IMPORTANT INFO RE SWINE FLU

meglome

Martyr wrote: »

yes, let me once again waste time explaining the obvious to you, because you're special, aren't you?

there are certain individuals on here who consistently belittle most of the discussions on this forum and that's all they do, that's their day job it seems.

those individuals never have anything constructive to say, ever.

they seem to love getting attention for stupid questions, questions they would know the answer to in 5 minutes had they bothered to do some research.

- initially i would have wasted time and effort attempting to answer these questions, but it's pointless..and there are plenty of posts/threads on CT to prove it.

And no, I will not dig out links, doesn't deserve my attention.

And no, just because I won't spoonfeed you like a child doesn't mean I can't prove a claim, it means i'm not willing to waste my time and effort doing something you could do yourself, if you were genuinely interested in a topic...but you're not interested in the slightest.

these people don't deserve attention from anyone, why should you be given any "evidence" only to immediately dismiss it, without even reading it? or doing your own research..you have zero credibility imo.

the problem is that when people like you are presented with facts to back up a claim, it's never enough, you simply go away and wait for the next thread to jump all over and disprove.

I've never once seen anything constructive contributed to these forums by these same people, absolutely NOTHING.

You should try find a new hobbie to keep yourself occupied and let the rest of us discuss Conspiracy Theories, instead of arguing, asking stupid questions you could find the answer to if you'd bothered to use a search engine.

Without going into all of this, as I don't choose to take your attitude.

For me some people in here are fanboys and will believe (it seems) almost any CT, with only the flimsiest of backup to them, sometimes no backup whatsoever. And honestly some of these story's read like a novel. There are others who are very scientific and want very scientific proof. These two types are at opposing ends of the spectrum and are often likely to disagree. For me I'll take the scientific approach over peoples opinions any day.

For example King Mob may be argumentative but he still takes a very scientific approach to what he says and how he says it. I have learned many things in here due to the logic and science put forward by some posters. See I love a good story, I read a large number of books, but if I'm expected to believe a story I want evidence...some sense, logic and consistency would be nice too. Your opinion or your belief doesn't cut it.

It's funny the CT's complain all the time about the 'debunkers' being dismissive but in a really dismissive way just like you've done.

I like conspiracy theory's and I don't doubt they happen, it's just most of the major ones can't be backed up when you look in detail at them. So you're entitled to your opinions about me, just like you are on anything else but I know you're incorrect about me and I think I can prove that on many of the CT's too.

ilivetolearn

meglome wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu_pandemic

Can you provide a quote or at least indicate what paragraph I can find a reference in relation to the death tolls prior to vaccinations? There's a lot of text, particularily in the first link.

meglome wrote: »

now we don't seem to be looking at numbers greater than 'standard' flu.

I don't understand this bit. Can you rephrase it?

humanji

Martyr wrote: »

@uprising: there is rarely any good discussion here, and we all know why..i don't have to tell you the answer

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Yep, it's a killer . The turn-off for many of us is the disrespect of delivery from our counterparts and not the opposition alone as incorrectly suggested in the past on a few occasions.

Just because I love irony, Martyr's hissy-fit is a perfect example of one of the many problems in this forum, in that it's "always someone elses fault". Respect goes both ways.

ilivetolearn wrote:

Can you provide a quote or at least indicate what paragraph I can find a reference in relation to the death tolls prior to vaccinations? There's a lot of text, particularily in the first link.

The third paragraph mentions it. I'm still reading it, so I'll edit this if I find any more on it:

wikipedia wrote:

Three influenza pandemics occurred in the 20th century and killed tens of millions of people, with each of these pandemics being caused by the appearance of a new strain of the virus in humans.

To be honest, I was kind of surprised to learn so many died from flus in the 20th century. When you hear of millions dying from it, you tend to assuming it was well over 100 years ago.

edit: actually this section of it gives more details about various pandemics in history.

6th

Lads look at the following 2 words and note the difference: Post. Poster.

Martyr

humanji wrote:

Just because I love irony, Martyr's hissy-fit is a perfect example of one of the many problems in this forum, in that it's "always someone elses fault". Respect goes both ways.

have you nothing better to do?

6th

Martyr wrote: »

yes, let me once again waste time explaining the obvious to you, because you're special, aren't you?

humanji wrote: »

Just because I love irony, Martyr's hissy-fit is a perfect example of one of the many problems in this forum, in that it's "always someone elses fault". Respect goes both ways.

ok lads both of you can take 48 hours from the forum to cop on and calm down.

ilivetolearn

humanji wrote: »

To be honest, I was kind of surprised to learn so many died from flus in the 20th century. When you hear of millions dying from it, you tend to assuming it was well over 100 years ago.

My reaction was the same when I discovered how recent and devastating the Spanish Influenza was. I don't recall covering this in junior certificate history. Can anyone else recall differently or perhaps comment on the leaving certificate curriculum?

humanji wrote: »

edit: actually this section of it gives more details about various pandemics in history.

Thanks for that. It's an interesting read.

samson09

The 1918 Influenza Epidemic was a Vaccine-caused Disease (apparently, I'm not presenting this as fact so dont shoot the messenger!)

