Doctors warn: swine flu vaccine poses too many risks

On the way to work this morning I heard them saying on the radio that the insurance companies won’t insure the doctors for giving Swine Flu shots if something goes wrong nor will they receive any backing from the government which I thought was scary because they know something we don’t know.
I tried to search for an article about it when I got to work but I haven't found anything yet, has anyone else heard of this??
I did find an article though about doctors warning about the swine flu saying it was rushed and could be dangerous.

The country's top infectious diseases body has written to the Government to warn that the swine flu vaccine is being distributed too hastily, with too many risks for the public. The Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases says the vaccine will come in multi-dose vials. It says these have been shown to transmit infection, spread HIV and hepatitis and even cause death. The Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon says the Government expects to receive two million doses by the end of next week, and a widespread immunisation program could start by mid-September. But the infectious diseases doctors say the swine flu threat has now passed, and there's no need for urgent mass vaccination.

www.abc.net.au...

[edit on 27/8/2009 by wycky]

reply to post by wycky


It probably plays to the fact that Pharma can't be sued. Government can't be sued.

So who does that leave? The docs giving the shots. They aren't protected by government mandate like uncle sam and Pharma.

Nice to know what they think of us. But on the plus side, maybe the docs will refuse to give the darn things.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by mikerussellus]

Playing Devil's advocate here...

What if the vaccine actually works? What if the Dr's are all in on it and this is their way of not getting us to take it? If we believe them and do not take the vaccine, we get sick and die...

What if that is what THEY really want? Just saying...

reply to post by wycky

I didn't hear anything about the doctor report and insurance, but this article below talks about how dangerous the H1N1 vaccination is. They have known that since the 1970's:

The infamous Swine Flu or H1N1 vaccine allegedly began in the mid 1970’s. During this time, observations were made that this vaccine was linked to GBS, otherwise known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which is a dangerous, neurological disorder that causes paralysis and even death. But this is only the beginning of this vaccine’s confusing, rather misleading purpose and intention. One may know that the link between various chemicals in vaccinations and Autism in children have been investigated over the past decade as well, but let's look at a few of the discovered chemicals or toxins inside of the Swine Flu vaccine today. They are known as Formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), Oxtoxynol 10, Polysorbate 80 (linked to infertility and anaphylactic shock), Squalene (which is still under investigation but it currently linked to immune damage and Gulf War Syndrome), Thimersol (mercury), and possibly other cancer causing agents along with the Swine Flu virus itself.

Our bodies are not meant to get sick. They have a miraculous immune system that already operates as a natural defense mechanism of warding off bacteria and viruses. The stronger immune system one has, the stronger it will be to kill off anything. Our immune systems respond well and gain strength from healthy, un-processed, raw, organic foods, clean, fresh water, eliminating toxins through sweat, exercise and other alternative ways among restful, stress-free environments (these are only a few contributors). We do not need an insertion of unidentified chemicals into our blood streams unknowingly of its mild to severe ramifications on our bodily health over time.

Jon Rappaport, a reporter who assembled an interview with an ex-vaccine researcher wanted to get to the bottom of his interviewee’s feelings for vaccines. Without a name to be given, it was denoted that this ex-researcher had to protect his privacy and watch his statements due to the fact he could lose his pension or possibly be put under surveillance followed with harassment by the FBI and/or other evil corporations. Jon Rappaport asked him the question, “Are some vaccines dangerous than others?” The ex-researcher goes into first what specific ones he believes to be more potent and dangerous but ends with, “As far as I’m concerned, all vaccines are dangerous…they involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.”

But, just how much more dangerous is the Swine Flu versus the common cold? Is the government just expressing another notorious, scare tactic to dupe our zombie-like American public into thinking they actually need these vaccines to survive? Or is it just another result of power and greed among an evil plan to get more people sick so thousands of more dollars can be given to the pharmaceutical industry and other evil corporations due to the traumatic expense of more illnesses, disease, and even death? So many questions, but not enough answers. All of the turmoil, ambiguity, vaccine deception and the idea that “what you don’t know can’t hurt you” are wrong and misleading.

