lol

must not be an AP article:>)

There was already a thread on this.

Fuck you're stupid, Bani.

There was already a thread on this.

Fuck you're stupid, Bani.

#3 | Posted by jpw

so let's do another since it is so undebunkable!

'Bonanza' for drug firms as NHS admits it is giving away 1billion of swine flu vaccine
By: malterwitty

Millions of doses of swine flu vaccine are to be given away - at a possible cost of 1billion.

Some 132million doses of the jab were ordered at the height of the scare about a worldwide pandemic.

Your new article does nothing to forward your assertions.

"Fuck you're stupid, Bani."

I stand by my statement.

"Fuck you're stupid, Bani."

I stand by my statement.

#6 | Posted by jpw

Thank YOU!

Germany, Holland, Switzerland, France desperately getting rid of H1N1 vaccine excess

European governments increasingly trying to sell influenza A/H1N1 vaccine, of which they bought too much. The case evokes heated controversy among others on the Seine River. Disproportion between the number of vaccines purchased and consumed there is huge - 94 million doses purchased, 5 million used. Did the government panicked?

Did the government panicked?

Finally, you've posted something asking a valid question.

Serious question from me-have you EVER posted something that was your own and not another's words cut and pasted?

Serious question from me-have you EVER posted something that was your own and not another's words cut and pasted?

#8 | Posted by jpw

what's it to you?

Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why.
By Steve Silberman

Ironically, Big Pharma's attempt to dominate the central nervous system has ended up revealing how powerful the brain really is. The placebo response doesn't care if the catalyst for healing is a triumph of pharmacology, a compassionate therapist, or a syringe of salt water. All it requires is a reasonable expectation of getting better. That's potent medicine.

what's it to you?

Just trying to figure out where to place you on the disingenuous scale.

what's it to you?

Your arguments consist of a bunch of copy/paste jobs taken from assorted idiots across the internet. Since you don't understand the subject matter, refuse to educate yourself on it, and barely understand what these wackjobs are saying, no amount of reasoning or evidence will change your mind. You wallow in your own ignorance like a pig wallows in its own shit.

so let's do another since it is so undebunkable!

Undebunkable? Hardly. Irrelevant? Certainly.

Just trying to figure out where to place you on the disingenuous scale.

#10 | Posted by jpw

good one, though disingenous apparently, too!:>)

Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means "insincere" and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as "tough love." This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning "playfully insincere, faux-naf," as in the example "I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!" he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Sometimes disingenuous is used as a synonym for naive, as if the dis- prefix functioned as an intensive (as it does in certain words like disannul) rather than as a negative element. This usage does not find much admiration among Panelists, however. Seventy-five percent do not accept it in the phrase a disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical

Irrelevant? Certainly.

#12 | Posted by ZombieHunter

only to the obtuse

good one, though disingenous apparently, too!:>)

How so?

I would consider you insincere given the lack of effort you seem to display towards becoming knowledgeable on the topics you argue about day in and day out, despite significant cutting and pasting of material to indicate otherwise.

only to the obtuse

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, but it certainly isn't what you present it as (yet another facet of being disingenuous?).

Posted by Bani at 02:11 AM | 15 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

WHO Mr Flu' under investigation ~ Undebunkable by Shills!

Too true. Only flimsily impotent rhetoric like 'they are selling books' or 'they are quacks'.

#12 z
Irrelevant

Just like climategate, irrelevant is the only rallying cry possible for the powers that be that must hide their vast corruption and fraudulent influence that enriches those that were "lucky" beyond their wildest imagination to have invested in the very technologies they now make billions on.

#8 jpw
Did the government panicked?

Finally, you've posted something asking a valid question.

LMAO. Really? Or is it your strawman to distract from the "undebunkable"?

HHHHMMMMM, an organization/individual creating fear/panic with the end result of some people / some organizations massively profiting from it.... whether in the form of money or of fame/standing in their field... sounds just like AGW to me. Interesting similarities. You have to act now and spend tons of money or else the world will come to an end...

