--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
ATISHOO! ATISHOO!
WE ALL FALL DOWN?
Is
the flu such a dreaded disease?
steven ransom
There have been many instances over recent years that show how governments
and media oulets are adept at creating unnecessary mass anxiety over
disease. With the news that UK supermarket Asda (Walmart subsidiary) is now
offering the flu jab on-site to its customers (at the bargain price of
97 as opposed to the normal 00), readers are strongly encouraged to
acquaint themselves with the tawdry, unethical nature of today so-called
lu protectionogrammes, before rolling up their sleeves.
FLU! SUCH A DREADED DISEASE?
We can all remember the headlines over the last few winters: iller Flu On
The Way!ew Super Flu Heading for the UK.ritain Braces Itself for an
Epidemic.r several years now, every UK newspaper at one time or another
has led with graphic accounts of a flu plague threatening to engulf Britain.
Take this frenzied headline from The Sunday Mirror, as far back as the 28th
September, 1997:
MILLIONS AT RISK FROM KILLER FLU - Doctors are preparing for a massive
outbreak of killer flu this winter. Millions of people are expected to die
worldwide as a new strain of super-bug sweeps the globe. And with 10 million
people in a high-risk category in Britain, the Government has already
alerted hospitals - and mortuaries - to the threat. A detailed document sets
out how the health service will cope with arge numbers of people ill and
dyingd includes mortuary arrangements for a large number of deaths.
And the result? No flu pandemic. The lack of any flu plague anywhere across
the globe has not brought a halt to these iller fluont page specials.
If anything, the inane headlines are increasing in frequency and intensity.
Take the following ealth scoopom USA Today, dated December 3rd 2003:
The warning sirens are screaming: A deadly, contagious strain of flu will
emerge, possibly soon, flu experts say, and the world is not ready to deal
with it. he world will be in deep trouble if the impending influenza
pandemic strikes this week, this month, or even this year,ite
international flu experts Richard Webby and Robert Webster of St. Jude
Children Research Hospital in Memphis.
And this latest from the UK Daily Express, dated 23rd October 2003: Killer
flu hits Britain. Alarmed Health experts warned all doctors that high-risk
categories e elderly and those with heart problems ould be
vaccinated. The mutant virus has swept through Australia where it is blamed
for thousands of deaths in the worst flu outbreak for five years.
But with no flu outbreaks ever emerging and the death rates in these
stories, as we shall discover, always wildly exaggerated, just where were
all these headlines coming from? Credence Publications has been following
the flu headlines for a number of years now. Predictably, these flu
editorials have been nothing more than a pharmaceutical sales pitch. In
short, they are a complete scam. It was the following report from the BBC,
that prompted our initial investigation into the matter:
he number of those catching the flu bug has risen by more than 80% in just
seven days and hospitals and ambulance services are bracing themselves for a
further tide of emergency admissions and deaths. Provisional figures
released on Wednesday by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP)
showed the first large rise in cases in the south as the virus spreads from
the North and the Midlands. As the Emergency Bed Service issued a warning
that hospitals may run out of beds, it emerged on Wednesday that a second
Norfolk hospital is using a refrigerated lorry trailer to act as a standby
mortuary.]
HARDLY AN EPIDEMIC
Great mileage was made of the death of 33-year-old UK rugby player Kieron
Gregory, and of Nigel Tranter, one of Britain most prolific authors, who
succumbed to the deadly plague at aged 90![2] But these taraths were
about the only tragedies the media could muster. Hardly an epidemic.
In another desperate bid to report on something compellingly flu-oriented,
one BBC Evening News item featured a roving reporter giving a live update
from Scotland flu utbreak epicentrehe camera panned across a
hospital ward containing seven beds, in which lay seven persons all over the
age of 65, all suffering fromd-January FLU! And of course, because of
their age, all these seven people fell comfortably within the risk group
associated with contracting flu anyway. Hardly award-winning material.
Throughout the whole flu campaign, this was the most earth-shattering
evidence the BBC could muster to support the wild headlines engulfing the
nation.[3]
But amidst all the hype and the push to noculate, inoculate, inoculate!he flu season
came and went - and the body counts, both in the UK and the
US, remained normal. Apart from those people within the traditional risk
group associated with flu fatalities, i.e., the elderly and infirm, who
actually knows anyone who died of the illness? Where were all the bodies? So
what was driving all this meaningless editorial?
WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS
A clue might well come from the fact that, running alongside our five
wintersrth of iller fluadlines, the immensely powerful
pharmaceutical corporation Glaxo Wellcome PLC (now Glaxo SmithKline) had
been hard at work developing and marketing its new super flu drug Zanamivir
(Relenza). When it comes to Glaxo marketing campaigns, no stone is left
unturned, no expense is spared.[4] Relenza had been granted US and European
marketing licences, but it was now time to release the drug onto the UK
market. And that when the UK arm of the mighty Glaxo machine ran into
difficulties, albeit temporarily.
The product was initially denied a supply licence to the UK National Health
Service by NICE e National Institute for Clinical Excellence
organisation set up supposedly to safeguard the public from rogue operators
and rogue pharmaceutical treatments. NICE claimed that too few high-risk
positive responders were represented in the Glaxo trial results for Relenza.
Tactfully, they were saying there was no proven efficacy. This wasn helped
by the admission at a press conference from Glaxo Respiratory Associate
Medical Director, Dr Robert Pearson, that e can make any claims for its
use in high risk groups.]
Sir Richard Sykes, former chairman of Glaxo Wellcome, immediately went to
the media. In a letter to then Health Secretary Frank Dobson, copied to
Prime Minister Tony Blair, and eaked (or should we say udiciously
positioned inhe Sunday Telegraph, Sir Richard said the decision
represented a very serious threat to the future of one of the UK most
successful international industries. further wrote: he UK can no
longer be seen as providing a suitable market for the early launch of
innovative new medicines. This will have a severe impact on three UK-based
multinational companies and calls into question the suitability of the UK as
a base for multinational pharmaceutical companies.]
Let be quite clear about this. The contents of corporate letters of
complaint are not displayed prominently in broadsheet newspapers without
that corporation having considerable influence at the editorial level. This
considerable influence is also able to open doors to national TV and radio,
allowing a full and public airing of commercial grievances.
On Monday, 4th October 1999, Sykes was interviewed on BBC Radio Four Today
program. He predicted that the British pharmaceutical industry would start
to move out of Britain if the government made the environment ntagonistico its
interests. He further told the program: he British drugs industry
is one of the finest examples of a technological industry in Britain that
has actually made it in global terms. I am saying to the Government: please
understand that if you continue to make an adverse environment for
pharmaceutical companies, then obviously by definition they will start to
move elsewhere.
On Tuesday, 5th October, another huge pharmaceutical conglomerate,
AstraZeneca, joined Glaxo Wellcome in writing to Prime Minister Tony Blair,
repeating the warning that the industry could suffer if government doctors
were barred from prescribing Relenza, and many UK jobs threatened.
AND THE OUTCOME OF THIS FLURRY OF ACTIVITY?
A couple of daysessure on Prime Minister Blair from those who really
call the shots, along with some judiciously placed ewsems featuring
pensioners clamouring our prospects are grim unless Glaxo marvellous new
flu drug is made available7] and, Hey Presto! Relenza now enjoys the
status of a full UK marketing licence.
As a result of all of this avours for favoursring-pulling, taxpayers
are now paying millions of pounds annually for a drug which has absolutely
no proven efficacy, according to regulators, and is directly linked to
numerous deaths in the US, as reported by WebMD.[8] Dr. William Campbell
Douglass, editor of Second Opinion newsletter, reports that in the US, the
Food and Drug Administration approved Relenza even though it doesn
work.. Douglass said the FDA ignored the recommendations of its own
advisory panel, which voted 13-4 against approving Relenza. Says Douglass,
elenza is a medical swindle.. Sidney Wolfe of the Public Citizen
Health Research Group stated: his drug should never have been approved.
The benefits are close to zero.] As a statutory obligation on behalf of
the manufacturers, Relenza has a warning leaflet inserted in each
prescription, stating that lung damage from the inhaled powder is not
impossible.[10]
In a CBS Special, entitled nti-flu Drug May Be Deadlyeporter Sharyl
Atkinson announced, hen Relenza hit the market last flu season, it was
aggressively marketed by Glaxo Wellcome as an exciting new treatment. The
company claimed the inhalant attacked a type of fluimmune to older drugs.
The ads were flashy, but the medical claim was more modest - to get rid of
the fluone day faster
UNBOUGHT MEDICAL OPINION HARD TO FIND
In a recent interview with The Nation magazine, best-selling author John Le
Carrated:
ig Pharma [the industry in general] is engaged in the deliberate seduction
of the medical profession, country by country, worldwide. It is spending a
fortune on influencing, hiring and purchasing academic judgment to a point
where, in a few yearsme, if Big Pharma continues unchecked on its
present happy path, unbought medical opinion will be hard to find.1]
And true to form, the NICE policy on Relenza has now been redrafted. It
seems they have been bought out, morally and intellectually, over this
issue. The decision is no longer o we approve this drug?t espite the
dangers, how do we approve it?
