세계보건기구(WHO)가 신종플루(돼지독감) 대유행과 관련하여 제약업계로부터 리베이트를 받은 혐의로 스캔들에 휘말렸다는 소식입니다.

WHO의 신종플루 대유행 스캔들로 인하여 호주의 제약회사 CSL, Ltd, 사노피-아벤티스(Sanofi-Aventis), 아스트라-제네카(Astra-Zeneca), 노바티스(Novartis) 등 백신제조회사들은 수조달러가 넘는 막대한 이익을 남겼습니다.

뿐만 아니라 타미플루를 생산하는 로슈, 릴렌자를 생산하는 GSK 등 항바이러스제 생산 제약회사들도 엄청난 수익을 올렸습니다.

최근 유럽의회는 “WHO가 H1N1 대유행을 선언한 방식에 따라 막대한 공공 기금이 소모되었으며, 유럽 시민들이 직면한 건강상 위험에 대한 공황과 공포는 근거가 없는 것이었다”는 결론을 내렸다고 합니다.

==========================================================

News

Flu experts rebut conflict claims

Reports throw unsubstantiated suspicion on scientific advice given to the World Health Organization.

Declan Butler

출처 : Published online 8 June 2010 | Nature 465, 672-673 (2010) | doi:10.1038/465672a
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100608/full/465672a.html?s=news_rss

“Drug firms ‘encouraged world health body to exaggerate swine flu threat’,” screamed Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper on 4 June. “2 European reports criticize WHO’s H1N1 pandemic guidelines as tainted,” headlined The Washington Post the next day. To judge from media coverage last week, a major scandal had been exposed in the handling of the H1N1 flu pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). But nothing could be further from the truth.

The news articles reported on two investigations: one by journalists at the BMJ and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a non-profit body in London launched in April; the other by the health committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) — a human-rights body based in Strasbourg, France, independent of the European Union.

Both reports allege that the WHO might have been unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry in declaring H1N1 flu a pandemic, and in backing widespread vaccination and stockpiling of antiviral drugs, a claim often made by conspiracy theorists. They also complain that a 2004 WHO pandemic-preparedness document did not reveal that some of its authors had been paid for work by pharmaceutical companies — although the scientists had declared their competing interests elsewhere.

Suspicious minds

Paul Flynn, a UK Labour Member of Parliament and rapporteur of the PACE report (see go.nature.com/G9CvVL), and Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ, presented their reports at a press conference together in Paris on 4 June, with Flynn asserting that “this was a pandemic that never really was”. Afterwards, he wrote on his blog: “One of the joys today was giving evidence with the editor of the splendid British Medical Journal. We have never met before but we cooed in harmony and just avoided saying it was the Pharmas that did it.”

Both reports say that it is suspicious, for example, that the WHO has kept secret the names of its Emergency Committee, an expert group that advises the WHO on the status of international public-health emergencies, including the declaration of a flu pandemic. Gregory Hartl, a spokesman for the WHO, says that the secrecy of the Emergency Committee’s membership is maintained to buffer its deliberations from outside pressure. The WHO says that it will make public the names, and any competing interests, once the pandemic is declared over.

“A key question will be whether the pharmaceutical companies, which had invested around $4 bn (£2.8bn, €3.3bn) in developing the swine flu vaccine, had supporters inside the emergency committee, who then put pressure on WHO to declare a pandemic,” says the article in the BMJ (D. Cohen and P. Carter Br. Med. J. 340, c2912; 2010). “It was the declaring of the pandemic that triggered the contracts.”

This is false. Many countries — including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Finland, Canada, the Netherlands and Switzerland — had already placed large orders for H1N1 vaccine weeks before the WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic on 11 June 2009. The United States, for example, ordered US$649 million of pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine antigen and $283 million of adjuvant on 22 May 2009. So the Emergency Committee could not have influenced these in any way.

“You are absolutely right,” conceded the authors of the articles in the BMJ when challenged with this timeline.

Both reports also seize on the WHO’s April 2009 revision of its criteria on what constitutes a pandemic, which removed the need for an assessment of the ‘severity’ of the disease, based on estimates of future mortality. Flynn speculated in the Daily Mail that this was suspicious: “In this case, it might not just be a conspiracy theory, it might be a very profitable conspiracy.” Neither report provides any evidence to substantiate its implication that the WHO rushed to declare a pandemic to boost pharmaceutical company sales. Moreover, the WHO says that the revisions were finalized in February 2009, before pandemic H1N1 was on the horizon.

Scientists interviewed by Nature early on in the pandemic noted that severity is impossible to pin down until many months after it starts. Also, pandemic viruses can mutate or reassort to become more severe, so initial estimates are in any case of limited use.

Clear firewall

The BMJ also notes that three scientists who were involved in the preparation of a 2004 WHO document, WHO Guidelines on the Use of Vaccines and Antivirals during Influenza Pandemics, had received payments from pharmaceutical companies, including research funding, or consultancy or speaker fees. The scientists told the BMJ that they had declared these competing interests to the WHO, although the WHO had not included these in its report.

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy in Minneapolis, points out that the 2004 document was based on input from an international panel of 22 scientists and public-health officials, in response to the threat of the deadly H5N1 avian flu virus. “To suggest that the three scientists were able to direct and control the final recommendations is naive, and stated without a single shred of evidence,” he says.

The BMJ also claims that industry funding of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), a group of flu scientists that provided advice to the WHO, presented a “potential conflict of interest”. It notes that several ESWI scientists also receive industry funding directly.

One of those scientists is Albert Osterhaus, a virologist at Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, who chairs the ESWI. He says that the body has a “clear firewall” with its funders, and that it informs all partners about any of its competing interests — its sources of funding are also listed on its website. Private–public partnerships are essential in tackling pandemics, and excluding flu researchers with industry links would deprive advisory panels of world-class expertise, he says. “The critical thing is transparency,” says Osterhaus. “I have always declared my own competing interests.”

The BMJ acknowledges that the researchers had declared their interests elsewhere. But it takes issue with the WHO’s not having included them in its pandemic-planning documents.

David Ozonoff, an epidemiologist at the Boston University School of Public Health in Massachusetts, says that the reports “smear” the scientists involved in pandemic planning by “insinuating” that they would have offered different advice had they not had a relationship with drug companies. “This is a pretty serious charge,” he says.

“We think this is the researcher’s reading into it, not necessarily ours,” the BMJ authors respond.

Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, says that the WHO’s advice on the pandemic has been sound, and has reflected the state of scientific opinion. Comparing the situation with the ongoing Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Lipsitch says that “it is ironic, as we watch for the second time in five years the catastrophic results of ‘best-case scenario planning’ in the Gulf of Mexico, to have the WHO coming under criticism for planning for, and raising awareness of, the possibility of a severe pandemic. That is what public-health agencies should do, and what most did in this instance, and they should be commended for it.” 

==========================

World Health Organization embroiled in swine flu kickback scandal

출처 : http://www.huliq.com/9990/world-health-organization-embroiled-swine-flu-kickback-scandal

The World Health Organization (WHO) is again in the spotlight and being accused of accepting kickbacks from the pharmaceutical industry. In return for monetary compensation, the WHO had to issue an H1N1 or “swine flu” pandemic worldwide.

The Health Advisory Board of the WHO made the decision to issue a worldwide statement, declaring the H1N1 threat a pandemic and encouraging countries to stockpile vaccines to protect the population from contact or aerosol contamination.

The vaccine, available since 2009, is made by CSL, Ltd, Melbourne, Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, Astra-Zeneca, London and Novartis, Basel. All companies promised financial kickbacks after a pandemic was officially declared by the WHO resulting in multi billion dollar gains for the pharmaceutical companies.

The scheme was first reported by the British Medical Journal in 2009 and later confirmed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism but did not receive a lot of exposure until yesterday when the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) endorsed the conclusions of its Health Committee.

The conclusions from the committee stated that “the handling by the WHO of the H1N1 pandemic led to a waste of large sums of public money and unjustified scares and fears about health risks faced by the European public”.