Sorry, L RCONTRARIAN, I didn't see your post on climategate, but I 100% concur.

You wallow in your own ignorance like a pig wallows in its own shit.

#11 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:32 AM |

Another Fraud.

Nobody in my family nor several families around me bought into this BS, and none of us have died.

JFYI Actually pigs only wallow in their own shit if forced through confinement that their master doesn't clean up. (kinda like the hood confinements created by the progressive democrats) Swine, like the majority of other mammals prefer a clean enviornment to a shitty one given choice.

Really? Or is it your strawman to distract from the "undebunkable"?

Undebunkable? I don't think you nor I possess the information to completely debunk this story.

The problem is people like you who state shit (often from ignorance) and expect others to disprove it without proving it yourself.

Do you have any actual proof that his financial gains were the primary motivator behind his decisions? How did he get entire organizations to follow him?

Nobody in my family nor several families around me bought into this BS, and none of us have died.

Oh, well in that case then...

#22 jpw
How did he get entire organizations to follow him?

Is that a real question? Your specialty, "popularity" Google search might emit the history of how Albert Osterhaus came to be the primary influence over top world bodies.

If there was any real argument to be made, guaranteed JPW would already have mastered the talking points. Funny how the strawman plays out in repeated attempts to bait us into doing your job for you.

Blaaaah. I think "Mr. Flu" may have paid me a little visit. Last thing I need this coming week. Hope I can kick it in a day or two.

I better not have caught it from one of you clowns sneezing or dribbling saliva on your monitor and keyboard and infecting one of these threads. LOL

Is that a real question?

Yes, it's a real question. He acted in an advisory role and did not singularly make decisions or enact policies.

From the link:

It later was learned that Chan acted, following heated debates inside WHO, on the advice of the scientific advisory group of WHO, or SAGE, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts. One of the members of SAGE at the time and today was Dr. Albert "Mr Flu" Osterhaus. Not only was Osterhaus in a key position to advocate the panic-inducing WHO "Pandemic emergency" declaration. He was also chairman of the leading private European Scientific Working group on Influenza, which describes itself as a "multidisciplinary group of key opinion leaders in influenza [that] aims to combat the impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza." Osterhaus' ESWI is the vital link as they themselves describe it "between the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and the University of Connecticut, USA."

The actual policy enacted was far from undebated and from a singular source evidently and possibly represented a consensus hammered out after the debate.

Your specialty, "popularity" Google search might emit the history of how Albert Osterhaus came to be the primary influence over top world bodies.

LOL still being obtuse as to what my point was despite several explicit explanations?

As usual your arguments are empty of substance but heavy in ad hominem retorts (hypocrite).

If there was any real argument to be made, guaranteed JPW would already have mastered the talking points.

From where and by who? The only places I see stories like this are on the DR posted from websites with obvious axes to grind. These articles are dripping with innuendo and vague accusations without evidence beyond circumstantial and highly interpretable pieces of information.

Funny how the strawman plays out in repeated attempts to bait us into doing your job for you.

Do you intentionally accuse others of behaving as you do or are you really just that obtuse as to how intellectually dishonest your behavior really is?

Mine was a question that must be answered if your accusations are true. Since you're the one claiming Dr. Osterhaus has massive influence, you must have some information (I'll even accept a Bani Cut-n-Paste) on how he managed to hoodwink or bully entire panels of advisers who are equally knowledgeable and powerful as he is.

#22 jpw
How did he get entire organizations to follow him?

This was your question. You have not addressed why WE should be the ones to explain what is easily searchable history. My point was if there was a point to be made, you wouldn't be asking, you'd be shouting loudly with the talking points.

From where and by who?

You know. Who? Big Pharma. Those talking points you have down pat. Where? Same place you gained your current talking point apologetics.

You have not addressed why WE should be the ones to explain what is easily searchable history.

For some reason I doubt that.

What I'm asking would be found in internal conversations and debates, something that probably wasn't recorded or archived.

I guess you're too dense to see the overall point that he's one man within a broader infrastructure and is included in an advisory role, not a decision making role. This alone makes the claim made in the article suspect and probably not true.