A COMPLETE FAILURE
Doctors are now regularly offered hirty pieces of silvernuses to
encourage patients into trials of newer, more parklyugs. Says Ismail
Shalaby, chief executive of US-based Nema Medical Research Inc., here are
physicians who can now net about $500,000 to $1 million a year doing
clinical research. That not bad.2] Dr Michael Elashoff, a former drug
evaluator at the FDA (accent on the word former), made the mistake of
questioning the efficacy of Relenza. After painstakingly observing no
difference between the groups monitored, Elashoff concluded that Relenza was
complete failure.ry soon after, it was suggested that it would
probably be better if he left the division. Despite the warnings from
Elashoff and others, Relenza continues to be sold and has since been linked
to numerous bronchio-spasm deaths in the US, leading to a world-wide warning
letter being issued by GSK advising certain groups against inhaling the
powder.[13]
When it comes to the flu vaccine, The Vaccine Risk Awareness Network has
this to say:
he most intriguing deception of the public, however, is the suggestion
that the patient who gets an influenza vaccination will not get the flu.
What is generally known to the public as flu an influenza-like
syndrome, with symptoms like fever, chills, muscle or joint pains, a
headache, a runny nose, and general malaise. This disease, however, has got
nothing to do with the real influenza, neither can it in any way be
prevented by an influenza vaccination. Thus, if doctors guarantee their
patients that they will not get the flu after they came in to get their jab,
this is an unethical manipulation, the basis for which most probably is
simply profit for both those who produce the vaccine and those who
administer it.4]
The same article cites a home for elderly people, where, despite the fact
that two thirds of the population had been vaccinated, a severe flu struck
49% of them, causing considerable ill-health and a 10% death-rate. An
important observation was that in the vaccinated population, 50% got the
disease, compared to 48% of the non-vaccinated.[15]
When we step back a pace or two from this whole sorry saga, we realise that
all of this ulti-million wrangling has taken place over an illness that a
reasonably strong constitution can shake off unaided in a matter of days
anyway (collective inward gasp). Is that such an outrageous statement? Has
the must have my flu-shotainwashing worked to such an extent that
these words seem shocking? The USA Today report included at the beginnoing
of this story continues: Webster and Webby argue that new methods to produce
flu vaccines rapidly are known, but have not yet been tested. hat
necessary is to do trial runs and demonstrate these new vaccines are safe,ebster said
during a press briefing. Also needed is a stockpile of
anti-viral drugs that can be used to treat or prevent the spread of flu.
Current supplies would last only days in a pandemic, Webster said, ut no
country has yet invested in stockpiling.
And the Daily Express flu eatures Professor John Oxford, rging
people to go for their flu vaccine, saying, t is better to be careful and
be prepared.
THE 1918 KILLER FLU EPIDEMIC
The following text is taken from a conventional medical introduction to the
Great Flu:
he influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 killed more people than the Great War,
known today as World War I (WWI), at somewhere between 20 and 40 million
people. It has been cited as the most devastating epidemic in recorded world
history. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four years
of the Black Death Bubonic Plague from 1347 to 1351. Known as panish Flur a Grippehe
influenza of 1918-1919 was a global disaster.6]
These are impressive statistics and on the face of it, seemingly inarguable.
However, a little further down in the same article, reference is made to the
ntervention the vaccinators - the absolute key to understanding this
particular pidemic
he war also gave science greater importance as governments relied on
scientists, now armed with the new germ theory [examined in a later chapter]
and the development of antiseptic surgery, to design vaccines and reduce
mortalities of disease and battle wounds. Their new technologies could
preserve the men on the front and ultimately save the world.7]
Throughout the First World War, many vaccines were given to the troops. But
because the war only lasted four years, the vaccine-makers were unable to
use up all their vaccines. As they were (and still are) in business for
profit, they decided to sell the vaccines to the rest of the population.
Once again, a scare-tactics, mass-advertisement campaign was implemented.
There were no epidemics to justify mass-vaccination, so they used other
tricks. Their propaganda claimed the soldiers were coming home from foreign
countries with all kinds of diseases and that everyone must have all the
shots on the market. Vaccine historian Eleanor McBean takes up the story:
he people believed them because, first of all, they wanted to believe
their doctors, and second, the returning soldiers certainly had been sick.
