norwayeagle Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 No ranting but maybe you could post some examples where it is proven that it is more serious then the common flu. Do you read the news now and then or is it just Pattaya mail? A female friend of the family, 32 years old just died of the swine flu in Northern Europe, she did not die last year or the years before that, but they have the seasonal flu there every freezing winter. Lots of younger people are dying of this swine flu, it is much worse than common flu due to it's capacity to kill seemingly healthy and relatively young people. These 35 Million doses will provide a single course for 3.5 Million people, of course one of the approved uses is taking the drug as a preventative measure at a reduced dose. What about all the dead people from the "common" flue? Every year So so many many more die from that.I have to say i really don't get it.The common flue has a so much bigger death rate. swineflu should not even be talked about.And not to say about aaalll the other deceases,am coming up with the question;Why is the swineflu so scale 6 in the W;H;O agenda? I have been reading a lot,from a to z and still i "wonder". WHY? Even my doctor back home say that all about this piggie flu is far out of propositions,non realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanlayanee Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 my 2 cents... anyone in Gov recommending vaccination for swine flu is an enemy of the people at this point certainly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanlayanee Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, November 1, 2009 Why This Doctor Questions Flu Vaccination by Dr. Damien Downing (OMNS, November 1, 2009) 2009 may be the year of the vaccine show-down, the moment when enough of us start questioning all we're being told about vaccines. A survey published in the BMJ in August ( bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/339/aug25_2/b3391) reported that less than half of healthcare workers in Hong Kong were willing to accept "pre-pandemic" flu vaccination. And that was before a letter from the Health Protection Agency to 600 United Kingdom neurologists on July 29th warning them to be on the alert for an increase in cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome following the vaccination campaign. If nurses and doctors start questioning vaccination for themselves, sooner or later we'll have to advise patients to make their own minds up. They seem to be doing so anyway. A poll by Fox News foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/26/think-greater-risk/ , often described as a right-wing channel, found that 51% thought taking the H1N1 vaccine carried a greater risk than not being vaccinated. Yet both in the USA and the UK, this year's swine flu vaccine will be rolled out without adequate safety testing. What's going on? Two things: profits and power. Profits Pharmaceutical companies love pandemics; they are a great way to sell practically-useless drugs such as Tamiflu. A thorough review ( thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(09)70199-9/fulltext) by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York University found that these drugs reduced the duration of flu symptoms by less than a day, and recommended that giving them to healthy adults "is unlikely to be the most appropriate course of action." Pandemics are also a good way to sell vaccines. Manufacturers now stand to clean up to the tune of around $50 billion per year from influenza vaccines alone articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/13/Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Makers-to-Profit-50-Billion-a-Year.aspx ), on a vaccine without proper safety testing, and with efficacy totally unproven. A 2005 study was unable to "correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group." Instead they attributed the reduction in deaths to acquired "herd" immunity - nothing to do with vaccines. (1) Global sales of vaccines were worth $24 billion in 2008, up 30% on the previous year, and greatly exceeding predictions from only 2 years before. knol.google.com/k/krishan-maggon/global-vaccine-market-review-2008-world/ ) Just in time for the manufacturers, as sales of "old-fashioned" pharmaceuticals are generally approaching saturation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanlayanee Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Power Governments love pandemics. They support a system in which compulsory vaccination is imposed against our will, and where nutrients, which can provide cheap, safe and effective treatments for many problems are being outlawed on the basis of manipulated and flawed evidence. (anhcampaign.org/ )The term "biopower" was first coined by French philosopher Michel Foucault to describe the use by governments of technologies to control populations, that is, to control our bodies. Vaccination is a good example of this; a technology that governments seek to impose on us, ostensibly to prevent a harm such as death and damage from measles. Take measles as an example; what is the real risk from it? Nobody really knows. All the recent evidence comes from developing countries with serious nutritional problems; one death in a million cases of measles, perhaps. What is the risk of developing autism if you get all or most of the long list of vaccinations for children? It's 1 in 64 in the five-to-nine year olds now, according to Professor Baron-Cohen, Director of the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge. That means there are over 55,000 autists in that age group now, and 55,000 families stressed, heartbroken, even destroyed by it. Add the older kids still hobbled by autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and the younger ones yet to be diagnosed, and you get at least 100,000 children in the UK. Most swine flu vaccine contains thiomersal. That's the preservative, nearly 50% of it