My point was if there was a point to be made, you wouldn't be asking, you'd be shouting loudly with the talking points.

From where and by who?

You know. Who? Big Pharma. Those talking points you have down pat. Where? Same place you gained your current talking point apologetics.

LOL it's funny that you are boiling down science to talking points. It says a lot about you and the absurd level of simplicity and ignorance you view the world.

#29 jpw
boiling down science to talking points

Isn't that how it works? It doesn't matter what the truth is, it only matters what you can make the data say OR can convince the sheeple public. That's what climategate revealed. Then it's narrowed down to 'talking points'. Same thing with your big pharma apologetics.

#24 l_r
Google search might emit the history of how Albert Osterhaus came to be the primary influence over top world bodies.

#28 jpw
You have not addressed why WE should be the ones to explain what is easily searchable history.

For some reason I doubt that.

What I'm asking would be found in internal conversations and debates, something that probably wasn't recorded or archived.

Why are you still speaking in hypothetical? If you really seeked the truth, you wouldn't keep asking, you'd go find out for yourself. The reason is obvious. You have no desire to find the actual truth OR you already know the answer isn't in your favor. Either way, you seek to further your strawman argumentation to give the impression you are winning an argument while in actuality avoiding the bigger discussion.

Why are you still speaking in hypothetical?

Because like normal people, I don't speak authoritatively on topics I don't know anything about.

You should try it some time.

If you really seeked the truth, you wouldn't keep asking, you'd go find out for yourself.

I'm not interested in finding the "truth." All I see is a scientist who stupidly didn't disclose conflicts of interest.

The reason is obvious. You have no desire to find the actual truth OR you already know the answer isn't in your favor.

Neither. I'm willing to bet there isn't a story here and am not going to search and twist things to make one.

Either way, you seek to further your strawman argumentation to give the impression you are winning an argument while in actuality avoiding the bigger discussion.

The larger discussion that he stupidly didn't disclose his conflicts of interest? I've already commented on that.

As to your bullshit he caused the pandemic to make money, I see no information whatsoever beyond innuendo and some pretty thin circumstantial evidence.

#25 | Posted by CalifChris

Was not me. Honest. I use a spit-proof keyboard and I sneeze outside.

You must have caught it from the gardener.

As to your bullshit he caused the pandemic to make money, I see no information whatsoever beyond innuendo and some pretty thin circumstantial evidence.

#31 | Posted by jpw

"I'M A LITTLE SLOW, BUT BEAR WITH ME" JPW

By CHRIS POLLARD

Published: 11 Jan 2010

A LEADING health expert says the swine flu scare was a "false pandemic" led by drugs companies that stood to make billions from vaccines.
Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, claims major firms organised a "campaign of panic" to put pressure on the World Health Organisation to declare a pandemic.

He believes it is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century" and has called for an inquiry.

An emergency debate on the issue will be held by the Council later this month.

Dr Wodarg said: "It's just a normal kind of flu. It does not cause a tenth of deaths caused by the classic seasonal flu.

"The great campaign of panic we have seen provided a golden opportunity for representatives from labs who knew they would hit the jackpot in the case of a pandemic being declared.

"We want to clarify everything that brought about this massive operation of disinformation. We want to know who made decisions, on the basis of what evidence, and precisely how the influence of the pharmaceutical industry came to bear on the decision-making."

He added: "A group of people in the WHO is associated very closely with the pharmaceutical industry."

The WHO has recently reaffirmed its stance that the pandemic is not over. However, the number of swine flu deaths is dramatically lower than expected.

Last year, Dr Wodarg raised concerns about swine flu vaccines, saying they could cause dangerous allergic reactions.

In an interview with France's L'Humanite, he said: "The vaccines were developed too quickly. Some ingredients (adjuvants) were insufficiently tested.

"But there is worse to come. The vaccine developed by Novartis was produced in a bioreactor from cancerous cells a technique that had never been used until now.

"This was not necessary. It has also led to a considerable mismanagement of public money.