The scheme, as set up by the WHO’s Health Advisory Board was a five step process. First they exaggerated the risk, they urged countries to stockpile, vaccine producers collected the cash, the board members cashed in the kickbacks and the WHO kept everybody afraid.

Secretary General of the WHO, Dr. Margaret Chan, was asked to release the names of all the members of her advisory board but insisted that the secrecy was crucial to protect the integrity and independence of the work the board members perform.

The pharmaceutical industry has a very big influence on the World Health Organization, an independent UN agency, whose reputation has been tarnished in light of the scandal.

Written by Nick Doms © 2010, all rights reserved

A teenage girl left disabled by the swine flu treatment Tamiflu did not even have the virus, it was revealed today.

Samantha Millard, 19, became critically ill after suffering a severe allergic reaction to the tablets, which she took on the advice of the controversial NHS helpline.

Within 72 hours of taking three pills, doctors put her on life support.

Samantha spent a month in hospital after developing the life-threatening Stevens Johnson syndrome, which causes the skin to peel off, and later developed toxic epidermal necrolysis syndrome, which has damaged her sight.

Disabled: Samantha Millard had an allergic reaction to Tamiflu which left her blistered and battling blindness

But tests at the hospital have since revealed that she never even contracted the swine flu virus.

Her devastated mother Debbie Van Horenbeeck is now seeking legal advice about the information given out by the NHS swine flu helpline. She believes that Tamiflu has not been tested thoroughly enough.

‘They have disabled my daughter from that helpline,’ said the 42-year-old, who is now her daughter’s full-time carer.

‘When they told her she had swine flu, they did not inform her of anything that could go wrong. The Government told us we should take this if we got swine flu.’ 

Doctors believe it will take up to two years for Samantha – who has lost a stone in weight – to recover and do not know if her eyesight will ever be restored.

She said: ‘It’s hard. I can’t bathe myself, I can’t dress myself, I can’t watch films and I can’t read books.

‘I sit in my bedroom with my sunglasses on, curtains closed and the TV on so I can hear it. I don’t know how long it will take for my eyes to heal.

‘I know I’m improving but some days it’s really hard to cope with it. I can’t cry – I have no tears.

Samantha, of Bicester in Oxfordshire, had taken just three of the 10 tablets when she broke out in a red rash.

Within hours, her body was covered in painful blisters which were so severe her long hair had to be shaved off.

She was rushed to hospital, where tests later revealed that she never actually contracted the swine flu virus.

The student at Bicester Community College now needs to use eye-drops every hour and wear sunglasses and a hat whenever she leaves her house.

Last year the Mail revealed some of the call centres speaking to people with suspected swine flu were manned by 16-year-olds with just three hours training.

A leading health expert also claimed last week that the swine flu outbreak was a ‘false pandemic’ driven by drug companies that stood to make billions of pounds from a worldwide scare.

Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation’s decision to declare a pandemic.

Rare risk: Tamiflu has been linked to a few rare cases of lthe life-threatening Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, which causes the skin to peel off

This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring ‘enormous gains’, while countries, including the UK, ‘squandered’ their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease.

Sitting at her daughter’s bedside last year, Debbie said: ‘It shouldn’t be the case that people with no medical background can make these decisions.

‘These people are just Joe Bloggs off the street. My daughter could die because of this. Her condition is getting worse.

Stevens Johnson syndrome affects just three in a million people and is usually triggered by an adverse reaction to medication. The mortality rate is around 15 per cent.

Victims develop terrible scarring all over their bodies as well as severe conjunctivitis which can lead to blindness and mouth infections which can stop them eating.

A Roche spokeswoman said the incident would be investigated and could not rule out the role of Tamiflu in triggering the syndrome.

She said: ‘While it is difficult to determine the role of Tamiflu in Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, the prescribing information for doctors carries information regarding single cases of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome that have been reported.

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘We are sorry to hear about this young woman’s illness and hope she recovers quickly.

‘Stevens Johnson Syndrome can happen after medicines or infections and it is very difficult to pinpoint the cause. Serious reactions to Tamiflu are extremely rare and it should still be taken as soon as possible, especially for very serious swine flu cases.

‘The National Pandemic Flu Service has been informed by the best clinical expertise including specialist UK Royal Colleges. It includes questions so that potential signs of serious conditions are picked up and referred for immediate medical advice.

유럽의회에서 ‘WHO의 가짜 신종플루 대유행 선언 스캔들’을 조사하도록 제안한 전 독일사민당(SPD) 대변인이자 현 유럽의회의 건강위원회 위원장인 볼프강 보다르크(Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg) 박사를 인터뷰한 인터뷰 기사입니다.

=========================================

Swine flu: “They Organized the Panic”. Inquiry into the Role of Big Pharma and WHO by Council of Europe

Bruno Odent interviews Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg

by Bruno Odent

출처 : Global Research, January 11, 2010
L’Humanité – 2010-01-08
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16902

New Development: The German President of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe, Wolfgang Wodarg, is issuing accusations against the pharmaceutical lobbies and the governments. He has intitiated the start of an investigation by that body concerning the role played by the pharmaceutical in the campaign of panic about the virus.

Ex-member of the SPD, Wolfgang Wodarg is a doctor and epidemiologist. His request for a commission of inquiry into the role of pharmaceutical companies in the management of swine flu outbreak by WHO and the nation states was granted unanimously by the members of the Health Committee of the Council of Europe…

What made you suspicious about the influence of pharmaceutical companies had on the decisions being taken in respect of swine flu?

Wolfgang Wodarg. We are facing a major failure of national institutions responsible for warning about risks and responding in case a pandemic occurs. In April when the first alarm came from Mexico I was very surprised at the figures furnished by the World Health Organization (WHO) to justify the declaration of a pandemic. I was immediately suspicious: the numbers were very low and the alarm level very high. There were not even into a thousand patients when there was already talk of the pandemic of the century. And the alert was decreed extreme based on the fact that the virus was new. But the characteristic of influenza disease is to develop very quickly with viruses which take on new forms each time, by dwelling in new hosts, animal, human etc.

There was nothing new in itself to that. Each year a new virus of this “flu” type appears. In reality there was no reason to sound the alarm at this level. This was only possible because in early May the WHO changed its definition of a pandemic. Before that date there had to be not only a disease which had broke out in several countries at once but also one that had very serious consequences with the number of deaths above the usual average. This aspect was removed from the new definition, to retain the rate of spread of disease as the only criteria. And they claimed that the virus was dangerous because people had not been able to develop immunity against it. Which was false for this virus. Because it was observed that people aged over 60 years already had antibodies. That is to say they had already been in contact with similar viruses. That is why also there are virtually no people aged over 60 who have developed the disease. Yet those were the people who were recommended to be vaccinated quickly.

Among the things that aroused my suspicions there was therefore on one side this determination to sound the alarm. And on the other side, some curious facts. Such as, for example, the recommendation by WHO to carry out two injections for vaccines. That had never been done before. There was no scientific justification for this. There was also the recommendation to use only special patented vaccines. There was however no reason for not adding, as it is done every year, specific antiviral particles of this new H1N1 virus, “completing” the vaccine used for seasonal influenza. This was not done because they preferred to use patented vaccine materials that major laboratories had designed and manufactured to be ready in case of a pandemic developing. And by proceeding in this way they did not hesitate to endanger the persons vaccinated.

What danger?

Wolfgang Wodarg. To provide products rapidly, adjuvants were used in some vaccines, whose effects have not been adequately tested. In other words, they wanted absolutely to use these new patented products instead of developing vaccines according to traditional methods of production which are much simpler, more reliable and less costly. There was no medical reason for this. It was only for marketing purposes.

How could anyone justify that?

Wolfgang Wodarg. To understand we must return to the episode of avian influenza from 2005 to 2006. It was then that new international plans were defined for dealing with a pandemic alarm. These plans were officially developed to ensure rapid manufacturing of vaccines in case of an alert. This led to negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and governments. On the one hand the labs committed themselves to keep ready to develop the preparations, on the other hand, states assured them they would buy them all. After this strange deal the pharmaceutical industry took no economic risk by engaging in new fabrications. And it was sure to touch the jack pot in the case of a pandemic outbreak.