mercury, that is probably a major cause of autism. A proper risk analysis would identify the risk of autism as the greater likely cost, both human cost to the individual and financial to the state. Fair discussion of risk is prevented by management of the information flow. There is no mainstream news medium left on which you can rely for accuracy and balance. A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/3/279) reported that the swine flu virus that caused the outbreak in 1977 "was probably an accidental release from a laboratory source." During that outbreak, the USA launched a mass vaccination campaign, but this led to at least 25 deaths and 500 cases of Guillian-Barre syndrome. There were thousands of injury claims. This time around, to protect their profits, the manufacturers clearly needed immunity from prosecution, which has now been granted to them by the US and UK governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanlayanee Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 The Real Solution There are dozens of official websites out there offering conventional advice on how to protect yourself from swine flu: stay away from other people, wear a mask, get vaccinated, take Tamiflu, and so on. But the real solution, the one they aren't telling you about, is nutritional. There is plenty of evidence for nutritional intake making a difference - to your risk of developing flu symptoms, to your risk of complications, and to your time for recovery. The simple message is to consider taking the following (all doses approximate, and no danger from any of it): * Vitamin D 4,000 International Units (IU) daily * Vitamin A 25,000 IU daily (unless you're pregnant or likely to become so) * Vitamin C 1000 milligrams (mg) several times daily (at least) * Zinc 25 mg daily This is what I am doing, and what I advise my patients. See your doctor and talk this over. Read the small print of course, and take other supplements if your body tells you it needs them. As for vaccination? That is, or at least should be, your decision. References: (1) Simonsen L, Reichert TA et al. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165:265-272. (Dr. Damien Downing was qualified at Guy's Hospital, London in 1972, and worked in hospitals and general practice in London, Leeds and York. He spent three years in the Solomon Islands as Medical Officer of Health for the capital, with responsibility for Mental Health Services and the Village Aid Project. On return to the UK in 1980 he established a private practice, focusing on nutritional and alternative therapies. He is president of the British Society for Allergy Environmental and Nutritional Medicine and editor of the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. He is a member of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service Editorial Review Board.) Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: orthomolecular.org The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource. Editorial Review Board: Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. Damien Downing, M.D. Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. Steve Hickey, Ph.D. James A. Jackson, PhD Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. Erik Paterson, M.D. Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D. Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Editor and contact person. Email: [email protected] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanlayanee Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 mercola is leading the MDs to the truth check his work out http:// articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/03/What-We-Have-Learned- About-the-Great-Swine-Flu-Pandemic.aspx this one is so good... covers a lot of material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanlayanee Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Dr Mercola claims this Swine Flu -- One of the Most Massive Cover-ups in American History quite a claim and worth looking more into I would say I think the ones running the show here are also making serious money and is mainly what thing is all about the more I study this subject the more I am sure all vaccinations are NOT SAFE and certainly nothing to be shot into a new born or pregnant mother certainly! also the world is finally starting to wake up about this fact too i encourage everyone to study up and just don't take what they say as the truth far from the truth is the way its looking to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanlayanee Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Dr Mercola goes on to say recently In her article, Physicians are Talking About: Is It Worth Getting the H1N1 Vaccine?, Nancy Terry writes: “… However, other physicians are equally adamant about not getting the H1N1 vaccine. "I don't want to be a lab rat," says an internist. "No way I or my family will receive the vaccine. Not a chance!" comments another internist. "Emphatically no to both vaccines," says a family medicine physician. "I agree with Dr. Joseph Mercola's take on the swine flu and this and the prior round of vaccinations for it. I believe, based on all I've read to date, that vaccinations cause a body more harm than good." "I remember the last vaccine rushed to production. People died and some developed paralysis," says another family medicine physician. "I prefer to take my chances." Several physicians wonder about the advisability of vaccinating segments of the population already exposed to influenza. An emergency medicine physician, who saw H1N1 cases throughout September, comments, "If the epidemiology here mirrors the Southern Hemisphere flu season, by the time H1N1 vaccine is available the virus probably will be done circulating through my community."