The Swine Flu ‘pandemic’ turned out to be nothing more than a storm in a teacup generated by a flurry of conflicts of interest.
A majority of European Health Committee MEPs have nonetheless recently approved a report by Anne Delvaux (PPE) endorsing the existence of what was really an imaginary panic and calling for ‘more cooperation between member states’ to deal with future pandemics.
The document, available on the Cdh site, also states that the WHO – having chosen the perfect moment to modify its criteria for the definition of a pandemic – is now planning to change its criteria again by reinstating a criterion based on severity!
It is also somewhat perplexing to read that a majority of MEPs are in favour of a collective vaccine purchase scheme given that such a plan would clearly be more beneficial for the financial health of the vaccine manufacturers (for whom the risk of unsold stock and cancelled contracts would thus be reduced) than for any possible notion of health freedom and patient choice. A scheme of this kind will not only make it very easy for national ministers to dodge their responsibilities but will also increase the risk of pro-vaccine propaganda and enforcement against which trouble-making rebels like Poland will no longer be able to take a stand.
It is more than worrisome that the report fails to differentiate between the publication of conflicts of interest and their resolution. It has in fact been scientifically confirmed that to acknowledge links does not necessarily prevent them from having an effect on the people concerned.
The price of this denial, this arrogance, could be very high indeed.
We must not forget that in 2010, more than 200 MEPs submitted a formal request for the European Parliament to open an enquiry into Swine Flu but this was rejected by representatives of the PPE and the European Socialist Party, all but a few of whom have since, disgracefully, retired to play the lobby game. A mere glance at the panel summoned to the European Parliament discussion chaired by Anne Delvaux on the 9th of February 2011 gives us a taste of the balance of power at play: European Commission, European Medicines Agency (EMA, more than 80% funded by the pharmaceutical industry), WHO (here assuming the role of judge in its own case), patient and physician groups (most of which are also funded by the industry), and so on.
President-elect Donald Trump's choice to run the sprawling government agency that administers Medicare, Medicaid, and the...
Higher usage of personal care products among pregnant or nursing women leads to higher levels of...