From: http://www.cfciowa.org/K017/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=272:the-1918-influenza-epidemic-was-a-vaccine-caused-disease&catid=4:national-news&Itemid=7

"The death and disease rate among the vaccinated soldiers was four times higher than among the unvaccinated civilians".

"Most people believe their doctors and government officials, and do what they say. The result was, that almost the entire population submitted to the shots without question, and it was only a matter of hours until people began dropping dead in agony, while many others collapsed with a disease of such virulence that no one had ever seen anything like it before"

"20,000,000 died of that flu epidemic, worldwide, and it seemed to be almost universal or as far away as the vaccinations reached. Greece and a few other countries, which did not accept the vaccines, were the only ones that were not hit by the flu. Doesn’t that prove something?
At home (in the U.S.) the situation was the same; the only ones who escaped the influenza were those who had refused the vaccinations. My family and 1 were among the few who persisted in refusing the high pressure sales propaganda, and none of us had the flu not even a sniffle, in spite of the fact that it was all around us, and in the bitter cold of winter".

---

For what it's worth, I've heard that the current vaccines may speed up the rate of mutation in the H1N1 virus, causing a more aggressive form of the virus (anyone else hear or read anything about this?).

I can also confirm that the vaccines (at least the one from GSK) the Irish people will be receiving will definitely contain adjuvants.

"Pandemrix Reconstitution

Vaccine is presented as:

-Solution constituted from 2 vials (1 of suspension/antigen 2,5mls and 1 of emulsion/adjuvant 2,5mls)
-Combined total= 5mls= 10 individual doses. The vial should be shaken prior to drawing up each of the 10 doses.
-To constitute: add 1 vial of emulsion to 1 vial of suspension, the mixed vaccine should be a whitish emulsion. If not DISCARD".

This is taken straight from is taken straight from Ireland Educational Programme for Registered Nurses and midwives to supply and administer Vaccinations and Antiviral Medications for the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 under medical protocols. 18 august 2009
(cant find link, add it if you can find it!)

samson09

I'm posting this as some of the content is related to my previous post

From: http://www.naturalnews.com/026148.html

"How do they know that a virus caused the flu epidemic of 1918, when the first virus was not isolated until 1933?

They don't. In fact, many believe that the epidemic was actually a vaccine reaction.When Army vaccinations became compulsory in 1911, the death rate from typhoid vaccination rose to the highest point in the history of the US Army. US Secretary of War Henry L Stimson reported that seven men dropped dead after being vaccinated. He also reported 63 deaths and 28,585 cases of hepatitis as a direct result of yellow fever vaccination during only six months of WW1.

According to a report in the Irish Examiner, "The report of the Surgeon-General of the US Army shows that during 1917 there were admitted into the army hospitals 19,608 men suffering from anti-typhoid inoculation and vaccinia. When army doctors tried to suppress the symptoms of typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid, paratyphoid. But when they concocted an even stronger vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease Spanish flu."

I'd love to know what was in those vaccines. The plot thickens.

samson09

Not sure if I've posted this already

Anyway, some good reading here and definitely a must read for anyone who may still be questioning the safety of the vaccine.

BTW, the conspiracy here is that we are being led to believe that this vaccine is safe when (IMO) it clearly isn't.

A HARD LOOK AT MANDATORY LIVE VIRUS VACCINATIONS:

WHAT’S REALITY AND WHAT TO DO

http://treeoflife.nu/allpdfdoc/vaccine.action.letter.pdf

11 POINT SUMMARY:

1. The proposed swine flu, squalene adjuvant, live virus vaccination is neither adequately or sufficiently tested, nor proven effective or safe; it is uninsurable and can stimulate the onset of a variety of debilitating auto-immune diseases, and is a serious assault on the immune system.

2. The swine flu vaccine contains dangerous & life-threatening fillers, including adjuvants such as squalene, animal tissues, which may include pig tissue, viral and bacterial proteins, and live viruses—all of which contain pig DNA.

3. Live viruses have a history of lethal danger, disease, and are contagious. Secondary Spread of live viruses from those vaccinated with a live virus lasting up to three weeks is a well-known fact.

4. The swine flu appears to have been laboratory generated and designed to have its dangerous effects amplified by the use of all the available swine flu vaccines..........

READ IT!

meglome

Samson09 haven't some of the what you've just posted been debunked in previous posts?

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

1.The proposed swine flu, squalene adjuvant, live virus vaccination is neither adequately or sufficiently tested, nor proven effective or safe; it is uninsurable and can stimulate the onset of a variety of debilitating auto-immune diseases, and is a serious assault on the immune system.

Is this referring to GBS?
You realise that is common to all auto immune reactions, including the the presence of a normal virus?
The same GBS that happens to about one in a million patients and it normally lasts about 5 days and leave no permanent damage?
But I suppose "debilitating auto-immune disease" sounds alot scarier.

And how exactly is it a "serious assault on the immune system" when it has the same effect on the immune system that the virus has but with none of the symptoms.
Almost seems your playing on the general lack of knowledge people have about vaccines.

