Health Spending On the Rise
February 5, 2010
Reuters
By Donna Smith
Economists at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS, said in a new report that the national healthcare spending will grow an average 6.1 percent a year over the decade to $4.5 trillion in 2019, about 1.7 percent faster than the overall economy. Healthcare will account for 19.3 percent of the economy in 2019, the report said.
Last year an estimated $2.5 trillion was spent on healthcare in the United States, accounting for about 17.3 percent of the economy, the report said.
The United States spends more on healthcare than any other country, even with about 46 million people lacking medical coverage. An effort by President Barack Obama to expand health coverage and rein in soaring costs stalled in the U.S. Congress after Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate following a special election in Massachusetts last month.
Democrats are weighing their options on how to advance the legislation in the face of solid Republican opposition.
The CMS report shows that medical spending and numbers of uninsured will continue to grow in the absence of reform.
“This report basically says nothing much has changed in that regard,” said CMS chief actuary Richard Foster.
“All that (rising medical costs and the uninsured) is still there, all that argues that some form of healthcare reform is still a good idea,” he added.
By 2019 the United States will spend about $13,387 per person per year on healthcare. That is up from about $8,047 in 2009 and a projected $8,290 per person in 2010, the report said.
The economic slump had a big impact on slowing the growth of private health spending as laid-off workers lost employer-sponsored coverage. At the same time, spending by the Medicaid government health program for the poor has gone up.
Public payments will account for half of all U.S. healthcare spending by 2012 and reach 52 percent by 2019 as baby boomers increasingly sign up for the Medicare health program for the elderly, the CMS economists said.
The report said spending on prescription drugs grew by an estimated 5.2 percent in 2009 due mostly to higher prices for brand name drugs. An improving economy will accelerate spending growth for prescription drugs to 5.6 percent by 2011, they said.
But growth in prescription drug spending will slow in 2012 and 2013 as patents expire on many top selling brand-name drugs sold by big pharmaceutical makers such as Pfizer and Merck, the report said.
After that, growth in drug spending will begin to accelerate again to 7.7 percent in 2019 because of rising drug prices and new drug approvals as well as an increasing share of more expensive specialty drugs, the report said.
WHO Scientist: Swine Flu Pandemic Was “Completely Exaggerated”
February 3, 2010
Info Wars
By Steve Watson
A scientist with the World Health Organisation has testified, during ongoing hearings in Strasbourg, France, that the swine flu pandemic was part of an overblown “angst campaign”, devised in conjunction with major drug companies to boost profits for vaccine manufacturers.
Professor Ulrich Keil, director of the WHO’s Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology, slammed the organization and its flu chief, Dr Keiji Fukuda while giving evidence before The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
“With SARS, with avian flu, always the predictions are wrong…Why don’t we learn from history?” Keil said. “It [swine flu] produced a lot of turmoil in the pubic and was completely exaggerated in contrast with all the really important matters we have to deal with in public health.”
The WHO adviser on heart disease, added that the decision had led to a “gigantic misallocation” of health budgets.
“We know the great killers are hypertension, smoking, high cholesterol, high body mass index, physical inactivity and low fruit and vegetable intake,” he said. “In spite of all these facts, governments instead wasted huge amounts of money by investing in pandemic scenarios whose evidence base is weak.”
PACE, a 47 nation body encompassing democratically elected members of parliament, will determine whether a “falsified pandemic” was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of medical advisors, many of whom have close financial ties to the very pharmaceutical giants – GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, – that produced the H1N1 vaccines.
It will also look into the controversy surrounding the fact that two shots were initially advised when it was later revealed that one dose was entirely suitable, as well as investigating concerns over hastily developed vaccines containing adjuvants.
Pharmaceutical companies are thought to have made a profit of somewhere in the region of $7.5-$10 billion on H1N1 vaccines, recouping the billions they had invested in researching and developing pandemic vaccines after the bird flu scares in 2006 and 2007.
The worldwide death toll from H1N1 is thought to be around 13,500, just over a third of the number who die from regular flu every year in the U.S. alone.
Heading the hearings is the former chairman of the Health Committee of PACE, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. A former German lawmaker, a medical doctor and epidemiologist. Wodarg has referred to the swine flu pandemic as “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century.”
Wodarg has pointed out that the WHO softened the definition of a pandemic from an outbreak in several continents at once with an above-average death rate, to one where the spread of the disease is constant.