Do you disagree with the diagnoses and even the potential severity of influenza A?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, it’s just a normal kind of flu. It does not cause a tenth of deaths caused by the classic seasonal flu. All that mattered and that led to the great campaign of panic which we have seen was that it was a golden opportunity for representatives from labs who knew they would hit the jackpot in the case of a pandemic being declared.

Those are very serious accusations you’re making. How was such a process made possible within the WHO?

Wolfgang Wodarg. A group of people in the WHO is associated very closely with the pharmaceutical industry.

Will the investigation by the Council of Europe also work in this direction?

Wolfgang Wodarg. We want to clarify everything that brought about this massive operation of disinformation. We want to know who made decisions, on the basis of what evidence and precisely how the influence of the pharmaceutical industry came to bear on the decision-making. And the time has come at last for us to make demands on governments. The purpose of the inquiry is so that there are no more false alarms of this type in the future. So that the people may rely on the analysis and the expertise of national and international public institutions. The latter are now discredited, because millions of people have been vaccinated with products with inherent possible health risks. This was not necessary. It has also led to a considerable mismanagement of public money.

Do you have any concrete figures on the extent of this mismanagement?

Wolfgang Wodarg. In Germany it comes to 700 million euros. But it is very difficult to know the exact figures because we are talking on one side about vaccines resold to foreign countries and most firms do not communicate due to the principle of respect for “business secret” regarding the amounts in contracts concluded with States and any indemnification clauses contained therein.

Will the work of “lobbying” by pharma companies on the National Institutes of Health also be dealt with by the investigation of the Council of Europe?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes we will examine the attitude of institutions like the Robert Koch Institute in Germany or Pasteur in France who should in fact have advised their governments from a critical standpoint. In some countries certain institutions have done so. In Finland and Poland, for example, critical voices were raised to say: “we do not need that.

Has the tremendous global operation of disinformation also been possible because the pharmaceutical industry had “representatives” even within the governments of the most powerful countries?

Wolfgang Wodarg. As regards the ministries, that seems to me to be obvious. I can not explain how specialists, very smart people who know the problems of the influenza disease by heart, did not notice what was happening.

So what happened?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Without going as far as saying direct corruption, which I am certain does exist, there were many ways for labs to exercise their influence over decisions. A very concrete example, is how Klaus Stöhr, who was the head of the epidemiological department of the WHO at the time of bird flu, and who therefore prepared the plans to cope with a pandemic that I mentioned above, in the meantime had become a top executive of the company Novartis. And similar links between Glaxo and Baxter, etc. and influential members of the WHO. These large firms have “their people” in the cogs and then they pull strings so that the right policy decisions are taken. That is to say, the ones that will allow them to pump as much money from taxpayers.

But if your survey succeeds, will it not be a support for citizens to insist their governments demand accountability from these large groups?

 
Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, you’re right, this is one of the major issues related to this investigation. States could indeed take advantage of this to contest contracts drawn up in, let us say, improper conditions. If it can be shown that it was under the influence of firms that the process was initiated then they will have to be push to ask for reimbursement. But that’s just the financial side, there is also the human side, persons who were vaccinated with products that were inadequately tested.
 

So what kind of risk have these healthy people unknowingly taken by getting vaccinated?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Again, the vaccines were developed too quickly, some adjuvants were insufficiently tested. But there is worse to come. The vaccine developed by Novartis was produced in a bioreactor from cancerous cells. A technique that had never been used until now.

Why, I’m obviously not an expert, but how can one claim to make a vaccine from diseased cells?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Normally one uses chicken eggs on which viruses are grown. We need in fact to work on living cells. Because viruses can only multiply in this way and so do, by definition, the virus preparations that go with it. But this process has a big flaw, it is slow and it takes a lot of eggs. And it is long and complex technically. Another potentially excellent technique is to grow the virus in living cells in bioreactors. This requires cells which grow and divide very quickly. It’s a bit like the method used to culture yogurt, which is also produced in a bio-reactor. but in this context the cell was so upset in its environment and its growth that it grows like a cancer cell. And it is on these rapidly multiplying cells that they grow the virus. But to manufacture the vaccine the virus must be re-extracted from these cells on which they were implanted. And it can therefore happen that during the manufacturing process of the vaccine, residue of cancerous cells remain in the preparation. In the same way as it happens in conventional manufacturing with eggs. Thus we know that in the case of a classic influenza vaccination, side effects can occur in people who are allergic to egg albumin found in egg white. It can not be excluded that proteins, remains of a cancer cell present in a vaccine produced by bio-reactor, may generate a tumour on the person vaccinated. According to a true principle of precaution, before such a product is allowed on the market, there should therefore be 100% certainty that such effects are actually excluded.

And wasn’t this done?

Wolfgang Wodarg. It was not. The EMEA (European Medicines Agency), an institution under the responsibility of the European Commissioner for Economic Affairs, based in London, which gives permission to release vaccines on the market in Europe, gave the green light for commercializing this product arguing, namely, that this mode of manufacture was not a “significant” risk. This was very differently appreciated by many experts here in Germany and by an independent drug institution, which instead sounded the alert and voiced their objections. I took these warnings seriously. I studied the case and intervened in the context of the Bundestag health committee of which I was a member so that the vaccine would not be used in Germany. I made it known that I was certainly not opposed to the development of vaccines with this technique. But first it had to have a total guarantee of innocuousness. The product has therefore not been used in Germany where the government terminated the contract with Novartis.

What is the name of this vaccine?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Obta flu.

But that means that in other European countries like France the product can be marketed without any problem?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Yes, it obtained permission from EMEA and can be used anywhere in the EU.

What alternative do you intend to propose so that further scandals of this type are avoided?

Wolfgang Wodarg. The WHO should be more transparent, so we know clearly who decides and what type of relationship exists between participants in the organization. It should also be flanked by at least one elected chamber, which should be able to react very critically and where everyone can express themselves. This enhanced public scrutiny is essential.

Isn’t the question of another system capable of handling a matter which is in fact a common good for citizens across the planet coming to the surface?

Wolfgang Wodarg. Can we go on allowing the production of vaccines and the conduct of these productions to organizations whose goal is to win as much money as possible? Or is the production of vaccines not something that States must absolutely monitor and implement themselves? That’s why I think we should abandon the system of patents on vaccines. That is to say, the possibility of monopolization of vaccine production by a large group. For this option requires that we sacrifice thousands of lives, simply in the name of respect for these monopoly rights. You’re right, that particular claim has become evident for me.

 
Interview by Bruno Odent translated into English by Carolyn Dunning.

To read the original article in French click here

Council of Europe’s motion for a recommendation: Faked Pandemics — a threat for health
 

 Global Research Articles by Bruno Odent

“신종플루 대유행은 ‘허위 대유행’”

제약회사들이 대유행 선언토록 공포심 조장”

출처 : 연합뉴스 2010/01/12 09:15 송고

(서울=연합뉴스) 신종플루(인플루엔자 A［H1N1］) 확산세가 주춤한 가운데 제약회사들이 `대유행(pandemic)’을 선언하도록 세계보건기구(WHO)에 압력을 가하기 위해 신종플루 공포를 확산시켰다는 주장이 나와 파문을 일으키고 있다.

유럽회의 의원총회(PACE)의 볼프강 보다르크 보건분과위원장은 신종플루 대유행은 신종플루 백신으로 막대한 이익을 챙긴 제약회사들이 주도한 ‘허위 대유행’이며 금세기 최대 의학 비리 가운데 하나라고 주장했다고 영국 일간 선지가 11일 보도했다.

   WHO는 신종플루가 확산하자 지난해 6월 인플루엔자 경보의 최고 단계인 대유행을 선언했었다.
보다르크 위원장은 신종플루는 “일반적인 종류의 독감일 뿐”이라면서 사망률이 계절성 독감의 10분의 1도 안된다고 지적했다.

