[back] Swine flu 2009


by Dr Tim O'Shea


So predictable, within the context of smallpox, anthrax, SARS, avian flu. As predicted 4 months ago in new 13th ed. of the vaccine book, we knew the next orchestrated health crisis was coming [4] - we just didn't know what it would be called. Disappointing really that they lacked the imagination to come up with a brand new global panic; so all we get is a re-run of the 1970s swine flu fiasco.

Unlike the hysterical media, let's define our terms first, instead of just assuming everyone knows historically what swine flu really is.


Back in 1975 a soldier at Fort Ord CA died in a training exercise on a very hot day. A very mild virus that came to be known as swine flu virus was found in his body, though never proven to be the cause of death. Just as probable he died of overexertion, since it was a very hot day and they were on a training exercise. The virus was a member of the H1N1 virus family reportedly found in hogs, which had not previously been transmitted to humans. So nothing was known of its virulence or its ability to cause even a local outbreak, let alone a global epidemic. There was no evidence that it could be a serious disease for humans. [3]

Notwithstanding those facts, the National Institutes of Health took up the case, and massive media coverage hawking the beginning of a global pandemic was conjured up out of nothing. Even though there were no further cases, during the next several months a swine flu vaccine was quickly created. The vaccine was never tested in any large setting. Abundant data were available however documenting the dangers and unpredictability of this untested new vaccine. Little wonder: the new vaccine wasn't even made from the original mild swine flu pathogen.

Because they were under the gun in trying to get the vaccine out ASAP, the vaccine makers merged the natural H1N1 swine flu virus with an extremely virulent manmade strain in order to make the vaccine more reactive in people. [3] Though the dangers of the powerful new vaccine were well known, the next sequence of events showed how human health is always subordinate to the agendas of political immunology.

Now it just so happened that in July 1976, by an unfortunate coincidence some 221 people in a Philadelphia hotel came down with a mysterious disease that was immediately dubbed Legionnaires Disease. 34 of them eventually died with the cause of death unknown. As luck would have it, this was right at the same time that NIH had just decided not to go through with recommending the swine flu vaccine for everyone.

These two unrelated events became tied together in the game of political immunology. Here's how it happened:

At first Congress would not approve the mass swine flu program because the vaccine manufacturers said they wouldn't accept responsibility for any people damaged by the new vaccine. So the NIH had decided to shelve the swine flu program. [3]

But meanwhile the media behind Legionnaires Disease became more and more intense day by day, eerily similar to what is going on today. There was a growing suspicion, based on nothing and fostered by the shrill and irresponsible media, that Legionnaires Disease might actually be swine flu. The policymakers were under intense political pressure to "do something." So in a few midnight sit-downs during a four day period, three things suddenly were hastily decided:

    1. The Legionnaires Disease cases were definitely not swine flu

    2. Congress decided the government would accept responsibility for any deaths or damages from a swine flu vaccine program

    3. The next day the mass swine flu vaccine program was adopted.

Everybody was happy with this solution:

  • no more worry about the possibility of 2 epidemics
  • everyone would be protected from swine flu by the vaccine
  • the vaccine manufacturers got to make several million dollars
  • the FDA and NIH had once again saved the American people from disaster

Unfortunately it didn't quite work out as expected: 565 of the newly vaccinated people became paralyzed from a nerve disorder called Guillain Barre syndrome, 25 of whom died. So the swine flu vaccine program was halted in just 10 weeks, after over 40 million people had received it. Their original goal had been to vaccinate the entire population. No one but that one soldier ever died, and there was no epidemic of swine flu, even though the media at the time estimated that up to 60 million Americans could become infected unless they vaccinated. [6] So get that: after the money was spent, the threat disappeared.

Eventually the government paid out almost $400 million in claims. [3]

To recap, the enormous swine flu vaccine program of 1976 - the worst vaccine disaster in US history - was set into motion before swine flu had ever been validated as a serious disease for humans, let alone proven capable of causing an epidemic.


So what happened recently? We have conflicting reports of several hundred Mexicans 'infected' with swine flu, 150 of whom are 'believed to have' died from it. And now we're also beginning to see reports of each day more and more people in the US have come down with the illness, supposedly 70 cases, at first, then more. And then the first US deaths.

