Making money with the bird flu

Mike · ï¿½ #1 ï¿½ 07-01-2006, 04:13 PM

I haven't followed the information concerning bird flu. And I do not know much about snopes.com from which the following information came. But since Donald Rumsfeld appears to be the one most responsible for making millions of dollars by getting aspartame (Nutrasweet) introduced into the food chain, I can't doubt the possible veracity of the following:

www.snopes.com confirms the following information
*
Subject:* Bird flu and Tamiflu*
*
*
*
** Do you know that 'bird flu' was discovered in Vietnam 9 years ago?
*
** Do you know that barely 100 people have died in the whole world in all that time?
*
** Do you know that it was the Americans who alerted us to the efficacy of the human antiviral TAMIFLU as a preventative.
*
** Do you know that TAMIFLU barely alleviates some symptoms of the common flu?
*
** Do you know that its efficacy against the common flu is questioned by a great part of the scientific community?
*
** Do you know that against a SUPPOSED mutant virus such as H5N1, TAMIFLU barely alleviates the illness?
*
** Do you know that to date Avian Flu affects birds only?
*
** Do you know who markets TAMIFLU?
*
** ROCHE LABORATORIES.
*
** Do you know who bought the patent for TAMIFLU from ROCHE LABORATORIES in 1996?
*
** GILEAD SCIENCES INC.
*
** Do you know who was the then president of GILEAD SCIENCES INC.
*
and remains a major shareholder?
*
** DONALD RUMSFELD, the present Secretary of Defence of the USA.
*
** Do you know that the base of TAMIFLU is crushed aniseed?
*
** Do you know who controls 90% of the world's production of this tree?
*
** ROCHE.
*
** Do you know that sales of TAMIFLU were over $254 million in 2004 and more than $1000 million in 2005?
*
** Do you know how many more millions ROCHE can earn in the coming months if the business of fear continues?
*
** So the summary of the story is as follows:
*
** Bush's friends decide that the medicine TAMIFLU is the solution for a pandemic that has not yet occurred and that has caused a hundred deaths worldwide in 9 years.
*
** This medicine doesn't so much as cure the common flu.
*
** In normal conditions the virus does not affect humans.
*
** Rumsfeld sells the patent for TAMIFLU to ROCHE for which they pay him a fortune.
*
** Roche acquires 90% of the global production of crushed aniseed, the base for the antivirus.
*
** The governments of the entire world threaten a pandemic and then buy industrial quantities of the product from Roche.
*
** So we end up paying for medicine while Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush do the business.
*
** ARE WE CRAZY!!?* OR ARE WE IDIOTS!!?
*
** AT LEAST PASS THIS ON SO THAT IT CAN BE KNOWN...

Mad Scientest · ï¿½ #2 ï¿½ 07-01-2006, 06:17 PM

As the saying goes; If you want to know why something is happing, and who is in control. Just follow the money.

RubyTuesday · ï¿½ #3 ï¿½ 07-02-2006, 01:43 AM

Since you posted the email, and a reference to validation by Snopes.com, it's only truthful that you post Snopes' complete answer to the inquiry about Rumsfeld and Tamiflu. Here it is.

Quote:

Origins: This particular e-mail first came to us in April 2006. As to its claims, rather than take them in order, we'll examine them in two parts: whether the U.S. Secretary of Defense owns stock in the company that produces Tamiflu, and whether Tamiflu is effective against influenza.

As to the first, it is true Donald Rumsfeld does indeed have stock holdings in Gilead Sciences, Inc., the California biotech company that developed Tamiflu (a product now manufactured and sold by the pharmaceutical giant Roche), and so he benefits financially from increases in that company's stock price. (Gilead receives a royalty from Roche equal to about 10% of sales.) Rumsfeld was a member of Gilead's board of
directors between 1988 and 2001, and he was its chairman from 1997 until he joined President George W. Bush's cabinet as Secretary of Defense in 2001. According to federal financial disclosures filed by Rumsfeld, he has Gilead stock holdings valued at between $5 million and $25 million.