   그는 신종플루에 대한 공포심 조장은 대유행이 선언되면 ‘대박’을 터트릴 것이라는 걸 알고 있던 제약회사 대표들에게 다시없는 기회를 제공했다고 말했다.

그는 “우리는 어떤 근거로 누가 (대유행) 결정을 내렸으며, 제약업계가 의사결정에 어떻게 영향력을 미쳤는지 알길 원한다”면서 “WHO 내 일군의 사람들이 제약업계와 매우 긴밀한 관계를 맺고 있다”고 주장했다.
47개 유럽국가 정부 간 협력기구인 유럽회의는 이달 말 긴급회의를 열고 제약회사들이 신종플루 대유행 선언에 어떤 영향을 미쳤는지 논의할 예정이다.

   이와 관련, WHO는 최근 신종플루 대유행이 아직 끝나지 않았다는 입장을 재확인했지만 신종플루 사망자 수는 애초 우려했던 것보다 훨씬 적다.
보다르크 위원장은 또 신종플루 백신의 안전성에 대해서도 의문을 제기했다.

   그는 앞서 프랑스 일간 뤼마니테 일요판과 인터뷰에서 “백신이 너무 급하게 개발됐으며 일부 성분은 충분한 시험을 거치지 못했다”고 주장했다.

   yunzhen@yna.co.kr

[파괴의 씨앗 GMO- 미국 식량제국주의의 역사와 실체](윌리엄 엥달 지음 | 김홍옥 옮김 | 길 | 2009.11.15)의 저자 윌리엄 엥달이 쓴 “세계보건기구(WHO) ‘돼지독감의 아버지’, 이해관계의 전반적 충돌에 관해 조사 중”이라는 제목의 글을 지난 12월 8일자로 자신의 홈페이지에 올려놓았습니다.

(참고 : 윌리엄 엥달(William Engdhal) : 30년 넘게 에너지, 정치학, 경제 문제에 대해 글을 써왔다. 일본의 『니혼게이자이신문』, 시사월간지 『포사이트』, 그랜트의 인베스터닷컴(investor.com), 『유러피언 뱅커』, 『비즈니스 뱅커 인터내셔널』을 비롯하여 다수의 간행물에 정기적으로 기고해왔다. 수많은 국제회의에서 지정학, 경제, 에너지를 주제로 강연했고 경제전문가로 활동하고 있다. 저서로 『석유 지정학이 파헤친 20세기 세계사의 진실』(도서출판 길, 2007) 등이 있다.  출처 : http://book.daum.net/detail/book.do?bookid=KOR9788987671338)
)

“독감 박사(Dr Flu)”라는 별명으로 불리는 네덜란드 암스테르담 소재 에라스무스대학 알버트 오스터하우스(Albert Osterhaus) 교수는 2009년 전세계적인 인플루엔자 대유행 히스테리를 일으킨 핵심적인 인물이라고 합니다. (참고 : 현재 전세계적으로 명망있는 인플루엔자 전문가는 로버트 웹스터, 가와오카 요시히로, 앨버트 오스터하우스, 클로드 하눈, 데스먼드 오툴리 등으로 알려져 있습니다.)

그는 제약 마피아로 불리는 세계적 네트워크의 중요한 관련 인물(connecting person)일뿐만 아니라 WHO의 핵심자문가(key advisor)이며, 아울러 그는 H1N1을 위한 것이라는 주장이 제기되고 있는 백신(예방접종약)으로 수십억 유로의 개인적 이익과 밀접한 관련이 있는 인물이라고 합니다.

알버트 오스터하우스 교수는 지난 2005년 5월 25일자 [네이처]지에 미국 학자들과 공동으로 기고한 글에서도 “인체간에 감염되는 조류독감 변종의 출현은 시간문제”라며 “인체간에 감염되는 조류독감이 발생하면 65억 인류의 20%가 감염될 수 있고, 3천만명이 병원 치료를 필요로 하며,750만명이 숨질 수 있다.”고 경고한 바 있습니다. 당시 오스터하우스 교수는 2000만∼4000만명이 숨진 1918년 독감 때보다 피해가 더 클 것으로 예측하기도 했습니다.

(참고 : Ron Fouchier, Thijs Kuiken, Guus Rimmelzwaan, Albert Osterhaus, ‘Global task force for influenza’, Nature 435, 419-420 (25 May 2005) doi:10.1038/435419a Commentary)

윌리엄 엥달은 오스터하우스 교수에 대한 신임과 전문성은 의심할 여지가 없지만, 파리 주재 대유행 전문가인 마틴 엔터링크(Martin Enserink가 )지난 10월 16일자 [사이언스]지에 기고한 짧은 보고서에 “오스터하우스 교수가 백신 개발에 있어서 자신의 사업적 이해를 증진시키기 위해서 돼지 인플루엔자(신종플루)의 대유행 공포를 조장했다는 주장에 대해 네덜란드 의회에서 논쟁을 벌이면서 그의 평판은 곤두박질쳤다.”고 밝혔다고 전했습니다.

(참고 : Martin Enserink, In Holland, the Public Face of Flu Takes a Hit,  Science, 16 October 2009:  Vol. 326. no. 5951, pp. 350 – 351; DOI: 10.1126/science.326_350b.)

이후 내용은 오스터하우스 교수가 SARS를 매개로 마거릿 찬 WHO 사무총장과 밀접한 인연을 맺은 얘기와 그가 H5N1 조류독감 때도 지속적으로 대유행과 백신을 떠벌이고 다닌 얘기, 전문가들과 제약회사(타미플루를 판매하는 로슈, 리렌자를 판매하는 GSK, 신종플루 백신을 생산하는 GSK와 노바티스 등)와 WHO의 부패 등에 과한 이야기가 이어집니다.

전문은 아래와 같으니 읽어보시기 바랍니다.

==========================

WHO ‘Swine Flu Pope’ under investigation for gross conflict of interest

출처 : By F. William Engdahl, 8 December 2009
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Swine_Flu/Flu_Pope/flu_pope.html

The man with the nickname “Dr Flu”, Professor Albert Osterhaus, of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam Holland has been named by Dutch media researchers as the person at the center of the worldwide Swine Flu H1N1 Influenza A 2009 pandemic hysteria. Not only is Osterhaus the connecting person in an international network that has been described as the Pharma Mafia, he is THE key advisor to WHO on influenza and is intimately positioned to personally profit from the billions of euros in vaccines allegedly aimed at H1N1.  

Earlier this year the Second Chamber of the Netherlands Parliament undertook an investigation into alleged conflicts of interest and financial improprieties of the well-known Dr. Osterhaus. Outside of Holland and the Dutch media, the only note of the sensational investigation into Osterhaus’ business affairs came in a tiny note in the respected British magazine, Science.

Osterhaus’s credentials and expertise in his field were not in question. What is in question, according to a short report published by the journal Science, are his links to corporate interests that stand to potentially profit from the swine flu pandemic. Science carried the following brief note in its October 16 2009 issue about Osterhaus:

“ For the past 6 months, one could barely switch on the television in the Netherlands without seeing the face of famed virus hunter Albert Osterhaus talking about the swine flu pandemic. Or so it has seemed. Osterhaus, who runs an internationally renowned virus lab at Erasmus Medical Center, has been Mr. Flu. But last week, his reputation took a nosedive after it was alleged that he has been stoking pandemic fears to promote his own business interests in vaccine development.Last week, his reputation took a nosedive after it was alleged that he has been stoking pandemic fears to promote his own business interests in vaccine development. As Science went to press, the Dutch House of Representatives had even slated an emergency debate about the matter.”1

On November 3, 2009 it appeared that Osterhaus emerged with at least the damage somewhat under control. An updated Science blog noted, “The House of Representatives of the Netherlands today rejected a motion asking the government to sever all ties with virologist Albert Osterhaus of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who had been accused of conflicts of interest in his role as a government adviser. But Dutch health minister Ab Klink, meanwhile, announced a “Sunshine Act” compelling scientists to disclose their financial ties to companies.”2

The Minister, Ab Klink, reportedly a personal friend of Osterhaus3, subsequently issued a statement on the ministry’s website, claiming that Osterhaus was but one of many scientific advisers to the ministry on vaccines for H1N1, and that the Ministry “knew” about the financial interests of Osterhaus.4 Nothing out of the ordinary, merely pursuit of science and public health, so it seemed.