Just one month after changing the definition, and with just 144 people having died from H1N1, the flu was given the highest threat classification possible, a “stage-six pandemic alert”. By comparison, the mildest 20th Century pandemic killed a million people.
“I have never heard such a worldwide echo to a health political action,” Wodarg, an epidemiologist who formerly led the health committee for the Council of Europe, said at Tuesday’s hearing.
“It was stated in panic- stricken terms that this was a flu that could threaten humanity and a great number of humans could fall ill. This is why billions of dollars of medications were bought.” Wodarg said.
He added that the the change in definition “made it possible for the pharmaceutical industry to transform this opportunity into cash, under contracts which were mainly secret.”
“In my view, the WHO undertook an incomprehensible action, which cannot be justified by scientific evidence. The Council of Europe should investigate this to see how WHO can undertake this kind of dangerous nonsense,” said Dr Wodarg.
WHO’s flu chief, Dr Fukuda, insisted that its swine flu scientists do not have conflicts of interest owing to close links with pharmaceutical companies.
“Let me state clearly for the record – the influenza pandemic policies and responses recommended and taken by WHO were not improperly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.” Fukuda told the inquiry.
He said those calling the epidemic fake were wrong and irresponsible.
PACE’s findings are expected to be announced January 29 and will likely be followed by an in-depth study and recommendations to European governments.
Click here for the full report.
Doctors Vaccinate For Profit
January 26, 2010
VacTruth
by Christina England
Years ago children were sent up chimneys or sold as servants to earn their parents extra money. Now they are being vaccinated by doctors, to boost their takings. Doctors, Governments and Pharma see our children as their property and are making thousands of pounds/dollars/euros out of them right under our noses. This, they call ‘Health Care’, I call it the legalization of child labour.
For years now we have been told that vaccines are good for us, that vaccines eradicate illness and that vaccines will save us from killer diseases. What we are not told is that the doctors and Governments telling us this are often linked to the drug companies who are manufacturing the vaccines that they promote and many are making thousands of pounds/dollars profit from vaccinating our children.
Let us begin at the bottom and start with the GP. In the UK every time a vaccine is given to us by our trusted GP they are paid. The British Medical Journal published an article GPs make deals with local NHS to vaccinate children against swine flu explaining how that every single child who is vaccinated with the H1N1 in the UK will earn the GP £5.25.
In Ireland the GP’s are paid five times this amount, for the seasonal flu shot. The article Irish Times – Irish GP’s paid five times UK rate for flu vaccine report that in Ireland a GP will earn a staggering €38.95 per vaccine, making vaccines a very lucrative business indeed.
As far back as 2002, GP’s were so keen to get their hands on this extra money that they were striking off their lists the children who had not had the MMR because if they (the GP’s ) did not meet the Government target rate of 90% immunization, they would not earn their £2865 vaccination bonus Daily Telegraph – Children without MMR jab struck off GP’s list reports tells the full story.
In another article The campaign for Gardasil Flawed it is reported that Merck actually seeks out and trains doctors to lecture for them on Gardasil, paying them $4,500 each time they lecture on the Gardasil vaccine. Doctors are making thousands of dollars doing this.
This is nothing new and is not just attributed to vaccines. Doctors have been doing this for years.
In the article Ex-Drug Sales Rep Tells All – ABC News
one drugs representative spills the beans and tells a Congressional committee what really goes on. Speaking about Eli Lilly he told the committee:-
“To sell their drugs, pharmaceutical companies hire former cheerleaders and ex-models to wine and dine doctors, exaggerate the drug’s benefits and underplay their side-effects”
Shahram Ahari, who spent two years selling Prozac and Zypraxa for Eli Lily, told a Senate Aging Committee chaired by Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., that his job involved ” rewarding physicians with gifts and attention for their allegiance to your product and company despite what may be ethically appropriate.”
Ahari claimed that drug companies like hiring former cheerleaders and ex-models, as well as former athletes and members of the military, many of whom have no background in science to wine and dine the doctors explaining the wonderful benefits of the drug they are employed to sell.
Higher up the you have leading figures in the medical profession who advise Governments on vaccine policies have strong links and alliances with the drugs companies helping them peddle their wares.
Pharmaceutical Companies Accused of Crying Wolf Over Swine Flu
January 25, 2010
RT.com
Swine flu is under scrutiny once again as pharmaceutical companies are being accused of hyping up a “false pandemic”. The Council of Europe has put the virus on its winter agenda, which starts on Monday.
