It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

STOP PRESS!! Swine Flu now announced as "another ordinary Flu"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Keeping track of the "Swine Flu Frenzy' can be a little hard. Especially hear on ATS; where there are already so many threads dedicated to this enigma.
Its has astounded me that, in the last few days, talkback radio announcers have backed down considerably regarding theie opinions of severity of the Swine Flu.

John Stanely, a radio announcer of Sydneys 2UE, yesterday had a forum in which he interveiwed a promenant figure from within the SSWAHS, whom stated the Swine Flu was infact no more deadly than previously known strains of influenza!
And went so far as to say that he expected no more deaths than usually associated with other strains.

The main drug that we usually hear about in relation to Swine Flu is: Tamiflu.
My question is: Was media employed to create hysteria, which the necessary course of treatment; as touted in most news bulletins is Tamiflu. Is Swine Flu employed to create unwarranted need of this drug, making the Roche Pharmaceuticals an amazing profit; in a time of financial turmoil!
I smell conspiracy




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
you're on the right track partly. It was developed to help clear the store of tamiflu and make the shareholders of Roche a ton of money. I beieve its rumored that Cheney and Obama are both heavy shareholders in Roche, but I don't know this for sure.

I do bleieve we will see a far more powerful version of this virus in August, and many more deaths will occur, but right now the tamiflu is more dangerous than the virus itself. Don't get the vaccine.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Well its about time, I am starting to get tired of hearing about "Swine Flu".
As the above comment say's "it was just made to clear stock" and that about some's it up IMO



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Thank you OP for that information.

I believe and hope you are correct.

About four years ago the government scared me to death with their talk of a bird flu epidemic.

I started stocking supplies then and haven't slowed down yet.

I was so paranoid that I stopped feeding the birds.

It isn't the big bad bear it has been made out to be.

Swine flu was the flavor of the month. Wonder what's next?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
After crunching the CDC's "estimated" figures on the average annual flu related deaths, that was the conclusion many were arriving at early on, when swine flu was first being pushed...


Originally posted by evilod

Originally posted by SharkBait
its all Hype.


Agreed. The 36,000 deaths/year equates to about 700/week. So, the 20 confirmed worldwide "swine flu" deaths is merely a fraction of the flu deaths that were expected to occur.

I mean, I'll admit I'm no scientist, but seriously what threw up the red flag here? It's like someone discovered a new strain of flu and then had the media report and plot every Jane, Dick and Joe that came down with a cough and high fever. It was a nice exercise or study on the dynamics of how a virus spreads from patient zero to various points around the globe, but the hype is utter nonsense.

So, I have to ask, who benefits from such hype?


link to quoted thread/post



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by evilod
 


"Flu related deaths"- this is a world of convenience for statisticians. It is a very grey area to be able to find a direct cause of death in many cases.
I've heard the it seems to be the elderly and the very young that are mostly at risk from Swine Flu- those without robust immunity. This is no different from other infuenza.
Flu related illness, resulting in death is another grey area.
Say, for example, an elderly person dies from Pnuemonia; couldn't this be conveniently transformed for the benefit of these "needed" influenza statistics? I suppose that evidence would be gleened from Post-mortem findings, and reports from family members etc. "granny had a flu, then she became more sick; doctor said she had pnuemonia".....
Reports of next of kin can be unreliable, and as far as I know, the only virus that is routinely tested for in post-mortem examination are both HIV and HCV.
From what avenue have they gained these statistics? And how reliable are they?




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Shows you the pure evil that runs america, realeasing it into mexico. They expected it to be far worse, but humans ahve been through things that man has forgot.

Amazing the people we have running society.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Interesting as to how it was "named and framed" almost immediately!
I'd like to find out the history of testing and labratory isolation of H1N1.
Its seems to have a great deal known about, ever since it has arrived on the scene; and incredibly know of or have a drug to negate it.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Yes, I have said from the start that it was nothing out of the ordinary - and it was certainly created by someone - to panic people? To sell (poisonous) drugs? (and make even more millions).

You can bet the panic was created by the corrupt people who are still getting away with ruling this planet.

It is time to say no - start by boycotting the monopolies. Try and encourage small businesses.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 


Hi Gang, here's an interesting article I read; in an attempt to understand why a frenzy would be created around the Roche Pharmaceuticals product Tamiflu.
I think this will give an insight for sceptics asking why? Why would they create a situation to move copious amounts of this drug.....as they say; 'its all business'!


Roche Seen Upping $42 Billion Genentech Bid After Rebuff PharmaManufacturing.com 02/26/2009 By Reuters Roche will likely up its bid for the 44 percent of Genentech it does not own, analysts said, after the U.S. biotech group urged shareholders to reject the offer. A special committee of Genentech Inc.'s board recommended shareholders reject Roche Holding AG's $42 billion bid, saying that, at $86.50 per share, it substantially undervalued the U.S. company. "Now the ball is back with the Basel company," Wegelin analyst Marco Schwender said. "It is clearly possible that investors will now hope for a better offer from Roche." The Swiss group plans to sell a four-part bond denominated in euros and sterling, Thomson Reuters publication IFR reported. Market talk is that the issue will raise at least four billion euros ($5.1 billion). Roche's surprise hostile offer for Genentech was pitched below the Swiss drugmaker's original rejected bid of $44 billion, or $89 per share. The lower price reflected tougher financing conditions and a drop in the U.S. group's shares. Roche has said that Genentech's banker, Goldman Sachs, had proposed $112 a share as an acceptable price, giving a glimpse of just how far apart the two sides are. The difference of opinion highlights the gap between Big Pharma's views — based on a relatively straightforward financial valuation argument — and biotech, which uses "soft elements" like strong science and products in early stages of development, JP Morgan analysts said. "How that gap can be bridged remains difficult to see for us — hence time to resolution may take longer than expected," they said in a note. "We are not surprised to see Genentech refuse Roche's lower offer," said Andrew Weiss, analyst at Swiss bank Vontobel. "We continue to believe that the Genentech asking price of $112 is too high, and that eventually Roche will need to improve its offer to $95-100." Genentech shares traded up 0.65 percent at $85.19 at 9:37 a.m. EST. Roche stock was down 2.1 percent at 140.20 Swiss francs, versus a 1.5 percent drop in the European healthcare sector. Prior to the bond news, Roche had sold a record $16 billion in debt to help finance the Genentech bid. It has said it plans to use a combination of its own funds, bonds, commercial paper and bank financing for the deal. "It is clear that with Roche raising capital there is no turning back and as such a sweetened offer should be expected," said Karl-Heinz Koch at Swiss brokerage Helvea earlier on Tuesday. Roche, which won a recent takeover battle for diagnostics company Ventana by sweetening an offer by some 19 percent, has noted the response of the Genentech committee, spokesman Daniel Piller said. In the Ventana case, Roche sat on its initial hostile offer of $75 a share for some seven months before raising its price to $89.50 and buying the U.S. group for $3.4 billion. "We have laid out our case comprehensively in the tender offer. It is now up to the shareholders to decide on our offer," Piller said.

I'd also like to get a list of the companys' major shareholders- that would be interesting!
Anyone whom can access it and beat me to the punch; please do- and dont be shy to post it



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join