The Grauniad seems to be dying - hurrah!

[longfingernails]

I doubt Polly will be selling her Tuscan villa any time soon, but it will be a wonderful day when the BBC's in-house journal gets what it deserves.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8580566/Job-cull-looms-at-The-Guardian.html

If you want to take tamiflu and the swine flu vaccine, then you should take it. I will choose not to.

It's not people like me. It's people like Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg.

'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.

'Dr Wodarg has branded the H1N1 outbreak as 'one of the greatest medical scandals of the century'.

He said: 'We have had a mild flu - and a false pandemic.'

He added the seeds of the scare were sown five years ago, when it was feared the much more lethal bird flu virus would mutate into a human form.

The 'atmosphere of panic' led to governments stockpiling the anti-flu drug Tamiflu and putting in place 'sleeping contracts' for millions of doses of vaccine

Dr Wodarg said: 'The governments have sealed contracts with vaccine producers where they secure orders in advance and take upon themselves almost all the responsibility.

'In this way the producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without having any financial risks.

'So they just wait, until WHO says "pandemic" and activate the contracts.'

He also claims that to further push their interests, leading drug companies placed 'their people' in the 'cogs' of the WHO and other influential organisations.'

I didn't know all of that; Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg knew it.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/The-false-pandemic-Drug-firms-cashed-scare-swine-flu-claims-Euro-health-chief.html#ixzz1Q8OUxBNG

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242147/The-false-pandemic-Drug-firms-cashed-scare-swine-flu-claims-Euro-health-chief.html#ixzz1Q8OAohSu

He mentioned side effects. That's what worries me.

''They have made them squander tight healthcare resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.'

Wolfgang Wodard may be a physician, but he is not a virologist, nor is he an epidemiologist. DH tells me he is notorious for not being enough of a mathematician to interpret statistics either. Notoriousbthat is in the small and slightly incestuous world of science geeks.

'DH tells me he is notorious for not being enough of a mathematician to interpret statistics either'

But he is head of health for the Council of Europe. Surely at his level, he has teams of PhDs from the top universities in Europe to crunch numbers and interpret statistics.

The Daily Mail exposed the conflicts of interest involved. It informed teh public. Without journalists finding these things out, the people wouldn't have been aware at all.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243034/Swine-flu-taskforces-links-vaccine-giant-More-half-experts-fighting-pandemic-ties-drug-firms.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1302505/WHO-swine-flu-advisers-ties-drug-firms-Experts-linked-vaccine-producers.html

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg may be wrong. But when someone in as important a position as him, as head of health for the Council of Europe, describes the H1N1 outbreak as 'one of the greatest medical scandals of the century', it is worth looking into. It turns out there was no pandemic.

Claig, if you want exposes on pharmaceuticals, you need to read the Guardian. Look up Sarah Boseley's stuff.

Thanks, edam. Have just looked her up. Looks like very good stuff. I know that the Guardian is a very good newspaper and contains lots of very good information, compiled by great journalists. That's why millions of people across the world access its website. Without journalists on all of our newspapers uncovering conflicts of interest and forcing transparency, the public wouldn't be aware of what is going on.

Claig.You say 'millions of people access the Guardian website across the globe. Who are these people? Do you have any figures, sites we can access to prove this? This paper is in its last legs, I agree with you that they may have some great journalists, but not enough to keep this very insular paper afloat. I did flick through the paper today, but the leader was so boring, even I could not bear to part with my £1.00 to buy it! If anyone can find anything remotely interesting/amusing/annoying, about the Guardian.please post it! Goodnight!

The council of Europe is a lobbying group.

It is not associated with the European Union.

Oooh (in no way) contentious...

The quality of the writing itself in the Guardian (ALL content free on website) is far superior to the other broadsheets.

Do you think they publish Autotrader out of a passion for second hand cars?
It's common knowledge that it runs at a loss. The fact that OP didn't already know that explains the ill informed and attention-seeking points.

Do some actual READING so you can work out your own opinions rather than regurgitating idiotic, superficial comments you clearly do not understand.

grandmaster. If this paper has been running at a loss for years, then why have it? Unless it its to get a message/messages/agendas across to public. In saying this the Times has made losses of £45 million and is apparently (according to the Guadian media group) being propped up by the Sun and the News of the World. It reminds me of when I had a business once, it was failing but I ran it at a loss, because I did not want to admit I had failed!

I think complimentary has asked a very important question that gets to the heart of the matter.

'If this paper has been running at a loss for years, then why have it? Unless it its to get a message/messages/agendas across to public.'

Is the purpose to spread the progressive message, no matter what the cost?

