scientific establishment actually does get things right sometimes.
Post a Comment