A representative from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe claims the World Health Organization colluded with major drug companies and changed the definition of “pandemic” to ensure maximum profits with no risks for the pharmaceutical firms.
If PACE is putting forward the theory that the swine flu hysteria was engineered by pharmaceutical companies to generate revenue, then Ukraine is a perfect example.
Click here for the full report.
Drug Companies Cashed In On Swine Flu Scare
January 11, 2010
DailyMail.co.uk
By Fiona Macrae
The swine flu outbreak was a ‘false pandemic’ driven by drug companies that stood to make billions of pounds from a worldwide scare, a leading health expert has claimed.
Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation’s decision to declare a pandemic.
This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring ‘enormous gains’, while countries, including the UK, ’squandered’ their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease.
A resolution proposed by Dr Wodarg calling for an investigation into the role of drug firms has been passed by the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg-based ’senate’ responsible for the European Court of Human Rights.
An emergency debate on the issue will be held later this month.
Dr Wodarg’s claims come as it emerged the British government is desperately trying to offload up to £1billion of swine flu vaccine, ordered at the height of the scare.
The Department of Health warned of 65,000 deaths, set up a special advice line and website, suspended normal rules so anti-flu drugs could be given out without prescription and told health and local authorities to prepare for a major pandemic.
Planners were told to get morgues ready for the sheer scale of deaths and there were warnings that the Army could be called in to prevent riots as people fought to obtain drugs.
But with fewer than 5,000 in England catching the disease last week and just 251 deaths overall, Dr Wodarg has branded the H1N1 outbreak as ‘one of the greatest medical scandals of the century’.
He said: ‘We have had a mild flu – and a false pandemic.’
He added the seeds of the scare were sown five years ago, when it was feared the much more lethal bird flu virus would mutate into a human form.
The ‘atmosphere of panic’ led to governments stockpiling the anti-flu drug Tamiflu and putting in place ’sleeping contracts’ for millions of doses of vaccine
Dr Wodarg said: ‘The governments have sealed contracts with vaccine producers where they secure orders in advance and take upon themselves almost all the responsibility.
‘In this way the producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without having any financial risks.
‘So they just wait, until WHO says “pandemic” and activate the contracts.’
He also claims that to further push their interests, leading drug companies placed ‘their people’ in the ‘cogs’ of the WHO and other influential organisations.
He added that their influence could have led the WHO to soften its definition of a pandemic - leading to the declaration of a worldwide outbreak last June.
Dr Wodarg said: ‘In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide.
‘They have made them squander tight healthcare resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.’
He does not name any Britons with conflicts of interest.
But last year, the Daily Mail revealed that Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist who advises the Government on swine flu, also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline.
GSK makes anti-flu drugs and vaccines and is predicted to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the pandemic.
The Department of Health says that although the disease appears to be on the wane, it cannot rule out a third surge and urges all those entitled to the jab to have it.
Professor David Salisbury, the Government’s head of immunisation said there were ‘no grounds whatsoever’ for Dr Wodarg’s claims, saying people with conflicts of interest were kept out of the decision-making process.
A GSK spokesman said: ‘Allegations of undue influence are misguided and unfounded. The WHO declared that H1N1 swine flu met the criteria for a pandemic.
‘As WHO have stated, legal regulations and numerous safeguards are in place to manage possible conflicts of interest.’
The company, which still employs Sir Roy, said he had declared his commercial interests and had not attended any meetings related to the purchase of drugs or vaccine for either the Government or GSK.
Click here for the full report.
European Parliament to Investigate WHO and “Pandemic” Scandal
January 4, 2010 by joel
Filed under Government
January 4, 2010
Global Research
The Council of Europe member states will launch an inquiry in January 2010 on the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign, focusing especially on extent of the pharma‘s industry’s influence on WHO. The Health Committee of the EU Parliament has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the inquiry. The step is a long-overdue move to public transparency of a “Golden Triangle” of drug corruption between WHO, the pharma industry and academic scientists that has permanently damaged the lives of millions and even caused death.