The Secretary of Defense is not the only politically-connected person to have ties to Gilead. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who is on Gilead's board, has sold more than $7 million worth of Gilead stock since the beginning of 2005. Another Gilead board member is the wife of former California governor Pete Wilson.

Rumsfeld is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position because of his stock holdings, even though he apparently has no say in what Gilead does (he's no longer on its board) and has removed himself from being part of governmental decisions that affect it (he's recused himself). In a statement to The Independent in March 2006, the Pentagon said: "Secretary Rumsfeld has no relationship with Gilead Sciences, Inc. beyond his investments in the company. When he became Secretary of Defense in January 2001, divestiture of his investment in Gilead was not required by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Office of Government Ethics or the Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office. Upon taking office, he recused himself from participating in any particular matter when the matter would directly and predictably affect his financial interest in Gilead Sciences."

If Rumsfeld holds onto his stock and its share price rises (which one would expect it to do if an avian flu pandemic becomes a reality, or if concerns about such a pandemic continue to grow), he will be seen to be profiting mightily from sales of a product the U.S. government has been buying in large quantities. If he sells his stock and so divests himself of further interest in Tamiflu sales, he will be accused of locking up profits from the rise in share price that has already occurred. (In 2001, shares of Gilead Sciences, Inc. traded in a range between $6.64 and $17.93. Between January and April 2006, its price range has been $53.00 to $65.62.)

As to the second aspect of the e-mail, whether Tamiflu is effective against influenza (especially the specific H5N1 strain now referred to as avian or bird flu), the e-mail's dismissive "This medicine doesn't so much as cure the common flu" is misleading in that Tamiflu isn't meant to be a flu cure. Positioning the drug as a medicine that flopped obscures that fact.

Tamiflu does not cure the flu, but if taken soon after symptoms appear, Tamiflu can reduce the flu's severity. As to how well it's going to match up against bird flu, that is not yet known and indeed it may well not be knowable until the time comes. However, it is anticipated Tamiflu will have at least some effect against bird flu, and with that in mind, more than 60 countries (including the U.S.) have so far ordered large stocks of it. Such stockpiling is likely going to appear highly prudent if the bird flu pandemic, a worldwide medical disaster the United Nations estimates could kill 150 million people, does materialize.

Influenza is not a straightforward disease, as it is constantly mutating. While media attention has now conditioned us to regard "bird flu" as a particular entity, in truth there are many forms of "bird flu." The one now the focus of so much concern, the H5N1 strain, was first noted in Asian birds in 1997. That first year, 18 people in Hong Kong were diagnosed with the contagion, 6 of whom died. Since 1997, there have been approximately 206 known human cases bird flu (of which 114 died), but as the CDC points out: "It is possible that the only cases currently being reported are those in the most severely ill people, and that the full range of illness caused by the H5N1 virus has not yet been defined."

Viewed from one angle (114 deaths over the course of nine years), avian flu is not worth being much concerned about. But viewed from a more informed standpoint about the nature of influenza, there may indeed be great cause for alarm. Influenza can jump species and move from birds (and other animals, such as pigs) into humans. During the process of that move ï¿½ and afterwards, as one person infects another ï¿½ the virus changes form. What at one moment can be a containable and well-understood virus can in the space of hours or days become almost an entirely new virus. For this reason, flus are hard to combat: they change as they are passed along, staying well ahead of science's attempts to contain them.

Most strains of flu are not deadly to humans, save for members of groups especially at risk to all forms of contagion (e.g. the very young, the very old, and the infirm of all ages). Bird flu, however, is a killer, and if it jumps species and mutates on the fly into a form that humans can easily pass to each other, it could take the lives of millions in the space of weeks, ultimately making the United Nations' projected death toll of 150 million worldwide look like wishful thinking.

EarlyBird · ï¿½ #4 ï¿½ 07-02-2006, 04:41 AM

Thanks, Mike.