From these slim allegations, endless unsubstantiated inferences and predictions are being spun:

  • - A global pandemic is in the offing
  • - Thousands of Mexicans will die first
  • - Americans are dying
  • - A vaccine is in the wings
  • - Tamiflu is being ramped up to save us


With the track record of mainstream media during the past several years regarding panics and pandemics, there is precious little reliable information available to us. The first and most important question that must be addressed has to do with the newly reported numbers. Thousands of people get the flu each day and recover from it, and some people who are already sick may die from it. But suddenly here we have media alleging that a novel flu virus causing a brand new disease is afoot. So the only critical issue when reporting these new cases must be: were the patients cultured for the new disease?

And secondly, cultured for what?

Here is the first jumping off point - departure from reality: within just one week of the 'outbreak' the media had begun its daily tally sheet of numbers infected and numbers dead, which will establish the scorecard pattern we're so familiar with in tracking any disaster. What are they counting? There is no screening test for the disease!

    No culture protocols, no titer amounts, no incubation periods set,

and what is most important, no specific pathogen has been identified. Without a specific pathogen, there is no epidemic.

H1N1 is a family of viruses, dozens of viruses. So the national media is stating all these numbers of cases of the disease when there is no verifiable method for specifically identifying the disease. The cases are being diagnosed by symptoms. This is precisely what happened with the nonexistent Avian flu of 4 years ago. [5] If we're diagnosing by symptoms only, then any case of any flu can be counted. And that's exactly what is happening here.

Did anyone think it rather odd that the first cases of swine flu were coming from Third World areas of Mexico where even basic medical services are often lacking, let alone a sophisticated screening test for a brand new disease, a procedure which would take months to create, even in the most modern of clinical settings? So once again we ask, without a screening procedure, what are they counting, in Mexico, in Texas, wherever? And exactly what distinguishes these new cases that are being hourly hawked by every single media service in the known world, what sets these cases apart from ordinary flu cases?

The other question no one is asking is this: what was the incidence of flu in these Mexican towns the same time last year? How about last month? Do you see - without a very specific viral screening test, the numbers mean nothing, except as fuel to the media fire.

So going just this far, it doesn't take much reasoning to grasp that we're being set up here. Unfortunately this is much farther than the majority of the unlettered public will question it.

But we're just getting started with the inconsistencies. What about the pathogen itself?


Let's start at the beginning. In classical pathology, influenza is a disease that is associated with a family of viruses known as orthomyxoviruses. Within this group we have Influenza A, Influenza B, and Influenza C viruses. What separates viruses into these 3 groups is the type of antigen present in the virus. [7]

Now, within the Influenza A category is a smaller grouping called the H1N1 viruses. There are dozens and dozens of strains of H1N1. The CDC has tested over 50 different strains of H1N1. [9]

Let's just stop there. For an infectious disease to be identified and characterized, it must be proven to be caused by a specific single pathogen. The original 1976 swine flu vaccine contained 2 viral strains, one of which was the pathogen that had supposedly been identified as the cause of swine flu.

Now in the recent 2009 outbreak, they just realized in the first week that they shot themselves in the foot by calling it swine flu. Since there was no epidemic in 1976, and since obviously no pathogen was ever correctly identified, in light of the ensuing vaccine debacle, it's quite clear that swine flu never existed.

So, irrespective of the pig farmers, that's why Obama found himself in the absurd position of trying to change the name to H1N1 - it was a marketing mistake to associate the new disease with that past swine flu disease, which proved to be nonexistent. By admitting the virus has never been isolated in a pig, they just confessed to the fundamental error of the 1976 vaccine program: that there was no such thing as swine flu.

So where does that leave us? To call the new disease H1N1 flu is also meaningless, for 2 reasons

    - the original Mexican cases were not cultured

    - there are dozens of strains of H1N1

So what are all these people coming down with and dying from? Simple: the flu! There is no proof otherwise of any novel pathogen, H1N1 or whatever, introducing any new disease. It's all allegation, conjecture, smoke and mirrors, and marketing. The new cases have nothing in common except diagnosis - and that's being done by symptoms, not by testing.


Until we do a little reading and finally come to grips with the unreliability of the Germ Theory as a tenable scientific premise for disease processes, we will continue to be misled by whatever new media-conceived threats come down the pike. Germs don't cause disease. Sick people with chronically toxic internal milieu provide hospitable environments for disease processes to gain a foothold, some of which culturing situations may then involve propagation of pathogenic microbes, true.

But that's a far cry from the simplistic popular version that we were perfectly healthy until this pig virus came along out of nowhere and made us sick by taking over our normal immune systems, and killed us. That just doesn't happen.