More careful investigation into the Osterhaus Affair suggests that the world-renowned Dutch Virologist may be at the very center of a multi-billion Euro pandemic fraud which has used human beings in effect as human guinea pigs with untested vaccines and in cases now emerging, resulting in deaths or severe bodily paralysis or injury.

The ‘Bird Shit Hoax’

Albert Osterhaus is no small fish. He stands at the global nexus of every major virus panic of the past decade from the mysterious SARS deaths in HongKong, where current WHO Director Margaret Chan got her start in her career as a local health official. According to his official bio at the European Commission, Osterhaus was engaged in April 2003, at the height of the panic over SARS (Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome) in investigation of the Hong Kong outbreak of respiratory illnesses. The EU report states, “he again showed his skill at moving fast to tackle a serious problem. Within three weeks he had proved that the disease was caused by a newly discovered coronavirus that resides in civet cats, other carnivorous animals or bats.”5

Then Osterhaus moved on as SARS cases vanished from view, this time publicizing dangers of what he claimed was H5N1 Avian Flu. In 1997 he had already began sounding the alarm following the death in Hong Kong of a three-year-old who Osterhaus learned had had direct contact with birds. Osterhaus went into high gear lobbying across Holland and Europe claiming that a deadly new mutation of avian flu had jumped to humans and that drastic measures were required. He claimed to be the first scientist in the world to show that H5N1 could be transferred into humans.6

In a BBC interview in October 2005 on the danger of Avian Flu, Osterhaus declared, “…if the virus manages indeed to, to mutate itself in such a way that it can transmit from human to human, then we have a completely different situation, we might be at the start of the pandemic.” He added, “there is a real chance that this virus could be trafficked by the birds all the way to Europe. There is a real risk, but nobody can estimate the risk at this moment, because we haven’t done the experiments.”7 It never did manage to mutate, but he was ready to “do the experiments,” presumably for a hefty fee.

To bolster his frightening pandemic scenario, Osterhaus and his lab assistants in Rotterdam began assiduously assembling and freezing samples of, well, bird shit, in an attempt to build a more scientific argument. He claimed that at certain times of the year up to 30% of all European birds acted as carriers of the deadly avian virus, H5N1. He also claimed that farmers working with hens and chickens were then exposed. Osterhaus briefed journalists who dutifully noted his alarm. Politicians were alerted. He wrote papers proposing that the far away deaths in Asia from what he termed H5N1 were coming to Europe, presumably on the wongs or in the innards of deadly sick infected birds. He claimed that migratory birds were carrying the deadly new disease as far west as Rügen and Ukraine.8 He conveniently ignored the fact that birds do not migrate east to west but rather north to south.

Osterhaus’ Avian Flu alarm campaign really took off in 2003 when a Dutch veterinary doctor became ill and died. Osterhaus claimed the death was from H5N1. He convinced the Dutch government to order slaughter of millions of chickens. Yet no other infected persons died from the alleged H5N1. Osterhaus claimed that that was simply proof of the effectiveness of the preemptive slaughter campaign.9

Osterhaus claimed that bird feces were the source, via air bombardment or droppings, onto populations and birds below. That was the vehicle for the spread of the deadly new Asian strain of H5N1 he insisted.

There was only one problem with the now voluminous frozen samples of diverse bird excrement he and his associated had collected and frozen at his institute. There was not one single confirmed example of H5N1 virus found in any of his samples. At a May 2006 Congress of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), Osterhaus and his Erasmus colleagues were forced to admit that in testing 100,000 samples of their assiduously saved bird feces, they had discovered not one single case of H5N1 virus.10

At a WHO conference in Verona in 2008 titled “Avian influenza at the Human-Animal Interface,” in a presentation to scientific colleagues undoubtedly less impressed by appeals to pandemic emotion than the non-scientific public, Osterhaus admitted that “A proper risk assessment of H5N1 as the cause of a new pandemic cannot be made with the currently available information.”11 By then, however, his sights were already firmly on other possible pandemic triggers to focus his vaccination activities.

Swine Flu and WHO corruption

When no mass wave of human deaths from Avian Flu materialized and after Roche, maker of Tamiflu and GlaxoSmithKline had banked billions of dollars in profits from worldwide government stockpiling of their dangerous and reportedly ineffective antiviral drugs, Tamiflu by Roche, and Relenza by GlaxoSmithKline, Osterhaus and other WHO advisers turned to other greener pastures.

By April 2009 their search seemed rewarded as La Gloria, a small Mexican village in Veracruz, reported a case of a small child ill with what had been diagnosed as “Swine Flu” or H1N1. With indecent haste the propaganda apparatus of the World Health Organization in Geneva went into gear with statements from the director-general Dr Margaret Chan, about a possible danger of a global pandemic.

Chan made such irresponsible statements as declaring “a public health emergency of international concern.”12 The further cases of outbreak at La Gloria were reported on one website as, “a ‘strange’ outbreak of acute respiratory infection, which led to bronchial pneumonia in some pediatric cases. According to a local resident, symptoms included fever, severe cough, and large amounts of phlegm.”13

Notably those were symptoms which would make sense in terms of the proximity of one of the world’s largest pig industrial feeding concentrations at La Gloria owned by Smithfield Farms of the USA. Residents had picketed the Smithfield Farms site in Mexico for months complaining of severe respiratory problems from the fecal waste lagoons. That possible cause of the diseases in La Gloria apparently did not interest Osterhaus and his colleagues advising the WHO. The long-awaited “pandemic” that Osterhaus had predicted ever since his involvement with SARS in the Guandgong Province of China in 2003, was now finally at hand.

On June 11, 2009 Margaret Chan of WHO made the declaration of a Phase 6 “Pandemic Emergency” regarding the spread of H1N1 Influenza. Curiously in announcing it, she noted , “On present evidence, the overwhelming majority of patients experience mild symptoms and make a rapid and full recovery, often in the absence of any form of medical treatment.” She then added, ”Worldwide, the number of deaths is small…we do not expect to see a sudden and dramatic jump in the number of severe or fatal infections.”

It later was learned that Chan acted, following heated debates inside WHO, on the advice of the scientific advisory group of WHO, or SAGE, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts . One of the members of SAGE at the time and today was Dr. Albert “Mr Flu” Osterhaus.

Not only was Osterhaus in a key position to advocate the panic-inducing WHO “Pandemic emergency” declaration. He was also chairman of the leading private European Scientific Working group on Influenza (ESWI), which describes itself as a “multidisciplinary group of key opinion leaders in influenza [that] aims to combat the impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza.” Osterhaus’ ESWI is the vital link as they themselves describe it, “between the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and the University of Connecticut, USA.”

What is more significant about the ESWI is that its work is entirely financed by the same pharma mafia companies that make billions on the pandemic emergency as governments around the world are compelled to buy and stockpile vaccines on declaration of a WHO Pandemic. The funders of ESWI include H1N1 vaccine maker Novartis, Tamiflu distributor, Hofmann-La Roche, Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others.

Not to lose the point, the world-leading virologist, official adviser on H1N1 to the governments of the UK and Holland, Dr Albert Osterhaus, head of the Department of Virology at the Erasmus Medical College of Rotterdam, also sat on the WHO’s elite SAGE and served as chairman at the same time of the pharma industry-sponsored ESWI, which in turn urged dramatic steps to vaccinate the world against the grave danger of a new Pandemic they insisted could rival the feared 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. 