They didn know it was from doctor-made vaccine diseases, as the army
doctors don tell them things like that. Many of the returned soldiers were
disabled for life by these drug-induced diseases. Many were insane from
post-vaccinal encephalitis, but the doctors called it shell-shock, even
though many had never left American soil.
That pandemic dragged on for two years, kept alive with the addition of more
poison drugs administered by the doctors who tried to suppress the symptoms.
As far as I could find out, the flu hit only the vaccinated. Those who had
refused the shots escaped the flu. My family had refused all the
vaccinations so we remained well all the time.
It has been said that the 1918 flu epidemic killed 20,000,000 people
throughout the world. But, actually, the doctors killed them with their
crude and deadly treatments and drugs. This is a harsh accusation but is
nevertheless true, judging by the success of the drugless doctors in
comparison with that of the medical doctors.8]
BEWARE OF HENRY JAB!
Contextualising the flu debate, two issues emerge: one, there is a great
deal of money being made out of flu vaccines and other flu medicines. And
two, this illness is not generally the killer it is being made out to be.
Any disease or illness will always have its percentage of fatalities. But
those fatalities are almost always in the minority and, again, almost always
dependant upon the health of the host at the time. Rest assured, a
well-nourished immune system combined with a good understanding of the
dangers of vaccination and associated toxic pharmaceuticals AND AVOIDING
THEM, can only guard us against many future ills. In the UK, boxing legend
Henry Cooper (the only man to have floored Mohammed Ali knockout denied
by the bell) is fronting the UK National Health Services flu vaccine
campaign. o yourselves a favour,ys the strapping Henry, o get
vaccinated.at on earth is the super-fit Henry doing? There is more than
ample evidence to demonstrate that concentrating on optimum nutrition will
aid us in protection and/or swift recovery from many of these illnesses.
Thank you
Steven Ransom
Excerpted from Wake Up To Health In The 21st Century,
Credence Publications
www.credence.org
comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] lu reaching a peakBC News, 7th January 1999 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/250225.stm
[2] LineOne News, 10th January 2000 at
http://www.lineone.net/express/00/01/10/news/n0500rugby-d.html
[3] BBC Evening News, 11th January 1999
[4] Foss, Krista, ebate raging in medical community over pharmaceutical
marketing practicest http://www.health.bcit.ca/CRP/freebies.htm year
ago, when a pharmaceutical firm offered the hospital 10 cardiology
residents a refrigerator for their lounge if they watched a video about a
drug, he finally got his colleagues to say no, too See also in same paper
ast year, Glaxo Wellcome PLC, which makes the newly approved drug for
treating influenza, Relenza, flew Dr. Barron to Montreal from Vancouver for
a day of work. In addition to paying for his flight, overnight stay and
meals, the company gave him $1,500. was under the impression I was taking
part in developing influenza education for Quebec licensing authority for
doctors, said. s it turned out, I was being asked to design an
educational presentation for Relenza. I was uncomfortable and wouldn do it
again.5] British Medical Journal, 9th October 1999; 319:942 at
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7215/942/a
[6] Sunday Telegraph, 3rd October 1999
[7] Give us wonder flu druglderly fear Dobson may ban Relenza because
of the cost.neOne News, 2nd October 1999 at
http://www.lineone.net/express/99 /10/02/news/n0600flu-d.html
[8] elenza Linked to Patient Deaths in Some Cases, Says Maker
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1728.59243
[9] Byrnes, Stephen, he Truth about Relenzaealth on the Edge, 1st
July 2001
[10] he U.S. Food and Drug Administration has told GlaxoSmithKline to
strengthen warning labels on its flu drug Relenza, following serious
breathing problems which may be linked to the drug, officials said on
Wednesday
http://209.211.253.21/Looking%20Around/relenza%20warning.htm
[11]nterview with John Le Carr, The Nation, 9th April 2001
[12] rug Trials Hide Conflicts for Doctorsew York Times, 16th January
2001
[13] Byrnes, Stephen, he Truth about Relenzap. cit.
[14] The Influenza Vaccine at http://www.vran.org/vaccine/vaccine_flu.asp
[15] ibid.
[16]Billings, Molly, he Influenza Pandemic of 1918tanford Education
Dept, June 1997, at http://www.stanford.edu/group/virus/uda/
[17] ibid.
[18] McBean, Eleanor, wine Flu Exposeugust 1977, online books at
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf.html
http://www.whatareweswallowing.com/
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
www.whatareweswallowing.com.url
Description: Binary data
--- End Message ---