What happened to SARS? Where is it? What happened to anthrax, smallpox, Avian flu, mad cow--- they're gone. And they won't be back. They served their purpose - terrorize and distract - spend billions for new research, new pharmaceuticals, unproven and ultimately unnecessary. Afterwards the threats always vanish, like the dew off the new grass in the morning sun --- gone. And that's what will happen with this new swine flu, in a very short time.

With SARS we had coronavirus. With Avian flu we had H5N1 virus. Now with swine flu we have H1N1 virus. For a thorough discussion of indefensibility of germs as the cause of SARS and Avian flu, see [4].


In the same pattern as SARS, Avian flu, and smallpox, the current media hysteria hyping swine flu has two very obvious goals: selling vaccines and drugs. All exaggeration, misdirection, hyperbole, inaccuracy, inflammatory rhetoric, dire predictions seen in today's communications are representing that the current biological threat can only be defended against by the mass administration of vaccines and drugs.

First, vaccines.

For any new vaccine to be formulated, tested as safe and effective, and approved would take at least a year, usually more. So the immediate references to vaccines as our only salvation, within the first week of the new 'crisis' would indicate that the FDA is considering using the old swine flu vaccines, that have been stockpiled since the mid 70s. Maybe they'll tweak them a little for re-packaging as new and improved, but for now it's all we have. The New York Times was talking about a vaccine 'within a month.' The only possibility of a solution that quick would be to re-deploy the stockpiled swine flu vaccine from the worst vaccine disaster in US history in 1976, as detailed above. Given the virulence and toxicity of that concoction makes one wonder how even the US media could make that turkey fly.

The likelihood of re-using old vaccine stockpiles has a precedent. CDC tried the same tack in 2001 with the post 9/11 smallpox vaccine hoax. They trotted out old smallpox vaccine stockpiles that had been on the shelves since 1971 and prepared to re-deploy them into the population to protect Americans from the imaginary post 9/11 smallpox threat. Of course they cancelled the program as soon as the money was spent, and mercifully we were spared those vaccines.

It's a preposterous claim to even be suggesting we could come up with a vaccine for mass administration in such a short period of time as a month. Precipitous action driven by politics instead of science is exactly what led to the 1976 disaster. Are we willing to reprise that catastrophe?

One other course might be to try and tweak a current flu vaccine and claim that it would be effective for the current epidemic. This type of marketing would face the challenge of disguising how ineffective yearly flu shots have always been. In the past 20 years, flu shots have had no effect either on the numbers of people getting the flu, nor on the number of people supposedly dying from influenza. [4] On the CDC website, during the past decade the magic figure of 36,000 deaths annually from influenza in the US has never changed. [8]


In the chapter on Avian Flu at www.thedoctorwithin.com [5] we looked closely at the 'antiviral' drug Tamiflu, which was marketed as the cure of the nonexistent Avian flu scare a few years ago.

It will save time to review some ideas from that chapter, since the selfsame falsehoods are being used to sell swine flu today.

In 1996 two drug giants - Hoffman LaRoche and Gilead Sciences made an agreement. Gilead had invented a new type of flu drugs called neuraminidase inhibitors, which included Tamiflu. [10]

The deal was that LaRoche could research and market the drug worldwide, and Gilead would be paid residuals.

From 1997 until the time he was sworn in as Secretary of Defense in 2001, Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences was Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld continues to receive stock and benefits from Gilead, and is a major shareholder. [11]

How did the financial future of Gilead appear, with sales of Tamiflu? Best estimates were between $1 - 1.8 billion. And that's just for the US market. [12, 13] Such a figure would double Gilead's total income for 2004. Just for one drug.

Taking the global market into consideration, sales revenue from Tamiflu is virtually "unlimited." [13]

In the Avian flu hoax of 2005, the US Senate approved $3.9 billion for Tamiflu purchase with virtually no discussion. [13]

From a WHO FAQ sheet: "At present manufacturing capacity, which has recently quadrupled, it will take a decade to produce enough oseltamivir to treat 20% of the world's population." [14]

Oseltamivir - that's Tamiflu.

Keep asking yourself: who would benefit from the threat of pandemic?