The Wall Street bank, JP Morgan, estimated that in large part as a result of the WHO pandemic decision, the giant pharma firms that also finance Osterhaus’ ESWI work, stand to reap some €7.5 to €10 billion in profits.14

A fellow member of WHO’s SAGE is Dr Frederick Hayden, of Britain’s Wellcome Trust and reportedly a close friend of Osterhaus. Hayden also receives money for “advisory” services from Roche and GlaxoSmithKline among other pharma giants involved in producing products related to the H1N1 panic.

Chairman of WHO’s SAGE is another British scientist, Prof. David Salisbury of the UK Department of Health. He also heads the WHO H1N1 Advisory Group. Salisbury is a robust defender of the pharma industry. He has been accused by UK health citizen health group One Click of covering up the proven links between vaccines and an explosive rise in infant autism as well as links between the vaccine Gardasil and palsy and even death.15

Then on September 28, 2009 the same Salisbury stated, “There is a very clear view in the scientific community that there is no risk from the inclusion of Thiomersal.” The vaccine being used for H1N1 in Britain is primarily produced by GlaxoSmithKlilne. It contains the mercury preservative Thiomersol. Because of growing evidence that Thiomersol in vaccines might be related to autism in children in the United States, in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the   US Public Health Service called for it to be removed from vaccines.16

Yet another SAGE member at WHO with intimate financial ties to the vaccine makers that benefit from SAGE’s recommendations to WHO is Dr. Arnold Monto, a paid consultant to vaccine maker MedImmune, Glaxo and ViroPharma.

Even more, the meetings of the “independent” scientists of SAGE are attended by “observers” who include, yes, the very vaccine producers GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Baxter and company. One might ask if the SAGE are supposed to be the world’s leading experts on flu and vaccines, why they would ask the vaccine makers to sit in.

In the past decade the WHO, in order to boost funds at its disposal entered into what it calls “public private partnerships.” Instead of receiving its funds solely from member United Nations governments as its original purpose had been, WHO today receives almost double its normal UN budget in the form of grants and financial support from private industry. The industry? The very drug and vaccine makers who benefit from decisions like the June 2009 H1N1 Pandemic emergency declaration. As the main financiers of the WHO bureaucracy, naturally the Pharma Mafia and their friends receive what has been called “open door red carpet treatment” in Geneva.17

In an interview with Der Spiegel magazine in Germany, epidemiologist Dr. Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration, an organization of independent scientists evaluating all flu related studies, noted the implications of the privatization of WHO and the commercialization of health:

 “cone of the extraordinary features of this influenza — and the whole influenza saga — is that there are some people who make predictions year after year, and they get worse and worse. None of them so far have come about, and these people are still there making these predictions. For example, what happened with the bird flu, which was supposed to kill us all? Nothing. But that doesn’t stop these people from always making their predictions. Sometimes you get the feeling that there is a whole industry almost waiting for a pandemic to occur.

SPIEGEL: Who do you mean? The World Health Organization (WHO)?

Jefferson: The WHO and public health officials, virologists and the pharmaceutical companies. They’ve built this machine around the impending pandemic. And there’s a lot of money involved, and influence, and careers, and entire institutions! And all it took was one of these influenza viruses to mutate to start the machine grinding…18

When asked if the WHO had deliberately declared the Pandemic Emergency in order to create a huge market for H1N1 vaccines and drugs, Jefferson replied,

“Don’t you think there’s something noteworthy about the fact that the WHO has changed its definition of pandemic? The old definition was a new virus, which went around quickly, for which you didn’t have immunity, and which created a high morbidity and mortality rate. Now the last two have been dropped, and that’s how swine flu has been categorized as a pandemic.”19

Conveniently enough, the WHO published the new Pandemic definition in April 2009 just in time to allow WHO, on advice of SAGE and others like Albert “Dr Flu” Osterhaus and David Salisbury, to declare the mild cases of flu dubbed H1N1 Influenza A to be declared Pandemic Emergency.20

In a relevant footnote, the Washington Post on December 8 in an article on the severity, or lack of same, of the world H1N1 „pandemic“ reported that, “with the second wave of H1N1 infections having crested in the United States, leading epidemiologists are predicting that the pandemic could end up ranking as the mildest since modern medicine began documenting influenza outbreaks.”21

Russian Parliamentarian and chairman of the Duma Health Committee, Igor Barinow has called on the Russian Representative to WHO in Geneva to order an official investigation into the growing evidence of massive corruption of the WHO by the pharmaceutical industry. “There are grave accusations of corruption within the WHO,” said Barinow. “An international commission of inquiry is urgently required.”22
 

1 Martin Enserink, In Holland, the Public Face of Flu Takes a Hit,  Science, 16 October 2009:  Vol. 326. no. 5951, pp. 350 – 351; DOI: 10.1126/science.326_350b.

2 Science, November 3, 2009, Roundup 11/3 The Brink Edition, accessed here

3 Article from Dutch, De Farma maffia Deel 1 Osterhaus BV, 28 november 2009, accessed here

4 Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, Financiële belangen Osterhaus waren bekend, Nieuwsbericht, 30 september 2009, accessed here

5 European Commission, „Research“, Dr Albert Osterhaus, accessed here

6 Ibid.

7 Jane Corbin, Interview with Dr Albert Osterhaus, BBC Panorama, 4 October, 2005.

8 Karin Steinberger, Vogelgrippe: Der Mann mit der Vogelperspektive, Seuddeutsche Zeitung, 20 October, 2005, accessed here

9 Ibid.

10 Schweinegrippe—Geldgieriger Psychopath Auslöser der Pandemie?, accessed here

11 Ab Osterhaus, External factors influencing H5N1 mutation/reassortment events with pandemic potential, OIE, 7-9 October 2008, Verona, Italy, accessed here

12 WHO Health Advisory, April 2009, accessed here

13 Biosurveillance, Swine Flu in Mexico- Timeline of Events, April 24, 2009, accessed here

14 Cited in Louise Voller, Kristian Villesen, Stærk lobbyisme bag WHO-beslutning om massevaccination , Information, Copenhagen, 15 November 2009 accessed here

15 Jane Bryant, et al, The One Click Group Response: Prof. David Salisbury Threatens Legal Action, 4 March, 2009, accessed PDF

16 Prof. David Salisbury cited in, Swine flu vaccine to contain axed additive, London Evening Standard, 28 September 2009, accessed here

17 Bert Ehgartner, Schwindel mit der Schweinegrippe Ist die Aufregung ein Coup der Pharmaindustrie? Accessed here

18 Tom Jefferson, Interview with Epidemiologist Tom Jefferson: ‘A Whole Industry Is Waiting For A Pandemic’ Der Spiegel, 21 July 2009, accessed here

19 Ibid.

20 Louise Voller, Kristian Villesen, Mystisk ændring af WHO’s definition af en pandemi, Copenhagen Information, 15 November 2009, accessed here

21 Rob Stein, Flu Pandemic Could Be Mild, Washington Post, December 8, 2009.

22 Polskanet, Russland fordert internationale Untersuchung, 5 December 2009, accessed here

2009년 12월 30일자 WHO의 2009 H1N1 인플루엔자 대유행(신종플루) 업데이트 81의 원문입니다.

전세계적으로 최소한 12220명이 2009 H1N1 인플루엔자로 사망했다고 집계하고 있습니다. 

WHO의 마가렛 찬 사무총장은 아직도  2009 H1N1 인플루엔자 대유행 상태라면서 신종 플루 대유행이 끝나가고 있다는 판단은 아직 이르다고
강조하고 있습니다.

마가렛 찬 사무총장은 세계가 신종 돼지독감(돼지 인플루엔자)보다 더 독성이 강하고 치명적인 H5N1 조류독감 바이러스에 유발되는 대유행을 피할 수 있기를 바라고 있다고 밝히고 있습니다.

그러나 WHO가 돼지독감 바이러스의 실제 위험성을 지나치게 과장하여 너무나 성급하게 대유행을 선언함으로써 암묵적으로 로슈나 GSK 같은 다국적 거대제약회사의 경제적 이윤을 극대화시켰으며, 에이즈(HIV), 결핵, 말라리아 등의 긴급하게 대처해야 할 질병들에 투입되었으면 더 좋았을 엄청난 자원(인력, 장비, 의약품 등)을 돼지독감 대유행에 허비했다는 비난으로부터 자유롭기는 힘들 것으로 판단됩니다.

