Flu jab and viral illness

[petemcewan]

Biotechpete,

 

Thanks for that informative reply.It's has I suspected. The link that Mac33 posted

is anecdotal testimonials from individual (organised at times into groups) announcing that they have had "events" after receiving HPV vaccination.

 

A HIV consultant- at the Hallesham- told me, that if he had his way he'd recommend all HIV positives have the quadrivalent HPV vaccination.

 

 

http://i-base.info/htb/31151

Edited December 1, 2017 by petemcewan

[MAC33]

I find it truly staggering that in the face of such monumental evidence of harm caused by the cervical cancer vaccine - that most are still in favour of the vaccine and vaccinations in general.

 

I can only conclude that petemcewan and others are in denial or are experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance on this topic.

 

Most just can't come to terms with being lied to.

 

It's pretty much that simple.

 

That trust is being used to make a financial killing for Big Pharma,after all vaccination is a billion dollar industry.

[SnailyBoy]

I find it truly staggering that in the face of such monumental evidence of harm caused by the cervical cancer vaccine - that most are still in favour of the vaccine and vaccinations in general.

 

I can only conclude that petemcewan and others are in denial or are experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance on this topic.

 

Most just can't come to terms with being lied to.

 

It's pretty much that simple.

 

That trust is being used to make a financial killing for Big Pharma,after all vaccination is a billion dollar industry.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Cyclone]

I find it truly staggering that in the face of such monumental evidence of harm caused by the cervical cancer vaccine - that most are still in favour of the vaccine and vaccinations in general.

 

I can only conclude that petemcewan and others are in denial or are experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance on this topic.

 

Most just can't come to terms with being lied to.

 

It's pretty much that simple.

 

That trust is being used to make a financial killing for Big Pharma,after all vaccination is a billion dollar industry.

 

Stop it, you'll damage my irony detector, it's going off the scale.

[onewheeldave]

Mac33 is, however, spot on about the huge financial vested interests benefiting from large scale vaccination programs.

[MAC33]

A good article here showing how Big Pharma and the corporate Govt are in bed with each other......

 

 

https://www.sott.net/article/369666-NHS-blacklists-homeopathy-on-prescription-because-of-mistaken-belief-that-it-doesnt-work

 

 

Comment: Let's cut through the BS here and say what this is actually about. The NHS is firmly in the pockets of Big Pharma whose interest runs directly counter to remedies that will do the job better, with fewer side-effects at significantly lower cost than their blockbuster pharmaceuticals. Multinational pharma giants even threatened to sue the NHS for prescribing cheaper medicine which could save the public millions.

[petemcewan]

Onewheeldave,

Please bear with me. We are straying quite a way from ,”should I nip up the chemist and get my flu vac”?

 

 

I would hazard to guess that every contributor to this thread is aware of conflicts of interest in the pharmaceuticals industry.But such recognition doesn’t warrant routinely dismissing as

Untrustworthy the industry’s discoveries and products that are brought to market.

The following paragraphs put succinctly

 

 

 

“

The purpose of conflict of interest policies is preventive: the policies are intended to remove or reduce relationships that create a risk of undue influence or erosion of confidence in the research enterprise.

Despite their benefits, relationships with industry create conflicts of interest that can undermine the primary goals of medical research. Where there are conflicts, legitimate and serious concerns can be raised about the openness of research and potential bias in the design, conduct, and reporting of research (see, e.g., Gross [2007]). Whether or not the conflicts actually lead to unwarranted secrecy or biased results in particular cases, they have the potential to threaten the reputation of the research enterprise if they are not avoided or identified and managed responsibly."

 

Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice; Lo B, Field MJ, editors.

Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009.

 

But if one is operating from a perspective of ,everything is a lie and a distortion and a conspiracy (not that you are) Then anything that has the trappings of commercial enterprise in pharmaceutical/biotechnology research, cannot ever be objective-which of course is absurd.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 17:53 ----------

 

Mac33.

 

We are way off the OP. However, what you post cannot be left unchallenged. I'll be specific. HIV disease-somethng I know sheds loads about.

Just tell me what cheaper alternatives do you have in mind- that can save the NHS money- for the control of HIV . The Bach Flower remedy ,DNCB or Homeopathic Nosodes?

You see, the NHS is doing quite well in its partnership with Big Pharma. Providing ARVs that make what once was a death sentence into a manageable condition.

Even the Perth Group recognise the usefulness of ARVs -and there are no bigger HIV denialists than them .In addition, ARVs are free at the point of use. And as a tax payer,my contribution to their cost is money well spent.And if a person is up to speed (say by using I-base) then you can play a part in determing the best ARV treatment that suits you. God bless the NHS !

Edited December 1, 2017 by petemcewan

[onewheeldave]

Onewheeldave,

Please bear with me. We are straying quite a way from ,”should I nip up the chemist and get my flu vac”?

