The point is that thing doesn't help. So it smells imcompetence and waste of tax payers money. Furthermore, the danger is not addressed. However, due to the tie with Rummy, everything is more logical, but it smells corruption. I guess all these are obvious, you just chose not to see it.
Actually, if you read the origninal link in Zboy's post, tamiflu is also the vaccine being stockpiled by France, Canada, Britain. Are you saying they are doing it all for Rummy?
Don't change the subject now that your previous statements are being shown illogical. It's all for show, a "we're being proactive" political stunt. But the administration has a direct financial tie to the fear mongering in question. That's a real conveniant stunt. "if you read" - sheesh - the irony...
No subject changing here, maybe you are having trouble understanding my post. Let me re-iterate my point, Earlier in this thread: Bush is bashed for not stockpiling tamiflu like some other countries have done (France, Canada, Britain) Later in this thread: Bush is bashed for stockpiling tamiflu because the company has ties to Rumsfeld. My observation: Bush get bashed no matter what he does. All this logical enough for you?
Ack! Tamiflu is NOT an effective drug! If france was buying every one of it's citizens toupees to combat hair loss does that mean the US should? It's not about "bashing Bush" you polarized fool - its about wasted taxpayer money that will directly benefit a member of the goddam administration!
Avian Flue has a 50% mortatily rate, so be careful for what you wish. (As a comparison, SARS had a <10% mortatily rate).
I never said we should do whatever France is doing. I actually agree it might not be an effective drug. And if it is not an effective drug, and we shouldn't be wasting tax payers' money, why are the likes of wnes, mulder, rocket river jumped on the bandwagon and start bashing him for NOT stockpiling the "in-effective" drug? Maybe they will come to Bush's defence now that he has bought the drug. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy, it is clearly all about "bashing Bush" for some people here.
Very nice spin move, better than Yao's The bandwagon was about NOT stockpiling EFFECTIVE drug. If you want to, there is another bandwagon for stockpiling IN-EFFECTIVE drug, while Rummy is the beneficiary. Now, what was the hypocrisy again?
If Tamiflu is not the drug to stockpile, is there a better drug? *plans trip to Mexican pharmacy* If there isn't one, would the public understand and accept the fact that no drug is worth stockpiling so the Bush administration shouldn't buy anything for now?
No, the bandwagon was about NOT stockpiling tamiflu like France, Canada, Britain have done. Which was clearly stated in the first post. Did you even read the articles linked?
he is using the worst case scenario...can you suggest another way to plan for a potential disaster? do you want him to plan for a best case scenario and have it turn out to be horrible? this virus has killed half the people it has infected. its just like you are knocking bush just because he stated the realistic potential threat of this disease. many other sources have claimed that millions could die in america...in fact thats all i have heard. if anything thing you need to be bashing the media for fear mongering and not bush. thats fine if you want to say there is a conspiracy here but the only other major drug that is effective is relenza....who makes that GLAXOSMITHKLINE!!!! another major biotech company...i'm pretty sure anyone's 401k or IRA will benefit from that. read up on the major drugs. do you know why they chose Tamiflu? because it is easier to distribute. no it is not a vaccine, but it inhibits the spread of the virus in the body. and any antiviral med is going to have the potential for mutations. however, japan already has widespread use of tamiflu and there is little instance of resistance developing. the problem is the resistance is about 10 times greater among children and children are the ones that were plucking the chickens and getting infected more often. this is starting to change so that is a positive. while this may not turn out to be the best drug possible it is the best thing we have right now. read before you claim conspiracy. http://www.roche.com/med_mbfstamiflu.pdf#search='tamiflu%20vaccine'
Well said Egal. Deepblue: It is quite likely that the aforementioned posters were not aware of tamiflu's useless qualities. I'm not sure how desiring an effective drug, rather than an ineffective drug which happens to suspiciously benefit a member of the administration, is hypocrisy. Naturally, you are welcome to revel in a false sense of security. That does seem to be a republican mantra as of late.
Sadly, this is true. Stockpiling Tamiflu isnt the answer. My doc says the medical community in general is shocked that the media is spinning Tamiflu as a cure-all.
Like I said, I actually agree tamiflu is not the answer for this. I was just pointing out Which means they had NO knowledge of the actual subject, yet they started bashing just because its all about "bashing Bush".
Possibly Relenza. But that's not the point - there is no clear indication avian flu is even a threat. Good point. Doesn't make the Rummy connection any less crappy though.
Yes, I did read the article before I made my first post here. I do not necessary understand every single point of the article, and I do not necessary agree with every single point from the thread starter. However, I'd rather to see you debate others point by point, instead of accusing people in "bashing bandwagon" and others. The article criticize the shortcoming of private sector for such public health issue, and it also pointed out the unreadiness of the adminstration. Meanwhile, it also criticize the Clinton administration for that matter as well. Which post exactly criticised him for NOT piling up that IN-EFFECTIVE drug? The critic was about lacking of organized effort to prepare for worst case scenario. All of a sudden, out of blue, they start to pile up in-effective drugs with close tie to the administration, I guess people can be suspicious about it, can't they? Speaking of worse case scenario, you prepare for it, but you don't advocate it. There is danger to be hit by a bus, but you don't need a president to tell you on TV, that you can be hit by a bus. There is danger for major natural disaster, the government should be prepared for that, but you don't need a president to scare you on TV that how many people could die. There is real terror threat, the homeland security should prepare for the worst case scenario, but you don't need government officials to play with the genius ample lights system to cause public panic whenever polling falls.
When he is stockpiling vaccines that are ineffective and buying them from a company that has close ties to the administration, yes, he will get bashed.
Robbie380: There's a bit of a difference between that statement and "primary beneficiary happens to be the secretary of defense". Your points regarding tamiflu rationale and vaccination potential for mutations are correct. Likewise, I concur that Bush was more or less forced to react to the avian flu due to the media blitz. What I don't like, is the inability of the president to listen/read the counterarguments prior to signing a 2 billion dollar check that will greatly increase the personal wealth of his friend and fellow administration member. If "the best thing we have right now" is not effective - I question the need for 2 billion dollars' worth of it. Considering all my previous links to the contrary - I'd appreciate some proof of this claim.
But the profits won't go straight into the pockets of an administration official as they will from the purchase of Tamiflu.