Mad S is right, just follow the "money." And, it's just
another reason why so many people no longer trust
politicians, esp. the Bush Bunch.

Mike · ï¿½ #5 ï¿½ 07-02-2006, 06:23 AM

Ruby,

If the bird flu mutates into a truly dangerous and infectious form, how effective will Tamiflu be?

Mike

Jack Pine Savage · ï¿½ #6 ï¿½ 07-02-2006, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

If the bird flu mutates into a truly dangerous
and infectious form, how effective will Tamiflu be? Mike

About as good as aspirin.

Keep some Colloidal Silver on hand.

BTW, Rumsfeld also brought us Aspertame.

Here's the link.

www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

RubyTuesday · ï¿½ #7 ï¿½ 07-02-2006, 08:56 AM

Quote:

About as good as aspirin.

I'm NOT defending Donald Rumsfeld, or Tamiflu or any other response to/outcome of a possible pandemic, but these kind of unsubstantiated, flamingly fundamentalist wacko rebuttals simply cannot go unchallenged. Can we have even one conversation where one's political rhetoric isn't poisoning the civil exchange of ideas?

The premise behind Tamiflu is that it acts as a transition-state analogue inhibitor of influenza neuraminidase, preventing new viruses from emerging from infected cells, thereby supporting the body as its immune system fights back. Aspirin couldn't even begin to handle the effects of H5N1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamiflu

Mike · ï¿½ #8 ï¿½ 07-02-2006, 10:29 AM

Ruby,

I posted the initial message just as it came to me from someone else. Since I do not know much about the bird flu, I was hoping someone might comment so that I could be more informed about the issue. I am glad you responded.

However, you write about "unsubstantiated, flamingly fundamentalist wacko rebuttals," asking for "the civil exchange of ideas?" Who is being civil and who is not?

And it is not just about politics. I don't care whether Rumsfeld is a Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian. It is about morality. He was indirectly the one most responsible for introducing into the food chain a substance which was known by the FDA scientists to be carcinogenic. He, in my opinion, is responsible for much health misery and for the deaths of countless unwitting citizens. It is not about partisan polictics.

People who have raised these aspartame issues have been called "wacko" by quackbusters like Barrett and Milloy. People who oppose fluoridation are also called wacko in order to confuse the public and blind them to the science and the facts.

If you have more facts about avian flu like what you posted about its mechanism of action, I am glad to hear it. Simply do not assume that I have some political agenda. I do view Rumsfeld as a contemptible sort because of his involvement with aspartame. Because of that, I refuse to be so naive that I cannot imagine some nefarious involvement with Tamiflu.

Mike

Mad Scientest · ï¿½ #9 ï¿½ 07-02-2006, 06:24 PM

Iï¿½m sorry aspartame it is all my fault I worked for Searle back when Rumsfeld was there and I did not stop him,

so you may beat me with a wet noodle.

I think he was in our building once.

It is hard not to talk about politics when it is precisely because of politics that our medical system is so screwed up.

The main problem with most political discussions is we are easily distracted into arguing over whether we should elect tweedledee or tweedledum, certainly cannot have you voting for those who might actually care about the country. Thus it is treated like sporting event and all debating is carefully limited to only allow hooray for my ï¿½teamï¿½ and boo for your ï¿½teamï¿½. Obviously this quickly becomes boring and most people lose all interest in what is going on. But this is precisely the desired goal, as this means that those in power are now better able to retain control because they do not have to deal with the thinking part of the population.

RubyTuesday · ï¿½ #10 ï¿½ 07-02-2006, 07:00 PM

Quote:

However, you write about "unsubstantiated, flamingly fundamentalist wacko rebuttals," asking for "the civil exchange of ideas?" Who is being civil and who is not?

My apologies, Mike. I get exasperated, because it simply does not seem possible to discuss medicine without politics creeping into the conversation.