Is trying to shape public opinion over the environment, global warming, and other progressive messages worth every penny lost in profit? Who is so philanthropic that they are prepared to lose money in the losing battle to turn the public progressive? What's in it for them? Is it because they want to "save the planet"? Are they doing the people a favour? Do they think we need more New Labour?

We know what's in it for Rupert Murdoch, if as complimentary says The Times is losing money, but what's in it for the loss-making Guardian?

Private Eye has been following stories about the Grauniad's overspending and expensive, unproven new media strategy for some time. TBH I'm not surprised that they're culling jobs. Though if they put their money where their journalists' political mouths were, they'd be culling some of the many vastly overpaid top dogs rather than trimming at ground level.

To be fair, they have made Tim Brooks redundant, so they have culled at least one 'top dog'.

He's made thousands of people redundant in his time, so it's difficult to feel any sympathy for him (and none of his victims walked away with massive pay-offs, either).

'If this paper has been running at a loss for years, then why have it? Unless it its to get a message/messages/agendas across to public.'

Claig I agree that Complimentary's question gets the the hub of the dilema facing the Guardian.

The Guardian was run as a charity a while ago. In recent years it's been more of a 'trust fund babe'. Freed from the need to pay it's way, by a very well funded, very commercially savvy parent company.

Now this trust fund babe needs to start earning her own living!!

The issue is - how will this impact the Guardian's 'agenda', culture and image?

claig - the climate change agenda is and always has bene a perfect 'left wing' tool to allow more interference in peoples' lives. Its why the left is so embedded in 'charities'. No one can criticse you for interfering in peoples' lives if you have the cover of 'doing good for the underprivelleged' or 'saving the planet'.

The Guardian reflects the general agenda of the left which always wants yet more interference and control over peoples' lives. I have no idea why liberal and Liberal minded people read it.

Beautifully put Morebeta!

Although I would argue that philanthropic/charitable work more the domain of the right winger as it is carried out by choice.

Lefties liek state imposed and state funded 'intervention' for the very reasons you state. Noone more so then the lefty 'intelligentsia' who love telling the proletariat how to live while they swan about living the life of the privileged.

Refer to Polly Toynbee and her odious husband as fine examples. He used to work for the Audit Commission on a very handsome package. She refused to answer questions about his hefty pay package despite urging all other public servants to do so.

moondog - yes that's true. As a 'right wing' charity worker I used to see our Board made up of the local left wing intelligensia, local Labour councillors and trade union officials all claiming their expenses for turning up to a meeting but never actually doing any front line work. Meanwhile me and other volunteers, mostly retired or or benefits, paying their own travel costs.

I left in the end because of the way the Board behaved. Nothing illegal but just the stink of rank hypocricy and political self interest.

'never actually doing any front line work'

Yes, that about sums it up and I speak as a public sector worker.
As I put it to a colleague the other day, everyone paddles and dips in at the edge but very few actually wade in and do anything.
I find it utterly nauseating.

May I share (yet again) Parkinson's Laws for your wry pleasure?

Parkinson's First Law: Work expands to fill the time available.
Parkinson's Second Law: Expenditures rise to meet income.
Parkinson's Third Law: Expansion means complexity; and complexity decay.
Parkinson's Fourth Law: The number of people in any working group tends to increase regardless of the amount of work to be done.
Parkinson's Fifth Law: If there is a way to delay an important decision the good bureaucracy, public or private, will find it.
Parkinson's Law of Sience: The progress of science varies inversely with the number of journals published.
Parkinson's Law of Delay: Delay is the deadliest form of denial.
Parkinson's Law of Data: Data expands to fill the space available.
Parkinson's Law of Meetings: The time spent in a meeting on an item is inversely propotional to its value (up to a limit).
Parkinson's Law of 1000: An enterprise employing more than 1000 people becomes a self-perpetuating empire, creating so much internal work that it no longer needs any contact with the outside world.
Mrs. Parkinson's Law: Heat produced by pressure expands

MoreBetas, good point about the charities.Never thought of that.

U2 are big on poverty etc., I think

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/music/news/u2-reject-tax-avoidance-claims-14203636.html

sorry, should have typed MoreBeta

sorry, not U2. I think it is Bono who campaigns for that, not the rest of the band.

I'm a school governor. We've never discussed our own voting intentions, but I'd guess 2/3 of the governing body are Tories and 1/3 not (although dunno the breakdown between Labour/Lib Dem/AN Other). None of us ever claim expenses.

It's extremely daft to claim one lot of charitable supporters/workers are 'nice' and another lot 'nasty' based on an assumption about their voting intentions.