… … "This ain't your grandma's seasonal flu virus," says a pediatrician. "It's a quadruple-reassortant swine/avian hybrid that's never been seen before, significantly different from its predecessors, even if relatively wimpy." For this reason, he suggests that caution is warranted with regard to the infection and the vaccine. He adds, "It's not inconceivable that this vaccine could cause side effects not seen with seasonal vaccine, although it seems safe in trials, so far." A family medicine physician agrees: "Any vaccine made at the last minute and made only by a few manufacturers with huge government contracts at stake cannot help but be higher risk for untoward side effects." … A family medicine physician comments, "I'm not sure I can justify recommending this vaccine to all children until safety is better ascertained when, so far, cases on the whole seem to be mild." As you can see, I’m not the only doctor on the block who has serious reservations. Hopefully, together we will be able to make a difference and save countless people from unnecessary harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmaster Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Many of these posters must not have had the opportunity to watch 60 Minutes on Sunday. Would suggest you get the vaccine as quickly as you can...Vitamin C ???...Geezzzz.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Google Dr. Damien Downing. That is all that needs to be said on that subject. And eating right to stay healthy is hardly a groundbreaking concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanlayanee Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 this says it all http://www. masslpa.org/content/finlands-health-minister-blasts-swine-flu-bs Finland's Health Minister speaks clearly on Swine Flu BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwayeagle Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Kanlayanee,I "just"want to thank you,and also thanks to many others inside TV for a Lot of info! I do Love people who still fight against the brainwash syndromes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabcbroon Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Dr Mercola claims thisSwine Flu -- One of the Most Massive Cover-ups in American History quite a claim and worth looking more into I would say I think the ones running the show here are also making serious money and is mainly what thing is all about the more I study this subject the more I am sure all vaccinations are NOT SAFE and certainly nothing to be shot into a new born or pregnant mother certainly! also the world is finally starting to wake up about this fact too i encourage everyone to study up and just don't take what they say as the truth far from the truth is the way its looking to me Exactly to the point. But if i could just add the following point: it is the intention of these (people) to condition the sheeple to be vaccinated whenever the governments decide - without question. People might like to consider that a microchip smaller than a grain of sand is now available - and can be quite easily injected. Do your own research!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 (edited) People might like to consider that a microchip smaller than a grain of sand is now available - and can be quite easily injected. Do your own research!!!!!!!! This thread just took a leap from amusingly paranoid to seriously disturbed!! If your having a lot of thoughts like this, I hope you get the help you need. Paranoid Schizophrenia WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization. Source: www.healthsquare.com Edited November 5, 2009 by Scubabuddha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 NOW you throw in a curve ball NOW stick to the debate as your PRO team is losing (NaturalNews) The news is out: Vitamin D is better than the swine flu vaccine at halting H1N1 infections. In fact, without vitamin D, chances are that a vaccine won't generate much of an immune response in the first place. FUDGED FIGURES see here http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/731.html there are 100's of other sites that show the true agenda. BIRD FLU keeep saying it - how to get rid of the stock pile???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 So the "PRO's" are losing because the anti's are posting a bunch of propaganda links to paranoid whack jobs? I said all I can. I can't debate with irrational people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I never see any links for backing up what you are saying! (scubabubbles) try this from the FDA - first understand that these drugs have had millions of dollars spent on them and 10 years to get it close to market. Just like the tabacco companies they have their own team of scientists that guide the drugs through the miriad of tests the get approval. These guys know how to manipulate figures and findings. DONT FORGET they only need 10% to say there was some benefits from taking the drugs during trials. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/Postma...s/ucm107840.htm If you read it carefully you may see that Tamiflu from ROCHE has an interesting track record. THey have ducked and weaved their way around many obsticals SOMETHING only large pharmas can do as they have huge influence on governments. Bird flu, swine flu, (future)crocodile flu, 3 toed sloth flu, will all be used to further the cause in getting warehouses full of Tamiflu back into the market. The fudge on Tamiflu is the words they use - may do this or may assist or may shorten. NEVER once do they say that it will do this or that or its proven to do this. An important point when trying to get a drug through 10 years of testing. What is known is that it has killed people, made them sick, caused skin rashes, etc. Best advise so far is treat it like a common cold and HOPE you dont get a secondary bacterial infection. Stay home, dont share the virus, rest, take vitamins, etc. The vaccine forget it. Better let the body grow a natural resistance. KEEP reading folks. Knowledge is power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 So the "PRO's" are losing because the anti's are posting a bunch of propaganda links to paranoid whack jobs? I said all I can. I can't debate with irrational people. Oh come on you sent me a personal message to get back into the ring and slug this out. piker PS if you want to win back up your rhetoric with some facts and figures ie Tamiflu works because ...................