Grateful you don’t have anything more to say on the subject. You’ve already said so little.

You certainly cannot take my answer to mean anything other than what I carefully explained to you. You certainly cannot take it to mean myself or my profession as a whole is unduly influenced by any big pharma company. You certianly cannot take it to mean that I recieve any payment, in part or in whole, in materials or assets, from any individual or any agent of any pharma, equipment or health company.

Thank you for proving the earlier google searches concerning your dishonesty to be correct. You should have been more honest in your desire to label me a pharma shill. I put it to you that your question was deliberately obscure in order to ‘trick’ me into giving you a answer that can be twisted by you to fill your predetermined conclusion.

“I don’t think there’s any more to be said on this subject.”

You could try addressing the concerns that have been raised with your misrepresentation of the polls mentioned above, and of your misrepresentation of the behaviour of ‘a certain pharma company’.

You certianly haven’t yet addressed any concern laid against you.

Do so.

I don’t think there’s any more to be said on this subject.

Honest and decent conversation entails answering questions as well as asking them.

Anyway, you are certainly not ‘just asking’, you are making an attempt to heavily imply fraud and dishonesty on my part by insinuation. It’s a trick that has been tried before.

That aside, your question is non-sensical. All allied health professions have ‘connections’ to pharma companies in the sense that we work in MDT’s that usually includes clinicians with prescription rights. As such, some clients will inevitably be on precriptions that may include products of ‘a certain company’. They will also be using products of many other companies, but no-one has used the Tena or Stanair stair-lift shill gambit yet.

Even if we take your question as the pharma-shill gambit it obviously is, it is still non-sensical. AHP members number into the tens of thousands each, treating millions of patients together. Many are involved in research, some of which is likely to be funded by companies looking for new product markets and/or organisations looking to get the best bang for thier buck. That there is going to be loose pharma and/or big health co. connections to any AHP is to be expected.

I’m not even sure how people like you think a healthcare system where providers (big pharma/big health) and clients (Primary Care Trusts, Hospital Trusts, independant precribers, nurses, physio’s, OT’s, insurers) are functionally seperate could even work. Combatting fraud is one thing, opposing working relationships is another. Under an intrinsically seperate system, who would have the responsiblity for assessing whether a new regime (drug, exercise, activity, counselling or any mix) is better than TAU? Leave it up to drug companies alone? No chance.

Back to answering those concerns I mentioned then…...

Ukraine – the figures so far

Population 46 million
flu victims 1.6 million
flu deaths 400 or 1 in 4000 cases.

According to Rampson’s reputable source there is a risk of 1 in 100000 for a severe adverse reaction to the vaccine. They withdrew a suspect batch which increased the risk to 1 in 20000. Compare this to a death rate of 1 in 4000 for the actual virus. If I were in the Ukraine I know what I would choose.

Rampson seems to have confused cynicism with scepticism. It is OK to be cynical but a true sceptic examines the data and if the data contradicts your belief it is OK to change your mind.

But by calling Dedj a pharma shill Rampson has shown that he is only interested in his own opinion and has turned his back on serious discussion.

Presenting concern is all fit and well, but thats obviously not why you’re here. For you to pretend that you are ‘just saying’ when your actual views permeate everything you have written, is being dishonest to both yourself and us.

As pointed out before, a quick google search indicates that dishonesty is not something you have any problem engaging in.

Out of all that irrelevant blurb you have spewed in your ‘defence’, not a single jot of it has concerned the actual problems I, and others, initially raised with your, ahem, ‘concerns’. You may also want to check upthread for my now released post concerning the 3 polls. You have also failed to answer any of the concerns with your research skills or other issues raised since then.

Odd that. You’d almost suspect it’s becuase you have no answer.

Please do not reply unless you have something substantial to add.

“I read something somewhere sometime” is not an answer, nor is digressing onto thalidomide. McBride was ‘villified’ by being awarded Man of the Year, made a CBE, a MOAust, and awarded money by the Institute of Life. Of course his original Lancet letter earned him derision, he was making a significant claim with (at the time) scant evidence.

People attempting to villify medications are present in the world of medicine all the time, making it hard even for those of us who practice in the allied professions to identify legitimate concerns amongst all the quackery and bias.

Am I going to chase everything up for you, or are you going to pull your finger out?

You are right that I have not presented an argument, only concern. This is because I am not a doctor or a scientist and am not qualified to assess the mountains of medical evidence for and against the various vaccines.

I am old enough (retired now) to remember many examples of governments and international corporations (and not just pharmas)carelessly killing or maiming tens of thousands of people: Thalimonide (remember the Australian doctor who was vilified for raising concerns?), or deliberate exposure of servicemen to nuclear fall-out during tests by the government, or the supply of blue asbestos by US corporations when it was known to be dangerous (as a result more people now die in the UK of mesothelioma rach year than die on the roads). It’s a litany of indifference and wrong commercial priorities.

I am not convinced by government, by the pharmas or by you that some vaccines are not imnplicated in causing death or permanent disablement ro significant numbers of people. An increasing number of people are beginning to share these concerns.