For those who care for someone with Parkinson's disease
[Home] [Forum] [Help] [Search] [Register] [Login] [Donate]
You are not logged in

Topic Where is that pandemic, exacly? Go to previous topic Go to next topic Go to higher level

By lurkingforacure On 2009.10.06 11:19
October, 2009 issue of Popular Sciene has an article entitled "The Return of Swine Flu". It's the ONLY place I've read that talks about the actual stats from the southern hemisphere, which is concluding its flu season. Given all the hype, scare tactics, and constant advertising I've been bombarded with about the flu vaccine/nasal spray, one wonders what is really going on. Here are the stats, and I'll quote so I don't misinterpret:

"Flu season in the Southern Hemisphere is almost over-and now it's heading back our way. At the time this issue went to press, there were more than 162,000 confirmed cases and 1,154 deaths WORLDWIDE (my emphasis) from novel H1N1 aka swine flu, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes this figure is a gross underestimate, especially since only a fraction of people who have the flu go to the hospital. (But if you die, certainly they would know that, so how could the deaths be under-reported?) Now that the Northern Hemisphere is entering flu season, scientists fear that the virus may come back with a vengeance, compounding the impact of conventional flu, which alone kills about 36,000 people a year..."Yada yada yada.

I have previously shared one neurologist's challenge to that number of 36,000, Dr. Blaylock states that the CDC's own numbers put the annual flu deaths at a MUCH lower figure (see my prior post, I can't remember what he said on his video but it was either 800 or 2,000, again, can't remember exactly).

But moving past this point, if the entire southern hemisphere only had 1154 swine flu deaths, and you know they are watching and looking and monitoring for deaths caused by the swine flu, so one would think they have not missed any (and if they did, they could not have missed MILLIONS which is what we have been lead to believe was the risk of death from this virus), then really, this is no pandemic at all. Just what is a "gross underestimate"? Fifty percent? That makes the swine flu death toll for the southern hemisphere less than 2,000. One hundred percent underreported (if that's even possible)? Double it, 2308. Is THAT a pandemic? Give me a break.

They should be ashamed for scaring so many folk and pushing a vaccine that has been rushed to production. Did anyone here know that they monitored for adverse effects of the new swine flu vaccine for only 21 days in those that were in their "safety trial"? No wonder health care workers around the globe are refusing the vaccine.

I am not nearly as concerned as I was,which wasn't much, given these mild stats from the southern half of our planet. I wonder if these deaths would have even been reported if tens of billions of dollars' worth of questionable vaccine were not at risk of going bad. Cynical? Just a little. :)

By karolinakitty On 2009.10.09 09:10
Don't blame you for cynical ... i am too .......
The stats are there, however, in poorer countries where they don't get to the doctors as often as here in the states.. Deaths are usually reported as just deaths and not as deaths due to flu.
To help with the bills i set up at a flea market on the weekends. There are many vendors there who are of latino backgrounds, mostly Central America. They have told me of the poor medical care and most of them, having families still there, are poor in general. They just don't go to doctors when they sneeze or have the flu. So many deaths, which may have been caused by flu are generally said to be of natural causes. Their system is set up a lot different...

Even after knowing this i agree that this flu is being set up as pandemic so the drug companies will not lose what they have invested in these vaccines....

I have never gotten a flu vaccine in my life and have no intention of getting one now.
It's like the Mirapex thing and Humana ..... It's all a ploy to get more money either way.... I think Humana may have taken that approach because Mirapex has a class action suit for the gambling and compulsive behavior thing just like Requip.....
Humana may be a little offset if their patients are suing the drug companies for a drug they allow... I'm sure there is some legal aspect as well as the money aspect involved there.....

Did you know that Doctors can get an insurance bonus for diagnosing certain diseases... I saw a report about it and was stunned. They didn't go into the why but i'll assume it's because the insurance company can get more money out of someone, with higher premiums, if they are diagnosed with certain diseases....

Sorry lurking, got off track at the end ..... but i'll conclude by saying "No panic in this household"

By lurkingforacure On 2009.10.09 11:41
Glad to hear it, but I'll share what our neuro said about the mirapex: Humana wanted us to try Requip (again). Apparently Requip has been losing tremendous market share to Mirapex because it doesn't work nearly as well and has horrendous side effects. Apparently lots of his other clients have not been able to take it either. Thus, Requip maker goes to insurance companies and offers huge, tremendous discounts of the drug, and the insurance company is thinking, gosh, we can save XXX dollars if our clients use Requip instead of Mirapex, so let's make it as hard as possible for them to get Mirapex.

I don't think the lawsuit thing has much to do with it-since the nurse told me they did this in another case NOT involving mirapex. I think they are just trying to save big bucks. I haven't heard of anyone being given a hard time by their insurance company because they can't easily get a script for a drug that has been involved in a class action lawsuit.

By jsmitch On 2009.10.09 13:04
A drug has to be on an insurance company's Formulary (list of approved drugs) in order to qualify for full reimbursement. Some insurance companies have a sliding rate for reimbursement/payment. Example: Generic drugs=$3, Brand Name=$9, and Drugs NOT on Formulary = $22.

That said, Insurance coverage is restricted within state borders so the rules apply to specific coverage rather than a national standard.

To see if Mirapex is covered by a particular insurer in a specific state, see

When you locate state and insurance provider there will be a link to their Formulary -- complete with notes and restrictions on reimbursement, if any.


By lurkingforacure On 2009.10.09 16:22
Thank you, and that's just it-Mirapex is no longer on the formulary for our insurer because, from what we understand, the maker of Requip is offering that drug for sooooo much less. It would be very interesting indeed to know just how an insurance company decides which drugs will/will not be on their formulary, as well as reimbursement rates. Last year, the year before, and even the year before that, we had no problem getting Mirapex...suddenly now it's no longer on the formula, apparently because its competitor is offering such steep discounts to insurers. They end up selling their drug for much less but they get it listed on the formulary which equals huge volume and more than makes up the difference in price reduction, particularly when their competitor's drug gets booted off the formulary at the same time.

© · Published by jAess Media · Privacy Policy & Terms of Use
Sponsorship Assistance for this website and Forum has been provided by
by people like you