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I never see any links for backing up what you are saying! (scubabubbles) Firstly, I am not going to provide links showing Oseltamivir is the same as Tamiflu/Relenza, and that it is an inti-viral medication and not a vaccine, and that Oseltamivir can be prescribed preventatively. That would be like providing links proving that the sky is blue. I'll assume readers here are smarter than that. (That's readers, not posters) Secondly, providing links to a source in my opinion is not the best way to make an argument. There are intelligently written but incredibly biased or out of date websites by supposedly credentialed people supporting every side of every argument. We have seen many posted in this thread. Most of what I have seen posted by the con side here has been from the incredibly biased side. Rather than post potentially biased links, I prefer to say, "Here is my opinion, here what my medical background and experience has taught me. Please educate yourself before you decide." Which both sides have rightly suggested numerous times. I did, however, provide these. The 60 minutes video has the actual people being interviewed and thus is more reliable than written words which can be easily taken out of context or made up entirely. I read/watched both links thoroughly before posting them and feel they are pretty fair. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10388169-247.html http://www.capitalcentury.com/1976.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 And another recent report which seems fairly unbiased. This blog has anti-big pharma articles on it also. http://tamiflu-stop-flu.blogspot.com/2009/...hildren-so.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) So the "PRO's" are losing because the anti's are posting a bunch of propaganda links to paranoid whack jobs? I said all I can. I can't debate with irrational people. Oh come on you sent me a personal message to get back into the ring and slug this out. piker PS if you want to win back up your rhetoric with some facts and figures ie Tamiflu works because ...................................... Blackjack, I have 37 posts on this thread. You have 4. I have already addressed the issues you mention. I would just be repeating what I have already said. I would rather not waste my time doing that. I am not trying to "win" antyhing. I am just trying to keep this debate somewhere close to reality. I have enjoyed reading some of the opposing view points some of the other informed members have posted here. I have a clearer picture of this issue than I did when I started posting. However, I maintain that the vaccines, whether for seasonal flu, or for swine flu, while not necessarily needed for everyone at this point, are overwhelmingly beneficial for a society, and that stockpiling anti-virals is not a bad idea. Proportionally, very few people suffer side effects, it does happen, but the odds of getting a serious side effect are very very low. So low that a direct link to the vaccine is not always clear. As the above links will testify, a certain segment of the population needs anti-virals when infected, but not everyone, not yet...UNLESS a strain of flu begins severely effecting and killing healthy younger people, (as A/H1N1 did at first) then that segment of the population needing and wanting the vaccine and anti-virals expands by several orders of magnitude. I read this carefully don't see how it supports your position. It's a 5 year old FDA summary of an investigation into possible Tamiflu side effects from Japan. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/Postma...s/ucm107840.htm It was inconclusive: "...a relationship (between the side effects and) Tamiflu was difficult to assess because of the use of other medications, presence of other medical conditions, and/or lack of adequate detail in the reports..." "Review of the available information on the safety of Tamiflu in pediatric patients suggests that the increased reports of neuropsychiatric events in Japanese children are most likely related to an increased awareness of influenza-associated encephalopathy, increased access to Tamiflu in that population, and a coincident period of intensive monitoring adverse events. Based on the information available to us, we can not conclude that there is a causal relationship between Tamiflu and the reported pediatric deaths." And further, it states that Roche actively sought additional information about side effects and provided them to the FDA. " ...Roche and its Japanese pharmaceutical affiliate actively solicited adverse event reports from 70,000 institutions and physicians in Japan. These adverse event reports included the 2003-04 flu season and were subsequently reported to the FDA and are included in the BPCA safety review." Kind of debunks the "THey have ducked and weaved their way around many obsticals" theory. Edited November 7, 2009 by Scubabuddha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 So the "PRO's" are losing because the anti's are posting a bunch of propaganda links to paranoid whack jobs? I said all I can. I can't debate with irrational people. Oh come on you sent me a personal message to get back into the ring and slug this out. piker PS if you want to win back up your rhetoric with some facts and figures ie Tamiflu works because ...................................... Blackjack, I have 37 posts on this thread. You have 4. I have already addressed the issues you mention. I would just be repeating what I have already said. I would rather not waste my time doing that. I am not trying to "win" antyhing. I am just trying to keep this debate somewhere close