Just because you were told 1 million people in the UK might die, doesn't actually mean 1 million people could die.
In fact 440 did.
This is called scare tactics. It's obviously quite efficient to some.
Tamiflu Fraud
- Thread starter anything I don't mind
- Start date
Just because you were told 1 million people in the UK might die, doesn't actually mean 1 million people could die.
In fact 440 did.
This is called scare tactics. It's obviously quite efficient to some.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
Surely to get a patent you have to demonstrate that your proposed solution actually achieves what it claims ?
Before the 440 died (if presented to you), this was the evidence presented. It's a projected, it can go lower, it can go higher.
With the world at alert, you have to make the decision.
We can all point finger now and say stupid man / women / government for pulling their finger out of the bum to make that decision. The threat was there and if it did become a Pandemic, I want to save as much lives as I can. Be it 440 or a million.
With the world at alert, you have to make the decision.
We can all point finger now and say stupid man / women / government for pulling their finger out of the bum to make that decision. The threat was there and if it did become a Pandemic, I want to save as much lives as I can. Be it 440 or a million.
Clinical trials here ---> http://www.roche-trials.com/resultsByDiseaseCategoryGet.action?diseaseCategoryId=45
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
No, not for a patent, you do for a licence to sell it though. There are plenty of issues with only a small set of scientists only having access to the data - and even then many of the regulators don't get all the clinical trials data to make a decision. It's clear that all clinical trials data should be made open to the whole scientific community - doing this saves lives.
Yes that's all well and good, but when someone goes and blows 500 million pounds on something that may very likely now be proven useless, then someone should be held accountable.
When things go wrong, regardless of intention, people are held accountable. That's usually how stuff works.
lololololololololol
Sorry but I thought I would bring it down to your level.
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
WHO and CDC are organisations that were pushing for government to stock pile tamiflu, semantics of whether they are regulatory bodies meh, its an organisation that was in on the fraud.
But you have never even question authority in your life burnsy, so i am not suprised that you blidnly trust the WHO and the CDC. Even when evidence comes out that the medicine was ineffective and reports show that there was actaully no pandemic.
Flu Vaccines and tamiflu both leave patients with a mild to severe symptoms. I know several people that had the vaccine in 09 and took time off work due the flu like symptoms. My sister being one of them.
The way vaccines work as far as i am aware is to give a lighter version of a deadly virus and this inoculates the vaccinated against the more serious virus. I have done some research on it.
You do realize flu vaccines aren't 100% effective right? You can still get the flu after having a vaccination since they only cover the main strains for that season.
So it is indeed very possible his friend passed on the flu to others after getting vaccinated
Spending XXX amount on the NHS may very likely be wasted because people will keep Smoking / Eating / Breathing and die eventually. Should this snowball into other decision an elected member have to fear in their decision?
If at that decision point, there is a strong case that nothing will happen at all and the government says yes, yes and yes irregardless of cost, then that's reckless. However, it was the other way, there is a strong case of it being an big threat and many will die, time to make a decision.
Need to get out of the mind set that back in 2006, we know this report will be published and the pandemic didn't take off. We don't and someone had to decide for the members that elected them.
That's an absolutely awful comparison.
And so is saying someone's head needs to roll, and that (OP states) the pandemic is false because the drug is proven now, to be ineffective. If everyone can see the future, wont the world be wonderful?
So you're admitting your comparison was awful AND that there's no such thing as accountability in the World.
Okay. Got it.
I admit my comparison is crazy if that's the decision people have to tip toe about and worry their decision with evidence on their side to say its the right move is gonna cause "their head to roll".
A review and is all great. Accountability will no doubt points at that point in time, the decision is sound. You can go back and say now that ita shown the drug is ineffective, therefore you wasted all that money.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? Evidence then shows decision needs to be made. Just because its proven the drug is ineffective now after the event, doesn't make it a wrong decision.
Not really, sorry
You're talking about people who have been given positions to make very important decisions and spend vast amounts of money of behalf of the public. According to this report (what this thread is based on), they made the wrong decision. Are you saying no one should be held accountable for that? We should just pass the blame to someone else?
Well actually I suppose you can do that these days. There was "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We spent billions on that and lost God knows how many lives in the process
Except that wasn't what he implied was it ...
Not really, sorry
You're talking about people who have been given positions to make very important decisions and spend vast amounts of money of behalf of the public. According to this report (what this thread is based on), they made the wrong decision. Are you saying no one should be held accountable for that? We should just pass the blame to someone else?
Well actually I suppose you can do that these days. There was "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We spent billions on that and lost God knows how many lives in the process
Lol
Off course they shouldn't be held accountable for that.
Have you even thought this through, or are you just a troll.
They are accountable for the information they had at the time, this report was not available at the time they made a choice.
What an idiotic opinion, lets make people accountable on, with stuff they didn't have access to at the time.
Not really, sorry
You're talking about people who have been given positions to make very important decisions and spend vast amounts of money of behalf of the public. According to this report (what this thread is based on), they made the wrong decision. Are you saying no one should be held accountable for that? We should just pass the blame to someone else?
Well actually I suppose you can do that these days. There was "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We spent billions on that and lost God knows how many lives in the process
If they can, and they have, proved that the Iraq war was done on false pretences. Can they prove that the government knew about the inefficiency of Tamiflu at the point of decision, if so, then they are at fault.
The evidence you're basing their accountability came to light today, not back in 2006. We cant mix what we know now about a drug to a decision about Pandemic.