 

 

I would hazard to guess that every contributor to this thread is aware of conflicts of interest in the pharmaceuticals industry.But such recognition doesn’t warrant routinely dismissing as

Untrustworthy the industry’s discoveries and products that are brought to market.

The following paragraphs put succinctly

 

Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice; Lo B, Field MJ, editors.

Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009.

 

But if one is operating from a perspective of ,everything is a lie and a distortion and a conspiracy (not that you are) Then anything that has the trappings of commercial enterprise in pharmaceutical/biotechnology research, cannot ever be objective-which of course is absurd.

 

As you realise, I'm not dismissing things purely because the pharmaceutical industry is involved.

 

But neither am I talking about mere 'conflict of interest'.

 

The pharmaceutical industry are inextricably woven into our health system at all it's levels. And their financial interests are deeply corrupting.

 

In the words of Dr Peter Gøtzsche, the actions of the pharmaceutical industry 'fulfills the criteria for organised crime, in US law.....they corrupt everyone they can corrupt...'

 

 

(from 1 minute onwards)

 

Dr Gotzsche is head of the Danish Cochrane Centre.

 

(He's not a crank or conspiracy theorist).

 

http://nordic.cochrane.org/peter-c-g%C3%B8tzsche

 

The Cochrane Collaboration (which he helped found, and, is now elected to the Cochrane Governing Board, the Cochrane Collaboration's uppermost authority) is the 'gold standard' of evidence appraisal, an organisation which looks at studies and judges whether they are well designed, or flawed.

 

He has access to study data that few others do.

 

This is just one example of high up people in the conventional health science system who are talking about corruption going far, far deeper than people generally recognise.

 

So, while I'm not dismissing things just because the pharmaceutical industry are involved, I am saying that, because they are, and because they are corrupt, it is necessary to question those things.

 

And unfortunately, the usual mechanisms used to question those things i.e. studies, are themselves a prime target for the industries corruption.

 

Scientific method itself is fine. But the science industry is a business, riddled with corrupting influences, as is the health industry.

[MAC33]

One of my sisters is a nurse in Scotland who I've not seen for over 36 years.

 

Another sister works as a medical administrator at the RPH here in Perth Australia.

 

Both are not open in any way to there being any medical practices or procedures that are detrimental to health including vaccination.

 

When ones financial well being hangs on direct injection of known toxins,including foreign DNA preventing not causing disease - the mind works in funny ways.

 

The youngest sister went for a holiday to India many years ago. She took a cocktail of vaccines citing BS prevention claims. I begged her not to take them for around half an hour but working in a hospital she knows better.

 

Her holiday was a total disaster after getting sick shortly after taking the shots.

 

You just can't get through to some people.

 

And to this day she is still pro vaccine.....

Edited December 1, 2017 by MAC33

[Cyclone]

My word. You've really swallowed the kool-aid.

She absolutely does know better.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 22:18 ----------

 

He has access to study data that few others do.

Let me stop you there.

Study data isn't restricted, kind of the point is that it's easy to access.

 

In the UK we don't let the pharmaceutical industry dictate to doctors, or even sell to them, or talk to them very much at all.

One of the advantages of a national health service is that whilst individual doctors can't necessarily know enough to argue back with big pharma, a national health service most certainly can. And whilst 1 doctor can be bribed with a few free pens, you can't bribe an open committee.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most heavily regulated on the planet, by the Danish as well as every other country.

Roche and Pfizer might have profit as their driving concern, but the NHS, the Danish health service, the French, the German, the Spanish, the Italian, hell, even the US doctors on the front line, they don't. They have patient care first and foremost.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 22:20 ----------

 

Multinational pharma giants even threatened to sue the NHS for prescribing cheaper medicine which could save the public millions.

 

If this is true (to be established).

* This would prove that the NHS is NOT beholden to BP, and in fact will prescribe cheaper/better drugs to the point where court action is threatened.

* What possibly court action could be threatened, this makes little sense.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2017 at 22:24 ----------

 

Pharmaceutical companies Bayer and Novartis are threatening to sue doctors who prescribe off label a clinically effective alternative to their NICE-approved drugs.

 

Okay, not quite the statement you made.

 

Assistant director of standards and ethics at the GMC Mary Agnew told The BMJ that the regulator was “sympathetic to the frustrations of doctors and organisations seeking to use resources effectively.”

 

“We hope that some sort of licensing solution for drugs such as Avastin may be forthcoming, or alternatively that the situation is clarified in the courts to give doctors more assurance about when they can prescribe this drug safely and within the law,” she said.

 

It appears that NICE needs to update it's guidelines, but presumably there needs to be a study done of the available evidence.

 

http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/news/nhs-faces-legal-action-for-prescribing-cheaper-drug-off-label-for-sight-loss/20203910.article

 

Clearly the NHS in this case is NOT AT ALL in the pocket of big pharma, so which way do you want to argue it? Is NHS a patsy, or are they actually doing what they should and in reality BP are having to play within the legal framework created by the government and the NHS?