to reality. I have enjoyed reading some of the opposing view points some of the other informed members have posted here. I have a clearer picture of this issue than I did when I started posting. However, I maintain that the vaccines, whether for seasonal flu, or for swine flu, while not necessarily needed for everyone at this point, are overwhelmingly beneficial for a society, and that stockpiling anti-virals is not a bad idea. Proportionally, very few people suffer side effects, it does happen, but the odds of getting a serious side effect are very very low. So low that a direct link to the vaccine is not always clear. As the above links will testify, a certain segment of the population needs anti-virals when infected, but not everyone, not yet...UNLESS a strain of flu begins severely effecting and killing healthy younger people, (as A/H1N1 did at first) then that segment of the population needing and wanting the vaccine and anti-virals expands by several orders of magnitude. I read this carefully don't see how it supports your position. It's a 5 year old FDA summary of an investigation into possible Tamiflu side effects from Japan. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/Postma...s/ucm107840.htm It was inconclusive: "...a relationship (between the side effects and) Tamiflu was difficult to assess because of the use of other medications, presence of other medical conditions, and/or lack of adequate detail in the reports..." "Review of the available information on the safety of Tamiflu in pediatric patients suggests that the increased reports of neuropsychiatric events in Japanese children are most likely related to an increased awareness of influenza-associated encephalopathy, increased access to Tamiflu in that population, and a coincident period of intensive monitoring adverse events. Based on the information available to us, we can not conclude that there is a causal relationship between Tamiflu and the reported pediatric deaths." And further, it states that Roche actively sought additional information about side effects and provided them to the FDA. " ...Roche and its Japanese pharmaceutical affiliate actively solicited adverse event reports from 70,000 institutions and physicians in Japan. These adverse event reports included the 2003-04 flu season and were subsequently reported to the FDA and are included in the BPCA safety review." Kind of debunks the "THey have ducked and weaved their way around many obsticals" theory. I dont know how many ways you want to read this. Tamiflu - DOES NOT WORK. It does not stop (kill maim any virus.) There is NO PROOF that it works. THere is proof that you get sick and can die. The BIGPHARMA's can make any drug look good when its not. The reason it doesnt work is that each season the virus adapts and changes. But Tamiflu remains the same. So how can you keep wheeling out the same drug for something that can change 2-3 times a year??? Since 2005 there is documented evidence of Tamiflu resistant strains - but BIGPHARMA's not going to tell you that. They use it for BIRD FLU and then the same pill for SWINE FLU. IMPOSSIBLE. CAT FLU next. Oh quick pass the Tamiflu!!!!!!!!! thanks you ROCHE. PS why are you bringing vaccines into the debate to support your argument? "However, I maintain that the vaccines," we are talking about Tamiflu - yes or no??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Watch this space for the flood of anti-pharmaceutical ranting and claims of "It's all hype;" swine flu is not dangerous etc. etc. Just another way for pharmaceutical companies, medical doctors & hospitals to make millions of dollars. If you are younger than 8 or below 65, you don't need these flu shots. Again, does anyone bother reading the actual article to which they are commenting? This isn't about flu shots, it's about an anti-viral treatment, Oseltamivir. exactly so stick to the subject matter and stop propping up your argument with vaccine matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabcbroon Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) are you featured here scuba Edited November 7, 2009 by rabcbroon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 March 5th 2009 New England Journal of Medicine Global Transmission of Oseltamivir-Resistant Influenza Anne Moscona, M.D. Seemingly from one influenza season to the next, we have lost the use of our leading antiviral influenza drug because of resistance. This winter, the circulating strain of seasonal influenza A virus (H1N1) is resistant to the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir (Tamiflu) now go to sleep scubbabubbles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabcbroon Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 sheeple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJack Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 So the "PRO's" are losing because the anti's are posting a bunch of propaganda links to paranoid whack jobs? I said all I can. I can't debate with irrational people. Oh come on you sent me a personal message to get back into the ring and slug this out. piker PS if you want to win back up your rhetoric with some facts and figures ie Tamiflu works because ...................................... Blackjack, I have 37 posts on this thread. You have 4. I have already addressed the issues you mention. I would just be repeating what I have already said. I would rather not waste my time doing that. I am not trying to "win" antyhing. I am just trying to keep this debate somewhere close to reality. I have enjoyed reading some of the opposing view points some of the other informed members have posted here. I have a clearer picture of this issue than I did when I started posting. However, I maintain that the vaccines, whether for seasonal flu, or for swine flu, while not necessarily needed for everyone at this point, are overwhelmingly beneficial for a society, and that stockpiling anti-virals is not a bad idea. Proportionally, very few people suffer side effects, it does happen, but the odds of getting a serious side effect are very very low. So low that a direct link to the vaccine is not always clear. As the above links will testify, a certain segment of the population needs anti-virals when infected, but not everyone, not yet...UNLESS a strain of flu begins severely effecting and killing healthy younger people, (as A/H1N1 did at first) then that segment of the population needing and wanting the vaccine and anti-virals expands by several orders of magnitude. I read this carefully don't see how it supports your position. It's a 5 year old FDA summary of an investigation into possible Tamiflu side effects from Japan. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/Postma...s/ucm107840.htm In March 2007, Japan's Health Ministry warned that oseltamivir should not be given to those aged 10 to 19. The Ministry had previously decided, in May 2004, to change the literature accompanying oseltamivir to include neurological and psychological disorders as possible adverse effects, including: impaired consciousness, abnormal behavior, and hallucinations.[15] According to Japan's Health Ministry, between 2004 and March 2007, fifteen people aged 10 to 19 have been injured or killed by jumps or fallen from buildings after taking oseltamivir, and one 17-year-old died after he jumped in front of a truck.[16] A renewed investigation of the Japanese data was completed in April 2007. It found that 128 patients had been reported to behave abnormally after taking oseltamivir since 2001. Forty-three of them were under 10 years old, 57 patients were aged 10 to 19, and 28 patients were aged 20 or over. Eight people, including five teens and three adults, had died from these actions.[17][18][16] In October 2006, Shumpei Yokota, a professor of pediatrics at Yokahama City University, released the results of research involving around 2,800 children which found no difference in the behavior between those who took oseltamivir and those who did not. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. (which produces oseltamivir in Japan) gave Yokota's department 10 million yen (about US$105,000) over five years.[19] BIG PHARMA WINS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! payoff for the professors retirement plan!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) Watch this space for the flood of anti-pharmaceutical ranting and claims of "It's all hype;" swine flu is not dangerous etc. etc. Just another way for pharmaceutical companies, medical doctors & hospitals to make millions of dollars. If you are younger than 8 or below 65, you don't need these flu shots. Again, does anyone bother reading the actual article to which they are commenting? This isn't about flu shots, it's about an anti-viral treatment, Oseltamivir. exactly so stick to the subject matter and stop propping up your argument with vaccine matter This is very ironic and quite comical of you to say blackjack. 1) I have been trying to keep this thread about Oseltamivir/Tamiflu from the begining, with little success. (I get tired of saying this, but try reading through the thread sometime) .2) You were the one that quoted the NaturalNews website: "The news is out: Vitamin D is better than the swine flu vaccine at halting H1N1 infections. In fact, without vitamin D, chances are that a vaccine won't generate much of an immune response in the first place." So what ARE you talking about. lol? Edited November 7, 2009 by Scubabuddha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 (edited) Tamiflu - DOES NOT WORK. It does not stop (kill maim any virus.)There is NO PROOF that it works. THere is proof that you get sick and can die. Read the thread. Already covered. Some seasonal flu's are showing resistance, this is common knowledge, but the results of studies vary. AH1N1 largely is not showing resistance. It is simply incorrect to say "There is NO PROOF that it works." The reason it doesnt work is that each season the virus adapts and changes. But Tamiflu remains the same. So how can you keep wheeling out the same drug for something that can change 2-3 times a year???They use it for BIRD FLU and then the same pill for SWINE FLU. IMPOSSIBLE. It sounds as if you are confusing Oseltamivir/Tamiflu with a vaccine. It most definitely is possible. Oseltamivir/Tamiflu was designed to provide resistance to the spread of flu viruses in general, not to provide resistance to a single or a few flu viruses as a vaccine is. Since 2005 there is documented evidence of Tamiflu resistant strains - but BIGPHARMA's not going to tell you that. That's funny because several websites confirm Roche has announced that very thing in a press releases. Big Pharma DID tell you that, you just weren't listening: http://www.roche.com/de/mb_090907.pdf See page 10. Interesting tidbit: Roche contends that the virus resistant strains are not a result of Tamiflu use, but rather naturally occurring mutations in viruses different enough to not be effected by Tamiflu. They say this because there was very little use of Tamiflu in the are's where the drug resistant drug came from. PS why are you bringing vaccines into the debate to support your argument? "However, I maintain that the vaccines," we are talking about Tamiflu - yes or no??? I've been trying to talk about Tamiflu, yes. Others who are confused on the matter, thought the original article was about the vaccine, even you, as I just pointed out in the previous post. You jumped in the middle of this fracas and I doubt have read though the thread to see how it evolved. You asked me a general question about not supporting my position. If you were asking soley about Osaltamivir/Tamiflu, you should have said so. Most current recommendations from the US Center for Disease Control on using Tamiflu can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/recommendations.htm Edited November 7, 2009 by Scubabuddha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now