"If you bought a new car and there was only a one in twelve chance that it would work properly, how would you feel?"

I would be upset: firstly because a car costs many thousands of dollars, and secondly because I wouldn't have bought it if that make and model didn't have an established track record. But if my doctor offered me a new car from an unknown manufacturer for thirty dollars, on the understanding that it was probably a piece of crap, but might just be the ideal vehicle for my needs, then I'd probably give it a go.

All human beings are different. It's not surprising that they respond differently to the same treatments. And given the phenomenal costs of attaining government approval, drug companies just can't afford to test every medication on every possible type of person. If new medications are to be created and sold, then some of them inevitably won't work for some patients. As long as it's made clear that this particular new medication may or may not work for me, I don't see any harm in giving it a try on the off-chance.

Outright deception is another thing entirely, of course, as is doctors deliberately harming patients. But that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

<But we need firm and decisive action from our policy makers, and we need it now. Policy <makers, regulators, media and healthcare providers need to be protected and insulated from <pharmaceutical marketing.

As our Prime Ministers says; "We are open for business."

So I am not going to hold my breath, for our government to provide the necessary protections and regulations if and when it conflicts with 'business'.

Baz, if you have aspirations of being a researcher it is important to be careful about sources and accurate on facts.

The piece you mention as "The Huffington Post alleges" was not in fact written by the Huffington Post, but by Lawrence Solomon, who has no expertise or experience in any medical topic, but is a known vaccination denier (and ironically a climate change denier).

Solomon's piece is it'll inaccurate as anyone going to the sources could determine. The. CDC has estimated deaths as a consequence of influenza based on the best available information, using careful calculation. They are not massively inflated.

This is unfortunate, because the benefits and risks of flu vaccine are complex. There is limited benefit (at least in terms of mortality) in healthy adults, who are unlikely to die form the impact of influenza. However, for the very young, the elderly and the immuno-compromised, flu is a dangerous disease. Assessing the impact on healthy adults does not provide the true benefit.

The problem Peter Parry and Glen Spielmans pointed out, that big pharma engages in "a systematic effort to bury or downplay negative data and maximize the positive spin on positive data for the manufacturers' drugs by the time data entered the medical journals, conferences and other medical education events," occurs much more categorically with the conventional medical establishment. Take mammography: industry-funded mammogram supporters "produce" biased flawed pro-mammogram "studies" where risks are buried and benefits overemphasized so that its mass use is based on weak, manipulated, fraudulent science (read through this article: http://www.supplements-and-health.com/mammogram.html ). Great effort is put in to conceal the various deep money connections from the unwitting public.