What they use for this criteria is not clear however. And it’s obviously quite possible that some of the members might “accidentally” forget to reveal a company they are consulting for during the vetting process.

However, I agree Brett that it’s wise to be skeptical about reading too much into this. I’m the last one that wants to add fuel to “conspiracy” theories regarding this issues. For example, Spanish doctors quite frequently work for the public health service in the mornings and private hospitals in the evening. There are bound to be some that use this to their advantage when diagnosing patients but I think they will be a minority. I actually wrote an article about this specific issue a while back which I’ll upload soon.

As regards the safety of the vaccine, the points outlined in your post Brett are the ones that also concern me. Especially if medical professionals are refusing it, it doesn’t inspire much confidence. I wrote about this too here a while back:

http://nicholasmead.com/2009/08/21/swine-flu-jabs-are-for-nazis/

Genuine separation, independence and honest disclosure are too rare in so many policy making organisations.

In September I published a blog:[http://www.bretthetherington.net/Modules/Blog/Pages/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryId=396]where a British doctor from the public health system asks:

1. If governments have confidence in the safety of the [swine flu] vaccine, why has Kathleen Sebelius, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, felt it necessary to sign a document making federal officials and vaccine makers immune from lawsuits related to any ill-effects from the vaccine?

2. Why has the UK government sent letters to neurologists asking them to be on the alert for neurological complications caused by the immunisation?