But, somewhere along the road amidst the shocking events and news of this world has left our civil, human rights and freedom feeling unincorporated or lost. Instead of a pessimistic perspective, one must endure with an enlightened view of healthful change and morality to convey to those around so a hopeful change and action can truly flourish.

www.examiner.com... ur-health

reply to post by mikerussellus

It probably plays to the fact that Pharma can't be sued.

That is absolutely NOT true. Pharmaceutical companies are sued all the time:

If you have taken certain arthritis, anti-cholesterol or weight-loss drugs, you may qualify to join a class-action lawsuit against the pharmaceutical companies that produced the medications.

The latest craze is over drug maker Merck & Co.'s arthritis medication Vioxx. Personal injury lawyers in Milwaukee and from outside the city are aggressively recruiting local clients who have taken Vioxx and suffered side effects such as heart attack and strokes.

While law firms would not discuss how much of a financial bonanza class-action suits are for their attorneys, the majority of the firms who will be fighting Merck have long histories of representing clients doing legal battle with drug companies. Legal analysts expect Merck and its insurance carriers to pay more than $1 billion in damages.

Three Milwaukee-area law firms -- Murphy & Prachthauser, The Techmeier McCormick Group, and Cannon & Dunphy -- are running television, radio and newspaper ads looking for Vioxx victims. National law firms have created pop-up Internet ads and opened Web sites where potential clients can get information and even sign up to join a class-action suit against Merck, based in Trenton, N.J.

"I have to tip my hat to the plaintiff's bar," said Paul Benson, a partner in the Milwaukee law firm Michael Best & Friedrich, who represents pharmaceutical companies involved in class action lawsuits.

"Within days of Vioxx being pulled from the market, the referral network and marketing effort from law firms were getting people signed up to sue Merck," added Benson, who is defending drug maker Bayer Corp., Pittsburgh, in a lawsuit involving the anti-cholesterol drug Baycol, which reportedly caused kidney failure in some people.

A Phoenix law firm, Goldberg & Osborne, also is advertising for clients in Milwaukee. The firm directs potential clients to a Web site that touts Goldberg & Osborne's legal expertise related to what the site calls "dangerous drugs," such as Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, Baycol, Ephedra and Fen Phen.

milwaukee.bizjournals.com...

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


But they can't be sued for this. I think it was Baxter that got the exemption.

I'll look for it but I was sure that they were exempt.

But, won't be the first time I was wrong, either.

reply to post by MarshMallow_Snake

Whether the vaccine works, is not well known yet, as they still haven't decided how many shots may be necessary.
However, here is what is known:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that although this is a very serious virus, cases worldwide are usually mild, and most hospitalizations and deaths have been of persons that also had underlying conditions such as asthma, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, or a weakened immune system.[124] As the virus spreads easily between people, through the air or surface contact, those who get the flu are recommended to stay home from school or work and avoid crowds to avoid spreading the infection further.

en.wikipedia.org...

To date, the death rate versus REPORTED cases is running between 1/2 of one percent and one percent. However:

According to the CDC, however, only about one in 20 cases was being officially reported in the U.S.[192] In the U.K., some experts thought the number of cases was potentially 300 times more than early published estimates,[193] warning that case estimates by the U.K. and other governments were highly inaccurate.

Thus, although perhaps one percent of reported cases resulted in death, even at the CDC figure of 1 in 20 cases being reported, that drops the death rate to .05%, or 1/20th of one percent.That number is EXACTLY what the death rate is of seasonal flu, and in most cases, the deaths are predominantly found in patients that have underlying health issues.

Personally, I believe that the risk from the vaccine is far greater than the flu itself, IF you are healthy otherwise. I will NOT take the vaccine, nor will my wife.

Each person has to make his/her own decision.

Originally posted by MarshMallow_Snake
Playing Devil's advocate here...

What if the vaccine actually works? What if the Dr's are all in on it and this is their way of not getting us to take it? If we believe them and do not take the vaccine, we get sick and die...

What if that is what THEY really want? Just saying...

