XML Feeds| « The Council of Foreign Relations Enters the Vaccine Biz | Most Australians may refuse H1N1 vaccine » |
Why Science and the State Need To Be Kept Separate For The Swine Flu
This is a quote from an article published at The Flu Case December 24 2009:
'World governments and world government itself believe that the legislative process can give science a little "leg up." They do this through Research and Development. The U.S. Government attempted to solve a scientific health problem during the Swine Flu outbreak. In an attempt to improve the health of the people, the legislative process managed to badly distort the traditional mechanisms that allow science to solve these problems for us.
Swine Flu was touted as a global pandemic. The World Health Organization attributed doom-like categories of description to this serious-but-manageable disease. Since political rhetoric of the day prefers fear to other techniques, it was important for rhetoreticians to describe the Swine Flu in terms of a global killer. This was done to motivate research grants for a few connected companies. This is typical of the corporatist government that we have.
Vaccines are touted as "proven safe" despite the fact that insurance companies will not provide liability coverage for individuals that are harmed by a vaccine. That is the free market's way of telling you that vaccines are actually not very safe. There is a variety of data on different views about the effectiveness of vaccines. Regardless of the data, giving Baxter pharmaceuticals the ability to create a rushed vaccine without any liability for wrongful death does not a process for the creation of a healthy vaccine make. So it came to pass that many became sick due to the Swine Flu vaccine. People that did not take the vaccine were not in the level of jeopardy that the corporate Old Media promised. The disease came and went. It was just another ordinary seasonal flu. It had some different demographic data points, but the mortality figures were comparable to other seasonal flus.
Essentially, the legislative process failed us in this case. We spent tons of money creating an unhealthy pharmaceutical product that was not properly tested. We attempted to give this to everyone, and ran out. The "scientific consensus" accepted by the state was motivated by providing money for pharmaceutical companies. It failed at the task of improving public health and at a fiscally irresponsible cost. '
Recent comments