================================================= 

Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 – update 81

Weekly update

출처 : WHO, 30 December 2009 
http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_12_30/en/index.html

As of 27 December 2009, worldwide more than 208 countries and overseas territories or communities have reported laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, including at least 12220 deaths.

WHO is actively monitoring the progress of the pandemic through frequent consultations with the WHO Regional Offices and member states and through monitoring of multiple sources of data.

Situation update:

The most active areas of pandemic influenza transmission currently are in central and eastern Europe. Focal increases in rates of ILI/ARI during recent weeks were reported in at least three eastern European countries, Georgia, Montenegro, and Ukraine. A high intensity of respiratory diseases activity with concurrent circulation of pandemic influenza persists in parts of southern and eastern Europe, particularly in Greece, Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, and the Urals Region of the Russian Federation. In Western Europe, influenza transmission remains active and widespread, but overall disease activity has peaked. At least 13 of 21 countries (testing more than 20 sentinel samples) reported that 30% or more of sentinel specimens were positive for influenza, down from a peak of over 70%. All were influenza viruses detected in Western Europe were pandemic H1N1 2009, however, very small numbers of seasonal influenza viruses, making up less than 1% of all influenza viruses detected, were reported in Russia. In addition, limited available data indicates that active, high intensity transmission is occurring in Northern African countries along the Mediterranean coast (Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt).

In Central Asia, limited data suggest that influenza virus circulation remains active, but transmission may have recently peaked in some places. In West Asia, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Oman, and Afghanistan also appear to have passed their peak period of transmission within the past month, though both areas continue to have some active transmission and levels of respiratory disease activity have not yet returned to baseline levels.

In East Asia, influenza transmission remains active but appears to be declining overall. Influenza/ILI activity continued to decline in Japan, in northern and southern China, Chinese Taipei, and Hong Kong SAR (China). Slight increases in ILI were reported in Mongolia after weeks of declining activity following a large peak of activity over one month ago. In southern Asia, influenza activity continues to be intense, particularly in northern India, Nepal, and, Sri Lanka. Seasonal influenza A (H3N2) viruses are still being detected in very small numbers in China making up about 2.5% of the influenza A viruses detected there.

In North America, influenza transmission remains widespread but has declined substantially in all countries. In the US, sentinel outpatient ILI activity has returned to the seasonal baseline, and indicators of severity, including hospitalizations, paediatric mortality, and P&I mortality have declined substantially since peaking during late October. Rates of hospitalization among cases aged 5-17 years and 18-49 year far exceeded rates observed during recent influenza seasons, while rates of hospitalizations among cases aged >65 years were far lower than those observed during recent influenza seasons.

In the tropical regions of Central and South America and the Caribbean, influenza transmission remains geographically widespread but overall disease activity has been declining or remains unchanged in most parts, except for focal increases in respiratory disease activity in a few countries.

In the temperate regions of the southern hemisphere, sporadic cases of pandemic influenza continued to be reported without evidence of sustained community transmission.

The Global Influenza Surveillance Network (GISN) continues monitoring the global circulation of influenza viruses, including pandemic, seasonal and other influenza viruses infecting, or with the potential to infect, humans including seasonal influenza. For more information on virological surveillance and antiviral resistance please see the weekly virology update (Virological surveillance data, below).

Weekly update (Virological surveillance data)

*Countries in temperate regions are defined as those north of the Tropic of Cancer or south of the Tropic of Capricorn, while countries in tropical regions are defined as those between these two latitudes.

**Abbreviations: influenza-like-illness (ILI), acute respiratory infection (ARI), and severe acute respiratory infection (SARI)

Qualitative indicators (Week 29 to Week 51: 13 July – 20 December 2009)

The qualitative indicators monitor: the global geographic spread of influenza, trends in acute respiratory diseases, the intensity of respiratory disease activity, and the impact of the pandemic on health-care services.

Human infection with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus: updated interim WHO guidance on global surveillance
A description of WHO pandemic monitoring and surveillance objectives and methods can be found in the updated interim WHO guidance for the surveillance of human infection with pandemic (H1N1) virus.

The maps below display information on the qualitative indicators reported. Information is available for approximately 60 countries each week. Implementation of this monitoring system is ongoing and completeness of reporting is expected to increase over time.

List of definitions of qualitative indicators

Geographic spread of influenza activity

Map timeline

Trend of respiratory diseases activity compared to the previous week

Map timeline

Intensity of acute respiratory diseases in the population

Map timeline

Impact on health care services

Map timeline

Laboratory-confirmed cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 as officially reported to WHO by States Parties to the IHR (2005) as of 20 December 2009

Map of affected countries and deaths

The countries and overseas territories/communities that have newly reported their first pandemic (H1N1) 2009 confirmed cases since the last web update (No. 80): None.

The countries and overseas territories/communities that have newly reported their first deaths among pandemic (H1N1) 2009 confirmed cases since the last web update (No. 80): Nepal and Armenia.

Region	Deaths*
WHO Regional Office for Africa (AFRO)	130
WHO Regional Office for the Americas (AMRO)	At least 6670
WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (EMRO)	693
WHO Regional Office for Europe (EURO)	At least 2422
WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia (SEARO)	1056
WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific (WPRO)	1249
Total*	At least 12220

* The reported number of fatal cases is an under representation of the actual numbers as many deaths are never tested or recognized as influenza related.

인도에는 ‘타미플루(Oseltamivir)’ 복제약을 생산하는 제약회사가 5개나 있음에도 불구하고 로슈사의 타미플루의 판매량이 제네릭 보다 10배 이상 더 많이 판매되었다는 소식입니다.

인도에서 판매된 로슈사의 타미플루가 4,47,340 캡슐이고…Hetero’s Fluvir, Natco’s Natflu, Cipla’s Anti-flu 등의 제네릭 제약회사의 타미플루 복제약 44,725 캡슐 판매되었다고 합니다.

로슈사의 타미플루의 경우 1인분(10캡슐) 판매가격은 950루피(Rs ; 23,760원)이며,  Hetero사의 복제약 플루비르는 450루피(11,255원), Cipla사의 복제약 안티플루는 470루피(11,755원), Natco사의 복제약 나트플루는 480루피(12,000원)라고 합니다.

이와 같은 뜻밖의 결과는 대중들에게 로슈사의 ‘타미플루’라는 상품명이 ’오셀타미비르(Oseltamivir)’라는 약품성분과 동일어로 인식되었고, 의사들이 성분명 처방보다는 약품명 처방을 많이 하기 때문이라는 분석이 나오고 있습니다.

================================================
Roche’s Tamiflu sales are 10 times more than generic H1N1 drugs
 
Soma Das

출처 : Express India - Dec 25 12:42 PM

Posted: Saturday, Dec 26, 2009 at 2330 hrs IST
Updated: Saturday, Dec 26, 2009 at 2330 hrs IST
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/roches-tamiflu-sales-are-10-times-more-than-generic-h1n1-drugs/559200/2

New Delhi: Despite five established domestic drug firms manufacturing and marketing the H1N1 drug, Oseltamivir, at half the cost in the country, it is Swiss drug firm Roche Holding AG, which seems to be having the last laugh. One look at the latest retail sales figures of the drug show that Roche’s brand ‘Tamiflu’ is selling over 10 times more than all the generic drugs put together.

Sample this, the latest internal figures that the government has compiled shows that since September, when the government permitted the retail sale of the H1N1 drug, Roche’s Tamiflu has sold 4,47,340 tablets while all generic drugs that include Hetero’s Fluvir, Natco’s Natflu, Cipla’s Anti-flu have sold around 44,725 tablets combined in the 50-odd shops of national capital territory. This is despite the fact that Roche’s drug is available in only two outlets while the other drugs are being marketed in over 40 outlets. Also, while Tamiflu costs Rs 950 per strip (10 tablets), Hetero’s equivalent, the largest selling generic drug costs Rs 450 (10 tablets). Cipla’s Anti-flu costs Rs 470 per 10 tablets while Natco’s Natflu costs around Rs 480.

