The Great Swine Flu Swindle - tested on children

Wondering why the government is so keen on the swine flu panic, oops - the pig flu pandemic?

Click on this link for the full story about Glaxo Welcome starring role in the Great Swine flu swindle

GlaxoSmithKline: A Swine Flu Windfall?


"British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline has orders for its swine flu vaccine from 16 countries and is in talks with 50 more British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline is set to reap billions as fear of the swine flu pandemic grows. The world's second-largest drug company has secured orders from 16 countries for 195 million doses of the vaccine it is developing against the H1N1 virus, which has killed more than 740 people worldwide. "

At $10 a shot, when did any government spend 20 billion dollars to avert 740 deaths?

With 20 billion dollars, you could elimate malaria, give every child in Africa clean drinking water or pay GlaxoSmithKline. So why are western governments choosing to give money to Big Pharma. Are the ministers frightened or are they getting kickbacks?


Remember the story of the Pied Piper

First he took the rats and then he took the children.
In this case, the rats in the Department of Health have arranged for Swine flu vaccine to tested directly on children
More from the Daily Mail





Swine flu is the most benign flu yet to emerge on the international flu scene. And giving people an untested vaccine to "protect" them against a non-threat is madness, if not murder.

Change for life - yes and no

Alan Johnson is beginning to look like a serious candidate for King, or at least the first minister

This is the third announcement from his department which has seriously impressed me. The first allowing people to see physiotherapists and other Health Care practitioners directly. The second, allowing people to top up their drugs privately, without losing the right to NHS care.

Change for life - encouraging a healthy diet and exercise, couldn't be better, but that on looking at the small print, this turns out to be about being fat, not about being healthy. Being fat does not make a person unhealthy. Please listen "Being fat does not in itself make a person unhealthy".

Obesity is the side effect of an unhealthy lifestyle. An unhealthy lifestyle makes a person fat. Obesity is the consequence not the cause of ill health. Stop kicking people when they are down. Obese people feel bad enough about themselves - feeling bad about yourself is unhealthy.

Time for the scores:

Marks out ten - An Arlene Phillips 9 for the storyline, and for Content, which is not as good as it should be, a Craig Revel Horwood - 4

Copyright (c) Liz Miller
http://www.lizmiller.co.uk

Allowing patients their own drugs ? More lipstick?

Has Alan Johnson no respect? First he allows patients direct access to Physiotherapists and now he is letting them buy their own drugs.

Patients no longer need their General Practitioner's blessing to see a physiotherapist? and if they want "Government Care", they are no longer restricted to drugs prescribed by a "Government Doctor"?

Alan Johnson may be succeeding where others have not. He maybe separating the British Public from their communist aspirations of universal care, free at the point of delivery. The NHS is run on the principles of "Free at the point of delivery", "To each according to their need" "Universal Health Provision". Karl Marx would be proud of this real life example of practical Marxism.

However, just as the Russian ideals fell victim to bureaucracy and corruption, so has the NHS.

For a while in the 50s and 60s, the Soviet Union was a highly innovative and revolutionary society. Its citizens had access to social care at the same time as it was putting the first man in space. The West had every reason to fear the advance of communism. However once the idealism had faded, those with intelligence were sidelined for fear of their ambition, those with integrity were impugned and those with ambition, had ambition only for themselves.

For a while, in the 60s and 70s, the NHS was a highly innovative and revolutionary health care delivery system. It provided universal healthcare to the whole population, equal to the best in the world. However excellence in medicine has become expensive, there is almost no limit on what can be spent to keep a body going. There is no natural line in the sand. Modern communications mean that gaps and postcode lotteries can no longer be fudged in the way they might once have been.

The principles upon which the NHS are inconsistent in the modern age. For example, "Free at the point of delivery" Free to whom? Healthcare tourists, or just the locals? For everyone or just the people who have contributed? Everything free, or just the essentials? and "Free to what standard?" Minimum or optimal care? "To each according to their need" Does that include fat people, unfit people, unhealthy people, smokers, old people? What do people need? an inhaler for their asthma, a kidney transplant, better social benefits? a new life, a job? Disease is as much a social condition as a medical condition. Does "Universal Health Provision" include IVF for the over forties, cosmetic dental work for the permanently insecure, health education in schools, mass vaccinations? Where does prevention fit?

The hallmark of a totalitarian system is control. Access to the NHS is still largely controlled by General Practitioners. Once these were benign, everyone's uncle, best interests at heart, social, generous sorts of chaps. Nowadays they receive ample financial reward, may not know you from Adam, but will generously check your biometric data at every opportunity.

Is Johnson's latest step a move towards a patient-centred service? Or does allowing patients to bring their own drugs into the NHS, paper over the worst and most vocal cracks of a failing system? Is this another example of putting lipstick on a pig, or a genuine move towards allowing patients a wider choice of treatment?

Copyright (c) Dr. Liz Miller
http://www.drlizmiller.co.uk

Patients refer themselves for NHS treatment. Is this real change or lipstick on a pig?

""(DH) Patients to refer themselves for NHS treatment

Health Secretary give go ahead to roll out of self-referral schemes for allied health services. Health Secretary Alan Johnson said: "I am giving the green light to physiotherapists, podiatrists and all Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) that they can accept patients who self refer. This offer maximises the potential of AHPs as autonomous Practitioners."

There are over 76,000 AHPs. The professions are art therapists, drama therapists, music therapists, chiropodists/podiatrists, dietitians, occupational therapists, orthoptists, orthotists and prosthetists, paramedics, physiotherapists, diagnostic radiographers, therapeutic radiographers and speech and language therapists ""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


It is difficult to know whether Alan Johnson is playing lip service to patient based services or whether the NHS could truly become patient centred. A significant proportion of the people I see, would benefit from open access to physiotherapy and allied health services.

But I want him to take this further. I want open access to all doctors, specialists, and investigations. In short to anyone who offers a reasonable service that benefits a person's health.

Payment for these services won't be about meeting targets. Payment for service depends on the provider showing they have benefitted the individual by providing a service. For example, if my treatment doesn't work, I don't get paid. If I damage someone, I am insured and I pay damages, and only when I improve their life can I claim a reward. Doctors and others will have to make sure they leave a person in a better state than they found them

Doctors' salaries are regularly over £100,000 a year. A well organised GP Principal can double that as can a consultant with private practice. But it becomes harder to justify if the people would rather go straight for treatment. How many people with a mental health problem/ stress want to start with drugs from their GP rather than talking treatments? How many people with backpain want to start with painkillers rather than physiotherapy? How many people with indigestion don't secretly know it comes down to what they eat and drink?

Treatment should be like make-up. If it doesn't make you look or feel better, then you probably shouldn't wear it or take it. And for the most part, the people on the receiving end are best placed to decide which it is.

Now for the annual 9o million pound question : Is this putting lipstick on a pig or a real shift towards a patient based service?

Copyright (c) Dr. Liz Miller
http://www.drlizmiller.co.uk