What benefit would the doctors get from not giving us the shot??
Every shot they give they get paid

Its on the web now

Doctors are concerned problems with medical insurance could delay the roll-out of the swine flu vaccine. Dr Andrew Pesce from the Australian Medical Association says insurance companies say they may not provide indemnity cover for doctors because the vaccine has been rushed into production. He says the Federal Government should provide insurance cover for doctors administering the vaccine. "It's not professional practice to give a treatment to a patient which isn't indemnified, so the indemnity issue just needs to be sorted out," he said.

www.abc.net.au...

reply to post by mikerussellus

But they can't be sued for this. I think it was Baxter that got the exemption.

You could be right. I just don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. Someone in the government probably got a HUGE bribe for that, is it is true. Our government has become so corrupt, I think I'd trust the mafia before I trust a government official.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

It probably plays to the fact that Pharma can't be sued.

That is absolutely NOT true. Pharmaceutical companies are sued all the time:

No they can't be sued they have legal immunity.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has not only given immunity to the makers of Tamiflu and Relenza for injuries stemming from their use against swine flu, she has granted immunity to future swine flu vaccines and “any associated adjuvants”.

articles.mercola.com...

Vaccine makers and federal officials will be immune from lawsuits that result from any new swine flu vaccine, under a document signed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, government health officials said Friday.

www.prisonplanet.com...


[edit on 27/8/2009 by wycky]

reply to post by ProfEmeritus



Found it.

In addition to regulators in Europe and the US planning to fast-track the approval of swine flu vaccines, new regulations have been put in place to provide pharmaceutical companies with blanket immunity from lawsuits.

from www.freerepublic.com...


edit to add: thanks wycky


[edit on 27-8-2009 by mikerussellus]

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

But they can't be sued for this. I think it was Baxter that got the exemption.

You could be right. I just don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. Someone in the government probably got a HUGE bribe for that, is it is true. Our government has become so corrupt, I think I'd trust the mafia before I trust a government official.

Yeah man! This is correct regarding all the manufacturers of the vaccine - none of them can be sued! this is actually true! and how crazy is that?

That alone is very suspicious to me - they can't be held accountable!

reply to post by mikerussellus

I did also. The following seals the deal, as far as getting the shot. After reading this article, anyone who gets this shot is about 51 cards short of a full deck:

The 2006 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA) allows the DHHS Secretary to invoke almost complete immunity from liability for manufacturers of vaccines and drugs used to combat a declared public health emergency. PREPA removes the right to a jury trial for persons injured by a covered vaccine, unless a plaintiff can provide clear evidence of willful misconduct that resulted in death or serious physical injury, and gets permission to sue from the DHHS Secretary.There has been no government funding of its potential compensation mechanism, to date.Furthermore, a PREPA declarationexplicitly shields "government program planners" who arranged for the liability waiver.

Here is the problem: once the PREP Act is invoked to shield manufacturers from liability, the pharmaceutical firms have no financial incentive to make the safest product, and have a negative incentive to test it for safety. As long as they do not deliberately harm consumers of the product, they will not be liable for damages.


Are you following this argument closely? In order to avoid having prior knowledge of possible harm to users of the product, for which they could be found liable, it is in the manufacturers' best interest to know as little as possible about adverse reactions caused by their product.


Thus manufacturers can be expected to perform minimal testing, as they have been incentivized by PREPA to avoid learning of potential harms related to their product. The rush to manufacture and administer new vaccines serves two purposes: it provides an excuse to avoid adequate testing, as well as providing rapid vaccine availability. For example, see this Bloomberg article, " Glaxo to Limit Tests of Flu Vaccine, Citing Urgency."

www.wellsphere.com...


Sibelius has just about guaranteed that this flu will be dangerous!

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


wow that’s scary.
I think our governments are dumb and blind and they are walking us into a disaster.
I just came across this article which scares me, the Australian government have purchased more swine flu vaccine from another company and they don't even know if it is effective yet! We are in a recession why are they throwing our money around??!!

A company developing a swine flu vaccine has questioned the Federal Government ordering another vaccine before knowing whether it is effective.

"The Government is clearly purchasing the CSL vaccine even while they are waiting for data to show the CSL vaccine is effective," he said. "So in effect they are in a fortunate position of being able to sell their vaccine before they show it works, perhaps a slightly unusual situation, but that's where it's at.

www.abc.net.au...