Drugs that kill viruses have been the Holy Grail of modern medicine every since Fleming's invention of penicillin in the mid 1940s. Penicillin initially saved so many lives because for the first time we had a drug that could kill a broad spectrum of bacteria in the human body. But for all these years since, they could never pull the virus rabbit out of the same hat. No matter what the boys in PR name their drugs, there have never been drugs that take care of viruses the way antibiotics originally could kill bacteria. [15]

And that's always been the problem with colds and flu. Most of them are viral, as everyone knows. Antibiotics don't work with flu. If you take antibiotics every time you get the flu, you are building your body's resistance to antibiotics. So if you ever have a life-threatening infection, they won't work. Fleming warned us this would be the result of irresponsible cavalier overprescription, but we didn't listen.

So is there really such a thing as a drug that kills viruses? Can Tamiflu really do what they claim it does?


Tamiflu was approved by the FDA on 20 Nov 2000. [16] The manufacturer made extravagant claims about its effectiveness from the outset:

    "The results of several clinical studies show that Tamiflu is up to 92% effective in preventing influenza illness in adolescents, adults and the elderly when taken once daily." [16]

Gilead also claims that Tamiflu

"is the first antiviral pill, effective against all common strains of flu, that can safely protect people who are in close contact with someone who has the flu."

No actual studies are cited by the manufacturer proving these claims.


Much of what appears on Gilead's website about Tamiflu is the work of Gilead's PR department. To find out what the actual scientists say about Tamiflu, we have to look at the Physician's Desk Reference, the technical bible of the drug industry.

From that source we find a little different story. We find that the supposed action of Tamiflu is that it is assumed to prevent flu viruses from collecting on cells by specifically inhibiting a certain enzyme that helps viruses to bind to cells. The enzyme is called a neuraminidase. [17] The first problem is that they don't know for sure if that is the action of the drug, and always refer to it as the "proposed" mechanism of activity. But more pertinently, the scientists state that even though this seems to be how the drug works in culture,

"the relationship between the activity in a culture and the inhibition of influenza virus replications in humans has not been established." (p2927)

In other words the scientists who formulated Tamiflu are stating that they don't know whether or not it even works in humans! And this is the drug that all of American media is hawking to the skies as the savior that will save us from the plague of swine flu.


Even if Tamiflu could inhibit virus proliferation in humans, it wouldn't work for very long in our entire population. Why not? Mutation. Influenza viruses are one of the fastest mutating of all known human viruses, mutating several times in one flu season, not just in a given locale, but even within the same person. At any one time across the country there are literally hundreds of strains of influenza in people. And this is precisely why flu shots have never worked and have had virtually no effect on the incidence of flu in this country for the past several years. [4]

With Tamiflu, again, the scientists readily admit that

"Insufficient information is available to fully characterize the risk of emergence of Tamiflu resistance in clinical use. [17]

Resistance means tolerance, or the ability of viruses to mutate so as to be unaffected by the drug. We see this same exact phenomenon every year with the creation of many new infections of which people die, because the organisms become completely resistant to all known antibiotics. This is the result predicted by Alexander Fleming. [15]


Another limitation of Tamiflu is the short window of opportunity for its claimed effectiveness. Again from the 2005 PDR:

"Tamiflu is indicated for the treatment of uncomplicated influenza infection in patients 1 year and older who have been symptomatic for no more than 2 days." [17]

For no more than 2 days. In other words, the manufacturers are saying Tamiflu doesn't work if the patient has had the flu for more than 2 days. Never saw that in Newsweek, did you?

Reading on, the manufacturer is not claiming that Tamiflu can help any patients who were already sick when they got the flu. (p 2928) They further state that they don't know if multiple courses of Tamiflu are safe, because they never tested for more than one course.


The manufacturers then state they cannot guarantee safety for the fetus if a pregnant woman takes Tamiflu. [17] Therefore they don't recommend Tamiflu for pregnancy. See that one in the paper?

Side effects of Tamiflu? Here's what the PDR lists:

  • rash
  • swelling of face
  • epidermal necrolysis (skin death)
  • hepatitis
  • cardiac arrhythmia
  • aggravation of diabetes
  • seizures ([17] p 2929)
All that seems pretty risky for a drug that has never been proven to work in humans.


Remember now, Tamiflu has been around since 2000. The above facts from the most current science known about Tamiflu shows the progress that has been made with this drug after several years: precious little. Tamiflu had no effect on ordinary flu incidence during the past 9 years. Why is it now suddenly being glorified as the Magic Bullet for the 'new pandemic'?

