| UK Health Organisations Unable to Substantiate
Swine Flu Pandemic Claims
Andrew Johnson, an alternative knowledge researcher who runs
www.checktheevidence.com , has posted a list of questions sent
to two UK health organisations, along with their responses. Johnson
became quite concerned about “the continued propagandising
of this so-called pandemic”. He therefore sent questions
to Derbyshire Primary Care Trust, an organisation responsible
for the health of about 1 million people, and the Department of
Health (DH), a government body which “exists to improve the
health and wellbeing of people in England.”
Johnson states, “I studied the swine flu related information
coming out in the alternative media – there are a few ill-founded
and poorly researched stories being disseminated, but there are
also some serious questions which health organisations need to
properly address, so I did my best to collate 17 questions and
attempt to get answers to them.”
In his letter to the organisations, Johnson mentioned the 1976
Swine Flu Scare, which seemed unfold in similar way to the one
we are seeing now. He states:
“In their responses, there was no real comment on the 1976
swine flu scare. There was no comment on people who sued the US
government after they were vaccine-damaged. There was no mention,
for example, that the US officials lied about the statements of
people like Mary Tyler-Moore (a celebrity at the time), whom they
said had taken the vaccine, but she had not – she went against
the advice of her doctor.”
Another issue Johnson raised was the information leaflet distributed
to all UK households. “I have never before known a time when
a health leaflet of this type was distributed to all households
– at a cost of hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions
of pounds. The NHS leaflet says ‘no one will be resistant’
to Swine Flu (bottom of p. 4). This is clearly false – as
there is always some natural immunity to new infections. In their
response, the DH stated
When the swine flu information leaflet was written it was correct
to say that there was no immunity to the virus in the community.
This referred to specific immunity to this particular virus. The
Department now has the benefit of experience from the first wave
of this new flu infection. Therefore, it seems there may be some
specific partial cross immunity in the elderly population from
previous flu infections.
“I contend that the leaflet is misleading – and could
have alarmed people unnecessarily.”
Johnson continues, “The evidence now suggests that, almost
6 months after the supposed outbreak in Mexico, there is no apparent
threat over and above an ordinary flu strain. In the UK, it seems
the Swine Flu has claimed hardly any lives (though the media seem
overly keen exaggerate this).”
Johnson also asked if the UK Government had sourced vaccine doses,
and if so, from which companies. The response from the DH stated
it had sourced them from GlaxoSmithKline and Baxter Healthcare
and also:
The Government signed the advance purchase agreements for the
vaccines in June 2007 and accepted liability for their safety
as a contingency.
Johnson responds, “It is a significant admission that agreements
were made with Pharmaceutical companies 2 years ago, long before
the current scare. Of course, some would argue this is all part
of the ‘pandemic response plan’. However, previous threats
of Avian Flu and SARS have simply not materialised, so what basis
was there for making these agreements?”
The DH response also said:
All governments signing up to an advance purchase agreement were
expected to provide an indemnity for the vaccine, and neither
manufacturer would sign the contracts without it. The Government's
decision was based on the best procurement and legal advice. Accepting
liability in this way is in line with Government accounting rules,
and was cleared by the Public Accounts Committee at the time
Johnson comments, “I was staggered to learn that the UK Government
has accepted any potential liability for damage caused by the
products of some of the world’s richest companies! I can’t
think of another situation where a government accepts such a potentially
costly liability. Of course it’s ludicrous to go as far as
suggesting that, in some way, the pharmaceutical companies held
these governments to ransom over the issue.”
Another point he mentions is the potential cost of the vaccine
and administering it to patients. “The response from the
DH stated that the Doctor’s practices will be paid £5.25
for each vaccine dose administered. This would mean a cost of
about £315 million to administer it to the whole of UK population.
Then we add in the cost of the vaccine itself and we are perhaps
approaching a figure of half a billion pounds. This is a huge
financial commitment for a pandemic which has no credible evidence
to back up its reality! Therefore we see the promotion of toxic
treatments - like unproven Swine flu vaccines (just look at the
ingredients) rather than non-toxic therapies or prophylactic vitamin
supplements!”.
On the use of vaccines in general Johnson comments, “A number
of doctors question the whole use of vaccines. Dr Rebecca Carley,
Dr Leonard Horowitz and others point out the toxic constituents
in vaccines and the damage to health they can cause. More recently,
in the UK, we have had more reports of damage to health - and
even death - being linked to other vaccines, such as the HPV.
Another question Johnson posed was regarding a World Health Organisation
WHO) “checklist document”. The document states
During a pandemic, it may be necessary to overrule existing legislation
or (individual) human rights. Examples are the enforcement of
quarantine (overruling individual freedom of movement), use of
privately owned buildings for hospitals, off-license use of drugs,
compulsory vaccination or implementation of emergency shifts in
essential services. These decisions need a legal framework to
ensure transparent assessment and justification of the measures
that are being considered, and to ensure coherence with international
legislation (International Health Regulations).
Johnson asked if Britain is a signatory to this ‘checklist’
or if any legislation was in place which would mean that this
“checklist” could be applied to UK citizens. The DH
responded:
The WHO document to which you refer is simply intended as guidance
to assist member states in their flu pandemic planning.
“This suggests Britain is a member state, but they made no
comments on any UK legislation – or what the ‘International
Health Regulations’ referred to in the WHO document are (or
who makes those regulations).” He also asked to why the current
pandemic was regarded as serious, they said:
A flu pandemic is serious because, depending on the virulence
of the virus, there is the potential for a large number of deaths.
Even if it is less virulent, very large numbers of people can
be affected, causing significant social disruption due to absence
from work. For example, healthcare could be affected. Distribution
of food using road transport from large supermarket depots could
be disrupted due to absence. The seriousness of a flu pandemic
is not just due to the potential for the virus to cause premature
death.
Johnson comments, “This refers to the definition of a pandemic
in general – but no one anywhere has provided any credible
evidence that the swine flu is a dangerous pandemic. This is the
key point in all of this. No research is quoted, no figures given
– nothing!”
In conclusion, Johnson says: “In working through these questions
and answers, I can only conclude that there is no credible evidence
that a pandemic is imminent. It seems the actions of these bodies
are not concerned with protecting our health – they are concerned
with handing over control of our health to private companies,
funding them in this activity.”
The full article including the letters written, questions and
responses can be read at www.checktheevidence.com
Reference Sources: www.prlog.org
October 5, 2009
 ...............................................................................................................
|
