Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 Federal liberals responsible for shortage of flu vaccineCalgary HeraldNovember 5, 2009Comments (12) In politics, as in the courtroom, it is wise to never ask a question unless you know the answer. A seasoned politician like Dr. Carolyn Bennett, the Liberal health critic, should know this. Bennett, a medical doctor, was the minister of state for public health in the Paul Martin government and a person who should know the history of flu vaccination contracts in Canada. http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Federal+liberals+responsible+shortage+vaccine/2186672/story.html Just thought it should be seen. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) Just thought it should be seen. You do realize that contract was for seasonal flu vaccine. A new contract negotiation was set up for the H1N1 vaccine. Edited November 6, 2009 by jdobbin 1 Quote
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 You do realize that contract was for seasonal flu vaccine. A new contract was set up for the H1N1 vaccine. So do i beleive you who is direct contradiction to the Calgary Herald and has provided no proof, or the Calgary Herald...I go with the Herald Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Smallc Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 They're no more responsible than the Conservatives are. Quote
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) So do i beleive you who is direct contradiction to the Calgary Herald and has provided no proof, or the Calgary Herald...I go with the Herald It is on the government's website: The regular flu virus vaccine proceeded as usual. The H1N1 had to go through additional negotiations that the regular flu vaccine didn't. While the contract was for one company, the negotiations for this part of the contract were new. In accordance with the terms of the longstanding contract, the Government of Canada is in discussions with GSK about the development and production of the H1N1 vaccine. After the safety testing and preliminary development work is completed, the production process for the H1N1 vaccine will take about 12 weeks. In the meantime, GSK is working through potential production process issues by developing trial vaccines. In other words, when Carolyn Bennett asked about the terms of this contract, it was a legitimate question in regards the development of this vaccine. Edited November 6, 2009 by jdobbin 1 Quote
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 It is on the government's website: The regular flu virus vaccine proceeded as usual. The H1N1 had to go through additional negotiations that the regular flu vaccine didn't. While the contract was for one company, the negotiations for this part of the contract were new. In other words, when Carolyn Bennett asked about the terms of this contract, it was a legitimate question in regards the development of this vaccine. it says nothing of the sort http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/alert-alerte/h1n1/info_vaccine_vaccin-eng.php Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 The contract was awarded to Shire BioChem, a company that gave $57,000 to the Liberal Party in 2001. The company has since been bought out by GSK, but the contract remained valid since it secured the Ste. Foy vaccine production facility. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091104/vaccine_antigen_091104/20091104?hub= Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 it says nothing of the sort Afraid it does. * The seasonal flu shot is not made to protect against the H1N1 flu virus.. * It is expected that the vaccines will be administered separately, at least a few weeks apart. 1 Quote
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091104/vaccine_antigen_091104/20091104?hub= Think I already said that H1N1 negotiations are separate. Quote
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 Afraid it does. your quote has nothing to do with vaccine supply contract. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 Think I already said that H1N1 negotiations are separate. And have provided no proof of it. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 your quote has nothing to do with vaccine supply contract. You are conradiction of several media outlets now, I think Macleans also has a piece on this. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 your quote has nothing to do with vaccine supply contract. Afraid it does. In any event, the Tories renegotiated the contract in 2007. No "oops here. Indeed Dr. Carolyn Bennett does know better. She was asking about the contract re-negotiated by the Conservatives in 2007: The 2001 vaccine supply contract - signed by the Liberal government - ensured that there would be a domestic supply of vaccine in case of a pandemic. The contract was not exclusive and has been made public. The Canadian government was free to purchase from other suppliers. That was the point: capture a domestic supply, but give the government flexibility to act in a crisis. The Conservatives renegotiated the agreement in 2007, but details have not been released. The 2004 Liberal Pandemic Plan called for using multiple suppliers to ensure a reliable source. The Conservatives ignored this recommendation. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. David Butler-Jones confirmed Tuesday that the federal government could order more vaccine from other suppliers. The decision of the govt to instruct GSK to halt production on the adjuvanted vaccine in order to make some non-adjuvanted for pregnant women is what has caused the shortages this week. 1 Quote
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 You are conradiction of several media outlets now, I think Macleans also has a piece on this. You are contradicted by the government website and by the fact that the Tories renegotiated the contract in 2007. 1 Quote