The CDC has tested more than 50 strains of H1N1 and found that 98% of them are resistant to Tamiflu! [9]


The Bush administration has funded a Swiss drug company, Sanofi Pasteur, $100 million to develop a vaccine for Avian flu. [18]

Bush made it clear that there was plenty more where that $100 mil came from when he announced that $7.1 billion was being allocated to combat avian flu with drugs and vaccines. [20]

Director of HHS, Mike Leavitt, parroted his predecessor Tommy Thompson almost verbatim when he said:

    "we need to have the capacity to produce 300 million courses of a vaccine for any strain of a pandemic flu." [20] 1 Nov 05

Those were Tommy Thompson's same words exactly three years before, but he was talking about smallpox vaccine for the pandemic du jour. And after 2 years of hysteria and $3 billion we all know what happened to that program. [21] [22] It was scrapped before the vaccine manufacturers even met their production quotas. We'll never hear about smallpox again.

With SARS, it was slightly more money: $40 billion, with 800 deaths alleged worldwide. [20] Just like today, almost all the deaths were diagnosed by symptoms only. No lab tests.

With the new swine flu Obama fell right in line with his predecessors, letting everyone know that he would not be counted as a laggard in the game of political immunology: in the first week he was pledging $150 billion for a disease that had not yet been proven to exist.

Who stands to benefit from any faux epidemic?

  • - media selling hysteria
  • - research funding
  • - med/pharmaceutical /security/law enforcement
  • - new vaccines


There are literally hundreds of strains of influenza virus present at any given time across the US. These viruses have the ability to mutate very quickly, which explains why the flu vaccine has never been effective, since everyone gets the same vaccine. But here with swine flu, they're referring presumably to a version of the 1976 virus which had supposedly crossed the species barrier from pigs to humans and killed the one soldier.

That single incident then occasioned a sequence of political events mandating the release of a dangerous and untested vaccine that killed 21 people and paralyzed another 565. But the primary issue in all this that no ever mentions is that after the vaccine was cancelled, the disease disappeared. The imaginary epidemic never happened.

In the 13th edition of The Sanctity of Human Blood we refer to this phenomenon as The Case of the Disappearing Threat. It happened the same way every time, with anthrax, SARS, smallpox, and avian flu:

  • A disease is named
  • Mass hysteria is created: global threat
  • The disease is loosely correlated with a microbe
  • With insufficient testing, a vaccine and drug are ordered, costing billion$
  • Soon after, the treat disappears and is never heard from again
That's exactly what will happen with swine flu. It has to: it's a tried and true pattern perfected by the dictates of


Before we get completely sick of swine flu media bytes, and automatically switch off any channel talking about it, we should notice the political pattern occasioned by an event this compelling. Look at the omniscient and confident way each government official speaks about this unproven new disease they know nothing about. Each government office who doesn't come out and support the daily version of the Prevailing Myth fears that they may be accused of not doing their job. So no one has the wherewithal to state the obvious: we really don't know what's causing the phenomenon, and we don't have the situation under control and it's unlikely that Tamiflu and a new swine flu vaccine will solve the problem, given their lack of success in the past, on every single occasion. So it's just about TV theatre: all form, no substance. And each official will repeat the same bland platitudes with the same conviction, and billions will be spent and soon the 'epidemic' will fade without most people knowing it was never here at all.

So then what are all these people dying of then, you might ask?

Until some legitimate science steps up, the answer is: it's just plain old flu.


With no swine flu and no epidemic, the solution is stop watching the nonsense coming out of your TV, stop reading internet stories and stop reading newspaper and magazine articles about swine flu. Be assured it will be over in a few weeks, just as soon as all the money for the vaccine and the antiviral drugs gets spent. Live your life; with all the real problems we have today, we don't need any imaginary ones.

Swine flu or H1N1 or whatever they decide to call it next week will soon be fading off into the boneyard of plague hysteria memorabilia, along with smallpox, anthrax, SARS and Avian flu. The sales team did a phenomenal job, getting maximum mileage out of the ol' global pandemic spectre by applying the term to regular flu. We must applaud genius, and learn to recognize it. This certainly won't be the last faux pandemic - there's an inexhaustible supply.

The most important lesson we can learn from this experience is how difficult it is to get verifiable information about important health issues. The irresponsible media has proven once again beyond a doubt whose agenda they represent. Vaccines are a serious decision for everyone. To get sound information from scientific sources not dependent on drug companies requires some amount of diligence. The new 13th ed. of the vaccine book [4] offers many such resources. This is the only way we can make a truly informed decision on such an important issue as what medicines and drugs we will allow into the bloodstream of our children.