The parliament motion was introduced by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former SPD Member of the German Bundestag and now chairman of the Health Committee of PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe). Wodarg is a medical doctor and epidemiologist, a specialist in lung disease and environmental medicine, who considers the current “pandemic” Swine Flu campaign of the WHO to be “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the Century.”[1]
The text of the resolution just passed by a sufficient number in the Council of Europe Parliament says among other things, “In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines. The “bird-flu”-campaign (2005/06) combined with the “swine-flu”-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health-budgets, but to the credibility and accountability of important international health-agencies.”[2]
The Parliamentary inquiry will look into the issue of „falsified pandemic“ that was declared by WHO in June 2009 on the advice of its group of academic experts, SAGE, many of whose members have been documented to have intense financial ties to the same pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, who benefit from the production of drugs and untested H1N1 vaccines. They will investigate the influence of the pharma industry in creation of a worldwide campaign against the so-called H5N1 “Avian Flu” and H1N1 Swine Flu. The inquiry will be given “urgent” priority in the general assembly of the parliament.
In his official statement to the Committee, Wodarg criticized the influence of the pharma industry on scientists and officials of WHO, stating that it has led to the situation where “unnecessarily millions of healthy people are exposed to the risk of poorly tested vaccines,” and that, for a flu strain that is “vastly less harmful” than all previous flu epidemics.
Wodarg says the role of the WHO and its the pandemic emergency declaration in June needs to be the special focus of the European Parliamentary inquiry. For the first time, the WHO criteria for a pandemic was changed in April 2009 as the first Mexico cases were reported, to make not the actual risk of a disease but the number of cases of the disease basis to declare “Pandemic.” By classifying the swine flu as pandemic, nations were compelled to implement pandemic plans and also the purchase swine flu vaccines. Because WHO is not subject to any parliamentary control, Wodarg argues it is necessary for governments to insist on accountability. The inquiry will also to look at the role of the two critical agencies in Germany issuing guidelines on the pandemic, the Paul-Ehrlich and the Robert-Koch Institute.
Bravo!
Click here for the full report.
WHO Manufactured Global Swine Flu Scare
November 30, 2009
InfoWars
By Novye Izvestija
The Swine Flu Pandemic which Novye Izvestija has written about many times, may be the most ambitious scam and corruption of our time. In any case, the enormous commercial aspect of the “swine flu scare” is already evident.
The same conclusion was reached by Danish journalists who expertly examined the links between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, who gained wealth by selling drugs to counter the disease. It turns out, for example, that many scientists who sit on various committees of WHO, carefully concealed the fact that they receive money from the giant pharmaceutical companies of the world.
According to the international investment bank JP Morgan, the pharmaceutical industry will make more than 7 Billion Euros this year on the sale of A/H1N1 vaccines. Leading western countries have ordered enough doses to vaccinate either their entire population (such as Australia) or one third (Germany and several other EU member States). Factories making the vaccines and pills are working around the clock, in four shift rotations, with a backlog of orders …they are not experiencing the global economic crisis as others might.
For the first time in many years flu pandemic ‘panic’ has affected the EU. The vaccine has been produced without a sufficient number of clinical and laboratory tests.
Is such a panic justified? a growing number of specialists are examining the issue by comparing the mortality statistics from the swine flu virus and it’s ‘conventional’ varieties, each Autumn they begin their march across the planet. So far, according to WHO, six thousand people have fallen victim to A/H1N1, while the average annual death rate during epidemics of ‘traditional’ varieties of flu reaches half a million.
The main cause of the hysterical response to the swine flu epidemic, according to reporters from the Danish newspaper ‘Information’, is not because it is so dangerous, but because of a strong public relations campaign by experts from WHO. Some of them [WHO experts] are literally in the service of the vaccine manufacturers.
“It is disturbing that many of the scientists who sit on various committees of WHO, are presented as ‘independent experts’, but they carefully conceal the fact that they receive money from pharmaceutical companies”, Professor of epidemiology, Tom Jefferson, who works at the Cochrane Center in Rome, told reporters.
WHO announced the swine flu pandemic under pressure from a panel of advisers, headed by a Dutch doctor, Albert Ostenhaus, nicknamed ‘Dr. Flu’ (from the name ‘Tamiflu’) because he was active in promoting mass vaccination of the population through WHO and the Western media. Now the government of the Netherlands is conducting an emergency investigation into the activities of ‘Doctor Flu’, as it became known that he receives a salary from several vaccine manufacturing companies. Many other WHO advisers sit ‘on two chairs’ (conflict of interest) like Ostenhaus, and while dealing with the swine flu pandemic on behalf of WHO, they do not like to advertise that they are paid advisers to pharmaceutical giants Roche, RW Johnson, SmithKline and Beecham Glaxo Wellcome, who have received the lion’s share of orders for manufacturing of vaccines. The result of pressure from these experts was the resolution of WHO on 7th July this year, which called for an unprecedented campaign of mass vaccination.