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 Afraid it does. In any event, the Tories renegotiated the contract in 2007. . tsk tsk no link but here is the globes take http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/taking-aim-at-the-gun-registry/article1350693/ Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 and Macleans http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/04/the-commons-questions-assurances-innuendo-and-a-man-named-donald/ Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
kimmy Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 Think I already said that H1N1 negotiations are separate. You said that, but none of the cites you've provided support the claim. Indeed, they seem to indicate that the H1N1 vaccine was indeed part of GSK's exclusive 10-year contract. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 tsk tsk no link but here is the globes take http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/taking-aim-at-the-gun-registry/article1350693/ Tsk, tsk The Liberals built up Canada’s domestic capacity to make it possible to produce pandemic influenza vaccine domestically. The 2001 pandemic vaccine contract with Shire Biologics required the company to be constantly ready to make and sell pandemic flu vaccine to Canada, while still allowing vaccines to be ordered from other manufacturers in case of a tight supply. The 2004 Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan stated, “Multiple suppliers should be considered in the planning process.” In 2007, Conservative Health Minister Tony Clement revised the pandemic vaccine contract with GlaxoSmithKline and could have insisted upon multiple suppliers. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. David Butler-Jones confirmed yesterday that the government can order more vaccine from other suppliers. It failed to do so. Quote
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) You said that, but none of the cites you've provided support the claim. Indeed, they seem to indicate that the H1N1 vaccine was indeed part of GSK's exclusive 10-year contract. Which allows for multi company orders as Dr. Butler Jones said yesterday. Tony Clement renegotiated this in 2007. Yeesh. There was no reason for a single source this time except for the fact that the Tory government made it so. Edited November 6, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 Which allows for multi company orders as Dr. Butler Jones said yesterday. Tony Clement renegotiated this in 2007. Yeesh. prove it. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) prove it. The CP story shows the contract was not for 100% of the supply. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gTezh8LC_Mbo1Apdfkf6ITZkJRVQ The 10-year contract, worth then $323,522,500, was awarded to Shire BioChem, a British company that had a flu vaccine manufacturing plant outside Quebec City. The contract went with the plant when it was sold in 2004 to ID Biomedical and in 2005 to GlaxoSmithKline.As part of the contract, Shire was guaranteed 75 per cent of Canada's seasonal flu vaccine purchase. The $323 million figure included the cost of the annual seasonal flu vaccine. And this: http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2161517 With one parliamentarian already believed to be suffering from H1N1, opposition Liberals yesterday pointed to the February 2004 Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan, which laid out a painstaking strategy in case an international health emergency closed borders and endangered vaccine supplies from abroad."Canada has invested in a domestic supplier to offset this possibility," the plan says, adding, "however, it will not be known whether this supplier will be able to produce enough vaccine for the entire target population in a timely manner. The possibility of multiple suppliers should be considered in the planning process." And... In 2007, Conservative Health Minister Tony Clement revised the pandemic vaccine contract with GlaxoSmithKline and could have insisted upon multiple suppliers. Chief Public Health Officer Dr. David Butler-Jones confirmed yesterday that the government can order more vaccine from other suppliers. It failed to do so. Edited November 6, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 The CP story shows the contract was not for 100% of the supply. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gTezh8LC_Mbo1Apdfkf6ITZkJRVQ funny you left this bit out The move angered vaccine giant Sanofi Pasteur, which used to share Canada's market 50-50 with Shire. But Sanofi does not have flu vaccine production capacity in Canada.Under the contract, Shire was required to maintain a constant supply of enough eggs to make pandemic vaccine whenever the need arose. At the time manufacturers didn't need and didn't keep a year-round supply of eggs. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 funny you left this bit out I didn't leave anything out since I was the one who posted the link. The contract is not exclusive despite how much you argue it is. Or even after this, are you arguing the Liberals negotiated a single source contract that had no room for other suppliers? Quote
Alta4ever Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Posted November 6, 2009 I didn't leave anything out since I was the one who posted the link. The contract is not exclusive despite how much you argue it is. Or even after this, are you arguing the Liberals negotiated a single source contract that had no room for other suppliers? the other 25% was sourced to a company that doesn't even have capacity in Canada, thank you liberal party. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
jdobbin Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 the other 25% was sourced to a company that doesn't even have capacity in Canada, thank you liberal party. Thank you Tory party for being in power for 4 years and believing single source was the way to go on this when the contract specifically allowed for more suppliers. So take that in your consideration when tossing out blame. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.