Tonight on Dateline, there was a special segment about pregoria, the premature aging disease that strikes children until, by the age of 11 or so, they have the body of someone in their 80's. The lead researcher is a woman who herself has a son with pregoria. She probably won't find a cure before her own son succumbs to this bizarre disease.

www.pregoriaresearch.org

As I sat there watching it, I thought, if this disease was discussed at HSI or MedSci, the people who are so sure that Official Medicine is of the Devil would say that more supplements--preferably "whole"--would be the answer. Of course, that's patently ridiculous, because pregoria is the result of a genetic defect, but that doesn't stop the Alt Med wackos from saying that every single advancement by Official Medicine is satanically inspired. Hell, they won't acknowledge any advancements by Official Medicine but instead insist that mankind has been thrown back into the Stone Ages by the discovery of penicillin, etc.

Huh.

Mad Scientest · ï¿½ #11 ï¿½ 07-03-2006, 07:01 AM

While it my sound like it at times I donï¿½t that there are too many that think that conventional medicine is the embodiment of everything evil. If I fall and break an arm I would want conventional medicine not a bunch of vitamins.

The problem with conventional medicine is that many in it are convinced that they have all the answers and those who disagree are a bunch of idiots and not worth giving the time of day to.

RubyTuesday · ï¿½ #12 ï¿½ 07-03-2006, 07:23 AM

Yes, Alt Med purists (I'll refrain in this instance from calling them wackos) will throw a bone to Official Medicine when they break an arm, but that's not the only genre in which Official Medicine excels and Alt Med sucks.

Yesterday on the radio, I listened--for amusement value only--"Dr." Bob Marshall pontificate on how vitamins (the ones he sells, of course) will "get in there and fix those genes." Vitamins will fix genes?! Oh puleeze. First of all, gene therapy is in its relative infancy, and to say that vitamins can "fix" genes is beyond laughable. Not that cellular nutrition couldn't be the ULTIMATE answer, but that the vitamin shyster in question KNOWS it to be the answer is what Quackwatch is all about!

To say that you'd go to a representative or institution of Official Medicine if you broke your arm is to say, "Official Medicine should stick to its knittin'." Well, I say the same thing about Alt Med. There are certain things--preventive health, for one--for which Alt Med is, at best, complementary, but it's not the be-all and end-all of health care. Alt Med needs to stop thinking and saying that it is. As a whole, it needs to sharpen its critical thinking skills and tone down the hyperbole. And the idea that "We don't need no stinkin' studies!" is just plain D-U-M-B.

Mad Scientest · ï¿½ #13 ï¿½ 07-03-2006, 07:55 AM

There is no question that there are wackoï¿½s in both camps that will claim to have all the answers. Just bring money.

Yes testing in general is a good idea, if it is done in an unbiased manner and assuming it is even allowed to be done in the first place. But there are some alternative cures that have been around for hundred of years, how much more testing is needed? Common sense would seem to say that if these old cures did not work somewhere along the line people would have stopped using them.

RubyTuesday · ï¿½ #14 ï¿½ 07-03-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

But there are some alternative cures that have been around for hundred of years, how much more testing is needed?

Like what?

Donee · ï¿½ #15 ï¿½ 07-03-2006, 08:48 AM

Hey Mad Scientest, please allow me to express a pet peeve. It seems to me that when most people call for 'common sense' what they are really after is 'good sense'. And the two are seldom equivalent. Just look at much of the stuff expressed these days. To me 'common sense' leaves a lot to be desired most of the time.

But yes, I know what you mean.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
making a baby!!!	just me	Humor	2	11-23-2007 03:36 AM
Whatever happened to Bird Flu?	EarlyBird	General Discussion	24	01-06-2007 07:13 PM
Here are the latest bird flu droppings	Mad Scientest	General Discussion	1	11-15-2006 02:32 AM
Bird Flu Movie/Program!	EarlyBird	General Discussion	18	05-10-2006 06:54 PM
Bird Flu	Jack Pine Savage	Humor	0	04-14-2006 07:01 AM