“The WHO is biased in their recommendations – says Professor Tom Jefferson. – Normal hygiene measures provide much greater effect than these little-studied vaccines, and at the same time WHO refers to the use of masks and hand-washing as a means to combat swine flu only twice in their documents. Vaccines and other medications are referred to 42 times!” Dr. Jefferson and several of his colleagues believe that paid advisers of the pharmaceutical companies should be removed from their positions and not allowed to give recommendations to the WHO, but the organization itself is in no hurry to carry out such a reform. WHO spokesperson, Gregory Hertl, commenting on the article in ‘Information’ (Danish newspaper) said it is impossible to deny the services of the world’s leading experts on the sole ground that they have a financial interest in the promotion of a strategy to combat various diseases.
It should be noted that this is not the first year that ’scope for corruption’ in pharmacology has been the focus of the Western media. The New England Journal of Medicine published ‘The Whistleblower’ several years ago. In a series of articles the Whistleblower showed the inside life of the ‘medical mafia’. According to them, only 11-14% of pharmaceutical companies budgets are spent on research, but 36% of funds are spent on PR. Much of the money ends up in the pockets of doctors, scientists, and the accounts of various organizations working in health care.
Click here for the full report.
Pharmaceuticals Writing Own Drug Labels Without Side Effect Information
November 24, 2009
NaturalNews
by E. Huff
Two doctors from the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice recently reported that many prescription drug labels do not contain accurate information about all side effects and the true severity of listed side effects, and they fail to mention that certain medicines are not truly effective.
A long standing problem, drug companies are in charge of writing their own drug information which is then presented to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for final approval. Though tasked with negotiating accurate and sensible wording, the FDA often lets slide inadequate information that is both misleading and outright deceptive.
Lunesta, a prescription sleeping drug created by Sepracor Inc., is touted on its information label as being superior to placebo in alleviating insomnia and inducing restful sleep. Test results from the most comprehensive study performed on the drug revealed that the drug did not reduce insomnia and that there were no meaningful improvements in next-day functioning and alertness as drug advertisements claimed.
Even though the study’s findings were provided to the FDA for further review, the FDA allowed misleading information to be published on Lunesta’s information sheet anyway. In response to allegations that the company is misleading the public about Lunesta, Sepracor retorted that information above and beyond what is required by the FDA is always available to those who request it.
Rozerem, another insomnia drug produced by Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., omitted similar information from its drug information sheet. Though no empirical sleeping improvements occurred in test patients who received treatment with Rozerem, the company did not disclose this fact on the product label. Takeda continues to market the product untruthfully.
Other examples of drug label deception include Novartis’ Zometa bone cancer drug. The drug’s information label states that ingesting the 8-milligram dose poses a greater risk of kidney damage with no explanation about how great a risk. Truth be told, 33 percent of patients in a test study died when taking the 8-milligram dose of Zometa.
As disturbing as all of this is, it illustrates the grave failure of the FDA in performing its job. Drug companies seemingly run the show from start to finish, researching, manufacturing, and self-regulating their own products. The FDA time and time again has caved at the behest of corporate pressure.
The FDA must be held responsible for its utter failure to function as it should. In direct opposition to its own mission statement which summates its purpose as defender of public health, the FDA operates as a corporate lapdog to pharmaceutical interests. It is time that the people demand the dismantling of this corrupt organization and the formation of a new one.
Drug Industry Wants More Online Advertising
November 11, 2009Associated Press
by Matthew Perrone
As federal regulators take their first tentative steps toward policing the wild west of medical information online, pharmaceutical companies are pressing their case to market drugs via Google, Twitter and other Web sites.
The Food and Drug Administration will convene a two-day meeting beginning Thursday to hear the drug industry’s position on Internet marketing. The agency has agreed to consider developing rules for online advertising after companies complained that the current guidelines for traditional media — which require a detailed list of possible side effects — have left them hamstrung on the Web.
An estimated 83 percent of Internet users search for health information online, according to a recent survey from the Pew Research Center.
A few drugmakers have begun trying to reach patients via social networking sites like Facebook and YouTube. But overall the industry’s online presence trails other sectors, including retail, financial services and computer makers.
In the first half of 2009, pharmaceutical companies represented just 4 percent of the $10.9 billion spent on online advertising, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Industry observers say companies have largely steered clear of the Web for fear of running afoul of FDA regulators, who have not defined the rules of operating online.
