Donaldson, Liam

UK Drugs Dealer Supremo Squanders 1billion Plus On Swine Flu
One Click Note: Sir Liam Donaldson's assertion that the British Swine Flu Plan was devised courtesy of Mexico with the best information to hand is analogous to the Weapons of Mass Destruction lie that got Britain into the war in Iraq. Anyone who puts a pandemic in place as a result of false stats and then continues to conflate and promote a mild illness to service the pharmaceutical industry and a British regime in trouble is an irresponsible political disgrace. Heralding every Swine Flu death in the media on the front pages every day was the apex of fear marketing without check. Equally, the continuing UK government saturation promotion of the deadly GlaxoSmithKline H1N1 vaccine, now withdrawn in Canada, represents a danger to the public. The UK MPs expenses scandal is a mere bagatelle compared to what Drug Dealer Donaldson and his UK gov cronies have spent over false information on Swine Flu. Over 1 billion and counting. Your reputation is smashed and your days are numbered. Tick Tock......

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=3060&end=3080&view=yes&id=4066#newspost
**********


24 November 2009
Medical Life
Will this pandemic turn out to be more kitten than tiger?
Jeremy Laurance


Sir Liam Donaldson, UK Chief Medical Officer
Drugs Dealer Disgrace
(Caption & Pic Courtesy Of One Click)


Sir Liam Donaldson, the Government's Chief Medical Officer, let me have it with both barrels at last week's swine flu briefing. I couldn't blame him. It must be extremely galling, after you have worked tirelessly, without a break, to build up Britain's defences against the pandemic and received accolades for your efforts from around the world, to be asked whether the cost of the exercise can be justified. Hardly surprising, then, that he let his irritation show. "I totally disagree ... that we have overdone it on flu," he said, calling up images of "parents standing by intensive care cots in life or death situations."

It's easy for me. I only have to ask the questions, with the benefit of hindsight. He has to make the decisions in advance, without that benefit. He would argue, rightly I believe, that given our state of knowledge about the behaviour of the flu virus at the time, Britain acted wisely to develop a pandemic plan and to enact it when swine flu emerged in Mexico last April.

But when the pandemic is over possibly not for another two or three years the reckoning will come. And now is our last chance, in Britain, to view its natural course before the roll-out of vaccination halts it in its path.

If this turns out to be the weakest pandemic in history, as I have previously suggested, it may be that our response with one of the biggest stockpiles of anti-viral drugs and vaccines in the world will appear disproportionate. It is still too early to say because the virus could resume spreading or mutate into a more lethal strain. But if it does not, the question for virologists will be why, after years of warnings, the pandemic turned out to be a kitten, not a tiger. We were warned to prepare for avian flu, with a 60 per cent mortality, not swine flu with a 0.005 per cent mortality.

It is then that the cost of the exercise more than 1 billion will come under scrutiny, which could affect plans for future pandemics. Many people feel uncomfortable with adjusting spending in line with the predicted loss of life. But 1 spent on swine flu is a 1 less for other needs. Equity demands that we consider costs to ignore them would be unethical.

In my question to Sir Liam I had pointed out that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) had that morning ruled against a drug, sorafenib, for advanced liver cancer because it was too expensive. NICE has, as usual, been castigated for this decision, which has been called "scandalous" (Macmillan Cancer Support), "enormously frustrating" (Cancer Research UK) and "absurd" (Professor Karol Sikora).

Not a single voice, to my knowledge, has been raised in criticism of the high price charged 3,000 per patient per month by the drug's manufacturer, Bayer Healthcare. Why? Because the drug industry has a stranglehold on our doctors, researchers and charities. They dare not bite the hand that directly in grants or indirectly in research funding so prodigiously feeds them.