Re: What's your opinion about the swine flu?

It is definitely hype.  Every few years or so a new strain of flu comes up and they hype it to scare the hell out of people to push sales of vaccines and drugs.

They use words like "pandemic" to really turn the heat up under the hype bringing the whole thing to a boil.  This really boosts sales as people with the sky is falling mentality go rushing to buy masks and gloves and of course to get their vaccines.

All people need to really do is to keep their immune systems up.  This flu strain is no more dangerous than any other flu strain we have had in over 50 years.  Yes, people have died, but the vast majority of them had pre-existing health issues like weak hearts and respiratory issues that made them more prone to being killed from complications.  Again, no different than any other flu strain.  So yes, hype, hype, hype!!!!!!!!

Remember the swine flu scare back in the 70s.  Same thing.  All sorts of hype about this new killer strain run and get your deadly vaccine!!!!  Turned out to only be a handful of cases that year and it cost the government over $1 billion to settle all the lawsuits for the injuries and deaths caused by the vaccine itself.  Military personnel were forced to take the vaccines as well, but were prohibited from suing for injuries from the vaccines.  So the reported number of actual adverse effects were much higher than actually reported.

Here is a great link about it that includes the information about the laws protecting the drug companies:

http://www.answers.com/topic/immunization-programs

"Companies were not the only target of lawsuits. In the late 1970s, the federal government established a vaccine program called the National Swine Flu Immunization Program of 1976 (42 U.S.C.A. § 247 b(j)-(1), amended by Pub. L. No. 95-626, 92 Stat. 3574 [1978]), in anticipation of an onslaught of swine flu. To induce manufacturers to produce the drug, the act absolved them of all liability, and the federal government assumed all risk. The epidemic never materialized, but legal problems did. Plaintiffs alleging harmful side effects from the vaccine sued, and the government ended up paying out millions of dollars in settlements. In Petty v. United States, 740 F.2d 1428 (1984), for example, the Eighth Circuit upheld a damages award of some $200,000. The Court held that the warnings on the vaccine were inadequate."

Since the time of the swine flu immunization suits, courts and lawmakers have taken actions that have lessened the risks of liability facing drug manufacturers.  Courts have restricted the grounds under which litigants can succeed in civil tort actions.  Where products are found to be unavoidably unsafe — having obvious benefits yet carrying certain risks — the courts have erected barriers to strict liability claims.  The courts have presumed that certain vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and, in some jurisdictions, that warnings provided by drug companies are adequate as long as they meet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards.  The Restatement (Second) of Torts mentions the rabies vaccine as one of the products that, "in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use," noting,

Since the disease itself invariably leads to a dreadful death, both the marketing and the use of the vaccine are fully justified, notwithstanding the unavoidable high degree of risk which they involve. Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous. (§ 402A comment k [1965])
Courts in most jurisdictions now follow this standard in determining liability in vaccine cases.

The finding that a vaccine is unavoidably unsafe does not mean that manufacturers are completely absolved of liability.  Plaintiffs may still overcome the two barriers of unavoidable danger and compliance with FDA standards.  To prevail, they must show that vaccine-related injuries or deaths could have been prevented.  Two chief means exist: they must show that the drugmaker engaged in illegal activity, or that the drugmaker failed to exercise due care in preparing or marketing the vaccine.  Although both are difficult matters to prove, they can be established, as in Petty, where inadequate warnings on the swine flu vaccine were found to be more significant than the fact that the vaccine was unavoidably unsafe.

Congress used a similar liability standard in groundbreaking federal legislation passed in 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa-1 et seq. [1990 Supp.]).  The act established a federal no-fault compensation program for victims.  It sought to stem civil litigation by providing an alternative: rather than sue drug companies, families alleging injury or death due to a child's compulsory inoculation could file suit in the federal Claims Court.  This alternative reflected not only legal but commercial realities: Congress hoped to maintain an adequate national supply of vaccines by relieving drug companies of risk.  The law set the maximum damages award at $250,000, and required plaintiffs to first file suit in the Claims Court.  If successful, plaintiffs could accept the award, or reject it in favor of filing a separate civil action.  Like the evolving standard in courts, this law protected defendant drug companies: their compliance with federal production and labeling standards is an acceptable defense against civil lawsuits, and no strict liability claims are allowed.

Judicial and legislative solutions have thus partially ameliorated the liability risks of drug manufacturers.  But by the mid-1990s, concerns remained about the potential for marketing an AIDS vaccine if one was discovered.  Some observers called for federal legislation to protect potential manufacturers of an AIDS vaccine, and two states — California (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 199.50 [West Supp. 1995]) and Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 19a- 591b [West Supp. 1994]) — extended liability protection to them."

The problem is what is considered reasonable safety.  Of course big business is going to say anything goes because there is an inherent risk in everything.  To the parent though that has to raise a child with brain damage, life long seizures, autism, or loses their child altogether the term "reasonable safety" get's much more narrowly defined.

I also have a problem with the government giving protection to these drug companies for a few other reasons.  First of all it totally violates the concept of equal protection under the law.  So I guess the Constitution does not mean anything to these politicians.  Secondly, if the drug companies vaccines were safe in the first place then the drug companies would have nothing to worry about.  And finally, vaccines ARE NOT tested for safety as is required of all other drugs under the law.

There is more than sufficient evidence that these vaccines are dangerous, and no real evidence that they are effective.  Even diseases for which we have vaccines, such as the mumps, are on the rise in schools where these vaccines are mandatory.

But people just smile and accept instead of getting mad and fighting.  In fact I find it rather ironic that there are so many people fighting mad about the health care plan the government is trying to pass. These people are mad because they don't want the government telling them how they are going to choose their health care.  Well what do you think mandatory vaccinations are people?!!!!!  DUH!!!!!