In a public statement announcing the meeting, the FDA acknowledged that “emerging technologies may require the agency to provide additional guidance.” But some industry experts worry the FDA’s rule development process — which often takes years — cannot keep pace with online innovation.
“What’s happening is these new media are emerging at an increasingly rapid rate, and are being regulated by an agency that moves very slowly,” said attorney Mark Senak, who advises drug companies as a consultant for communications firm Fleishman-Hillard. “In essence, you have a regulatory communication crisis developing.”
The vast majority of the pharmaceutical industry’s roughly $4.5 billion in annual marketing is still spent on traditional TV and magazine advertising, where the rules are clear: all ads that mention a drug must provide a balanced picture of its risks and benefits.
The requirement to disclose risk information demands those long lists of side effects heard during TV and radio spots, as well as the large blocks of small print seen in magazine ads.
When drug companies have tried to adapt such ads to the abbreviated language of Google and Yahoo, they’ve run into trouble. In April, the FDA fired off warning letters to Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline PLC and a dozen other drugmakers for search engine ads that did not mention drug risks.
The ads — called sponsored links — appear on the screen margins of sites like Google when users search for certain key words. With a maximum of just 25 words, the links did not include information about potential side effects, making them illegal, according to the FDA.
On Thursday, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America group will argue that the FDA should relax its standards to accommodate new online approaches to marketing.
In documents released ahead of the meeting, PhRMA suggests the agency develop a logo that could be used in place of hundreds of words about drug risks. The logo would link viewers to the drug’s full risk information, allowing manufacturers to send messages about their drugs on sites like Twitter, which has a 140-character limit.
But industry observers say the online marketing environment is not as restrictive to drugmakers as some suggest. Pharma Marketing News publisher John Mack says drug companies already are free to post abbreviated ads about diseases and treatments — provided they don’t mention a specific product.
German Soldiers Get Mercury Free Swine Flu Vaccine
October 13, 2009
PrisonPlanet.com
By Paul Joseph Watson
According to a report out of Germany, German soldiers have been given an additive-free swine flu shot that doesn’t contain mercury, squalene, or any of the other dangerous adjuvants associated with the vaccine, raising questions as to why this version of the shot has not been made available to the general population.
An article that when translated is entitled, German soldiers gets non poisonous vaccine, explains how 250,000 German troops have been given a “friendly” vaccine made by Baxter that does not contain “controversial mercury-containing additives or preservatives”.
It appears that there are two versions of the swine flu shot, one for those in the know and another for the general population who trust the government to shoot them up with dangerous toxins that have been linked to autism and other neurological disorders.
Despite concerns about thimerosal and mercury, thimerosal is an ingredient of the swine flu vaccine which is currently being rolled out globally.
“Some of the vaccine will be stored in multi-dose vials containing thimerosal, an antibacterial additive that contains mercury,” reported the Washington Post in an article about which groups will receive the swine flu vaccine first.
Indeed, the swine flu vaccine contains no less than 25,000 per cent the amount of mercury considered safe.
Mercury is classified by The Department of Defense as a hazardous material that could cause death if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and the EPA is now limiting mercury emissions from factories because the toxin “can damage the brain and nervous system and is especially dangerous to fetuses and small children,” but according to the CDC it’s perfectly safe to inject into your child’s bloodstream.
As we previously highlighted, many people are choosing to take the nasal spray version of the vaccine in the false assumption that it is safer than the injectable version. In reality, the nasal spray contains live H1N1 virus, which has led many doctors and health professionals to express concerns that it could spread the swine flu virus amongst those with weakened immune systems.
“It has been documented that the live viruses from the vaccine can be shed (and potentially spread into the community) from recipient children for up to 21 days, and even longer from adults. Viral shedding also puts breastfeeding infants at risk if the mother has been given FluMist,” writes Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, one of the most outspoken physicians in the country on the hazards of vaccines and vaccination.
FluMist’s own package insert reads as follows, “FluMist® recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days.”
“The warning is specifically directed toward those living in the same household with an immunocompromised person, but the on-going release of live viruses throughout the community may be a significant risk to everyone who has a weak, or weakened, immune system,” writes Tenpenny, pointing out that if one takes into account a plethora of health conditions that could be classified as contributing to immunodeficiency, as much as 60% of the entire population could be considered to be “chemically immunosuppressed.”
One of the pharmaceutical companies developing nasal spray vaccines is Baxter International, who were caught earlier this year releasing batches of vaccines from a lab in Austria that were contaminated live bird flu virus, otherwise known as H5N1.
Click here for the full report.