The vaccine industry seems to be trying to imitate the music industry these days. Within our devolving species, as people's brains become more and more saturated with hydrogenateds, they become easier to fool. Today any loud noise is music, in media any loud story is true, and with vaccines, any vaccine is scientific and effective. Doesn't matter that it's impossible to create immunity with a vaccine that is choosing 2 or 3 strains from hundreds, and pretending to confer specific immunity. Doesn't matter that the disease the vaccine is for has never been shown to actually exist. The media says it exists and that the vaccine will work -- that's as discriminating as the American public gets. They've lost the ability for abstract thought, rational discourse, and they don't read.

At the end of the new vaccine text, 13th ed., there's a section titled Social Darwinism. Here's the idea: if it really is true that all today's vaccines are collectively immunosuppressive, then the children with the greatest chance of longterm survival and replication will be the unvaccinated. The others are more likely to be selected out:

    "The human species is subject to the same laws of natural selection as all other life on the earth. Those with the weakest immune systems drop out. The immuno-suppressive effect of the immense viral load being continually forced onto the young through vaccines over long periods of time will cause their line to have the least chance of survival. It will dilute the DNA of their progeny forever. In the US during the past 50 years, where the vaccine load has been increased by more than 2500%, look at what is already clearly observable in the health and intelligence of our children during that time. Play that pattern forward another 50 years, 100, 200.

    Nature will always take its course. ...The uneducated, and the militantly uneducated will always, always vaccinate their children. And thereby over time may be selected out of the species. It's neither good nor bad: just simple genetics.

    Apocalyptically speaking, this may well be the best we can hope for by way of a silver lining, in the dark and murky world of vaccines we have conjured up today." [4]

copyright MMIX thedoctorwithin


1. Altman, L an eruption of illness and fear NY Times 1 Aug 06 www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/health/01docs.html

2. Kugler, S (AP) Officials say US deaths expected from swine flu 28 Apr 09

3. Turner, J Esq lecture Protect Medical Freedom conference Washington DC 20 Jun 01

4. O'Shea T The sanctity of human blood: vaccination is not immunization 13th ed.

5. O'Shea T Avian flu the pandemic that can never be www.thedoctorwithin.com

6. Roan, S Swine flu debacle is recalled Los Angeles Times 27 Apr 09

7. Hunt M Virology - chapter 13 influenza virus U of S. Carolina http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mhunt/flu.htm

8. CDC website www.cdc.gov

9. Drummond, J Missouri Health Advisory 22 Dec 08 CDC Issues Interim Recommendations for the Use of Influenza Antiviral Medications in the Setting of Oseltamivir Resistance among Circulating Influenza A (H1N1) Viruses 2008-09 Influenza Season

10. Partners Gilead Sciences website http://www.gilead.com/business_development

11. Wetherell, D Center for Public Integrity: The Bush 100 Center Releases Report on Bush's Top Appointees 14 Jan 02 http://www.publicintegrity.org/projects/  

12. Armitage, T US talks on Roche flu drug deal continue Boston Globe September 19, 2005

13. Smith, A Roche: Tamiflu stays in-house Swiss drug giant vows to increase production by 8-10 times for bird flu anti-viral. CNN October 12, 2005

14. WHO FAQ sheet What is avian influenza? www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/avian_faqs/

15. The post antibiotic age www.thedoctorwithin.com

16. Roche's Tamiflu Granted FDA Approval for the Prevention of Influenza www.gilead.com/wt/sec/pr_974743797/

17. Tamiflu Physicians Desk Reference 2005 Medical Economics p 2927 ff.

18. Kaufman, M Swiss Firm May Cede Bird Flu Drug Rights Washington Post October 19, 2005

19. NIAID Initiates Trial of Experimental Avian Flu Vaccine NIH News 23 Mar 2005

20. Branigin, W Bush Outlines $7.1B Flu Preparations Washington Post November 1, 2005

21. Smallpox: bringing a dead disease back to life 2004 www.thedoctorwithin.com

22. Manning, A Smallpox vaccination ceased USA Today 15 Oct 03

23. Interview with Andrew Moulden MD PhD 29 Apr 09

List of Chapters - Upcoming Lectures - Order Books and CDs - Order Products
The Doctor's Office - Curriculum Vitae - E-Mail - Site Map - Privacy Policy
Copyright MMIX