Interestingly, Roche is the only player in the H1N1 drug market, which doesn’t manufacture the drug in the country. This is because ‘Tamiflu’ in common parlance has become synonymous with ‘Oseltamivir’, the generic or salt name of the drug and most of the prescriptions which are being written out by doctors for H1N1 infected patients carry the name of ‘Tamiflu’. Even though the Medical Council of India’s Code of Ethics Regulation, 2002, prescribes the use of generic names of a drug in prescription, it is not practiced as a rule among the doctors. The MCI says ‘every physician should, as far as possible, prescribe drugs with generics name (salt name)’.

Not all experts agree. “We haven’t yet reached a stage where we could adopt the practice of writing only salt names on prescriptions. Our chemists often tear apart the strip without checking the print of relevant information on batch number, manufacturers address. If things go wrong catching anonymous manufacturers becomes very difficult,” said C M Gulati, editor, Monthly Index of Medical Specialties.

Gulati added that the media also inadvertently played a significant role in promoting Roche’s brand since the pandemic outbreak. In every public discourse that was held around the flu, the word Tamiflu was repeated many times over, partly because of the ease… of using it over ‘Oseltamivir’ and partly because Indian players hadn’t launched their versions as retail sale was allowed only in September….

백신시장 180억 달러..마스크ㆍ청결제도↑

(밴쿠버=연합뉴스) 조재용 통신원 = 신종플루의 대유행으로 백신을 생산하는 제약사들은 물론, 마스크를 만드는 화학제품 회사들과 손 세척액 등 생활 청결제 제조사들까지 기록적인 매출신장을 누리고 있다고 일간 글로브 앤 메일이 3일 보도했다.

   이 신문은 최대 ‘수혜자’는 역시 제약사들이라면서 금년도 H1N1 백신 매출은 세계적으로 70억 달러를 넘을 것이라고 전했다.

   전문가들은 신종플루 발생이 더 심하게 번질 경우 세계 백신 시장 규모는 180억 달러에 이를 것으로 보고 있다고 신문은 덧붙였다.

   영국의 거대 제약사 글락소스미스클라인은 지난 주 각 국 정부로부터 4억4천만 도즈 분량의 백신을 주문받았다고 밝혔는데, 이는 지난 8월 판매량 2억9천100만 도즈를 크게 상회하는 것이다. 이에 힘입어 이 회사의 올 한 해 백신 매출은 40억달러에 이를 것으로로 추정되고 있다.

   프랑스 제약사 사노피-아방티도 백신 판매로 올해 매출이익이 11% 늘어날 것으로 예상하고 있으며, 영국의 아스트라제네카는 지난 3.4분기 1억5천200만 달러 어치의 H1N1 백신을 미국 정부에 팔았다고 밝힌 것으로 신문은 전했다.

   이와함께 킴벌리클락크사는 이번 3.4분기 마스크 매출이 지난해 보다 40% 늘었고, 3M사도 같은 기간 1억 달러어치의 마스크 매출을 기록했다.

   3M의 한 관계자는 “지난 5월 이후 수요를 감당하기 위해 공장이 총가동 중”이라고 말했다.

   위생 청결제 제조사들도 호황을 누리는 중이다. 표백제로 잘 알려진 클로락스사는 가정용 살균 세정제 판매 신장세가 계속 이어져 3.4분기 매출이익이 23% 증가한 1억5천700만 달러에 달했다고 밝혔다.

   전염병의 대유행 덕을 톡톡히 보고 있는 백신 제조사들의 경영진들은 요즘 드러내 놓고 희색을 보이지 못한 채 표정관리에 신경을 쓰고 있다고 신문은 전했다.

   이와 관련, 글락소스미스클라인는 빈국 지원을 위해 세계보건기구(WHO)에 5천만회분의 H1N1 백신을 기부할 계획이다.

   jaeycho@yna.co.kr

===========================

No business like flu business

PAUL WALDIE

With a report from Reuters

출처 : Published on Tuesday, Nov. 03, 2009 12:00AM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/h1n1-swine-flu/no-business-like-flu-business/article1349123/
 

While thousands of Canadians line up for H1N1 vaccinations and people around the world worry about the spread of the virus, the pandemic is proving to be a financial windfall for many big corporations.

Yesterday Clorox Co., best known for its bleaches and other household products, said sales of its disinfectant wipes are at all-time highs. Sales have been so strong the company’s profit jumped 23 per cent in the third quarter to $157-million (U.S.).

“The upside related to the H1N1 flu was well above our forecast given the rapid spread of the virus,” said Larry Peiros, chief operating officer of Clorox North America.

Clorox is one of many companies benefiting from the H1N1 pandemic. Last week, Kimberly-Clark Corp. said sales of its face masks jumped 40 per cent year over year during the third quarter, and 3M Co. said it sold $100-million worth of masks in the last quarter.

“Our factories have been running flat out since May of this year to keep up with demand,” said Pat Campbell, 3M’s chief financial officer.

Even products not directly tied to fighting H1N1 are benefiting.

According to Chicago-based Information Resources Inc., a market research firm that monitors U.S. drugstores, sales of cough syrups and cold medications are up 8 per cent this year, while sales of hand sanitizers have climbed 19 per cent.

“Pretty much everyone who does something in influenza has gained from it,” said Hedwig Kresse, an infectious diseases analyst at Datamonitor in London.

Drug companies stand to see the biggest gains. Global H1N1 vaccine sales are expected to exceed $7-billion this year, even with a mild pandemic, according to analysts at Sarasin & Co. in Switzerland. If the outbreak is more severe, sales could hit $18-billion.

British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline, which is making vaccines for use in Canada, said last week that it has received orders for 440 million doses from governments around the world. That is up from 291 million orders the company reported in August. The extra doses could bring the company’s total annual revenue from the vaccine to around $4-billion, analysts estimate.

That’s a fraction of GlaxoSmithKline’s total annual sales, around $50-billion, but it is rising faster than any other company product.

France’s Sanofi-Aventis, another big vaccine maker, expects its profit to increase by 11 per cent this year because of H1N1. And Britain’s AstraZeneca said it sold $152-million worth of H1N1 vaccine to the U.S. government during the third quarter.

The windfall from H1N1 has put company executives in a difficult spot. While happy at the financial gain, they don’t want to be seen rejoicing over a pandemic.

During a conference call with analysts yesterday, Clorox chief executive Don Knauss tempered his delight at the company’s sales figures by noting that Clorox is working with nurses and teachers to help prevent the spread of H1N1. Last month, Clorox executive vice-president Beth Springer said the company was “capitalizing, appropriately, on H1N1 where it breaks out.”

GlaxoSmithKline came under fire recently from international development organizations for selling the bulk of its vaccines to wealthy countries, which can afford the $10 a shot cost. The company said it would donate 50 million shots to the World Health Organization.

Last week, Douglas Baker of Ecolab Inc. tried to steer a careful line after announcing the company expects sales of its hand sanitizers to double in the fourth quarter.

“I mean, we’re glad we’re able to help the communities that we serve and the customers meet the challenges that H1N1 represents,” Mr. Baker said before adding: “It certainly helped sales.”

THE DOCTOR WILL HEAR YOU NOW

It turns out talk about H1N1 isn’t cheap – in fact, it’s providing a new revenue stream for physicians.

Patients ailing with the flu, who need to speak to their Ontario doctors, can now pick up the telephone, thanks to a ministerial order. If the chat is less than 10 minutes long, physicians will be paid $11. But if patients are particularly loquacious, talking 10 minutes or more, their doctors will be enriched by $27.55.

Previously, Ontario doctors were not paid to provide telephone advice, which caused sick patients to migrate to busy waiting rooms. The payment is aimed at providing those patients with care while keeping them home. “We’re going to keep working hard until we get this right,” Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews said yesterday. Lisa Priest