It hasn't been adequately or sufficiently tested but you claim it has been shown that it is dangerous.
How does this make sense?

samson09 wrote: »

2. The swine flu vaccine contains dangerous & life-threatening fillers, including adjuvants such as squalene, animal tissues, which may include pig tissue, viral and bacterial proteins, and live viruses—all of which contain pig DNA.

And you know what else has pig DNA?
Bacon.

How is pig DNA dangerous exactly?

Oh and you have any scientific papers showing squalene is dangerous as well?

samson09 wrote: »

3. Live viruses have a history of lethal danger, disease, and are contagious. Secondary Spread of live viruses from those vaccinated with a live virus lasting up to three weeks is a well-known fact.

You mean live viruses like the swine flu virus?

It's pretty apparent you either don't know how vaccines work or do know how they work but are deliberately misrepresenting the facts

samson09 wrote: »

4. The swine flu appears to have been laboratory generated and designed to have its dangerous effects amplified by the use of all the available swine flu vaccines..........

Wow.
Really?

And how do you know this exactly?

Run_to_da_hills

The latest swine flu vaccine *contains a deadly brain toxin linked to autism, Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis" according to this press release.

"Mercury, a vaccine preservative, was withdrawn from childhood jabs five years ago after evidence linked it to brain damage" :eek:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ne-flu-vaccine

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The latest swine flu vaccine *contains a deadly brain toxin linked to autism, Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis" according to this press release.

"Mercury, a vaccine preservative, was withdrawn from childhood jabs five years ago after evidence linked it to brain damage" :eek:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ne-flu-vaccine

All of this is pure intentional misrepresentation.

1. The preservative is not Mercury it's Thiomersal. A component of this is Ethyl-mercury which is not harmful at the levels present in vaccines.

2. It was not removed form vaccines because "evidence linked it to brain damage". No evidence ever linked it to any of those diseases.

3. It was removed because parents where buying into the bull**** that is being spread about vaccines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

And seriously the Daily Express?
Not exactly a bastion of truth and reason.

samson09

meglome wrote: »

Samson09 haven't some of the just you've just posted been debunked in previous posts?

I dont think so, all I heard was opinion with nothing to back it.

I assume you're getting injected with squalene soon, how do you feel about that?

Imagine if someone walked up to you holding a syringe full of squalene.

Meglome: What's that?
Mad Doctor: SQUALENE! YOU'LL LOVE IT.
Meglome: Is it safe?
Mad Doctor: Yes, of course. Now stop your jibber jabber and take the damn shot (Mad Doctor is obviously first cousin of Mr.T)
Meglome: But doesnt it paralyse animals when they are injected with it?
Mad Doctor: Not at all. Dont worry.
Meglome: Wait a minute, that's the s**t that caused Gulf War syndrome, there was a court case and the American government had to shell out a wagonload of money and...
Mad Doctor: Now now meglome, trust me...I'm a doctor you know (points to badge that reads "Doctor")
Meglome: Is there a live virus in that....that yoke? (meglome is from the depths of Tipperary) Its been proven that I may actually become a walking incubator for the flu, studies have been done, I may pass the virus on to my friends and family.
Mad Doctor: Hmmmm, have you been on the INTERNET?
Meglome: Yeah, why?
Mad Doctor: You've been looking at those conspiracy theory sites haven't you?
Meglome: No, no...I would never do that. It was samson09.
Mad Doctor: Listen, just take the shot. I'll deal with that scoundrel later.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

meglome

samson09 wrote: »

I dont think so, all I heard was opinion with nothing to back it.

But that's exactly what you're doing, is it not? It's been pointed out to you several times that you don't seem to understand how vaccines work and how they are made but you choose to ignore it.

samson09 wrote: »

I assume you're getting injected with squalene soon, how do you feel about that?

I'm not being injected with anything, I don't even take aspirin. That said I'm not stupid enough to ignore medical advise if I was really sick, especially if my life was in danger.

samson09

meglome wrote: »

But that's exactly what you're doing, is it not? It's been pointed out to you several times that you don't seem to understand how vaccines work and how they are made but you choose to ignore it.



I'm not being injected with anything, I don't even take aspirin. That said I'm not stupid enough to ignore medical advise if I was really sick, especially if my life was in danger.

You obviously haven't listened to a word I've said or bothered to go through any of the information I have posted. There's evidence there if you bother to read it. Anyway, its not too difficult to understand how vaccines work, at least the way we are told they are supposed to. Any secondary school student could figure it out. The point is that these vaccines are no "Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain", they do not do exactly what they say on the tin. Have a look into Gulf War Syndrome and the anthrax vaccine.

Seriously tho, glad to hear you're not having the vaccines. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

Read through what I've posted with an open mind.

Dont forget what Hitler said:

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think”

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”

And as we all know people who are promoting natural medicine or against actual medicine cannot possibly lie.

meglome

King Mob wrote: »

And as we all know people who are promoting natural medicine or against actual medicine cannot possibly lie.

You know this is one of the things I'm amazed about in here. Some sites, many of which are selling something, make claims. Lots of CT's believe these claims even though they are contradicted by the medical evidence. The scientists who use careful testing to reach their conclusions are 'in on it' but some random punters on the internet are to be believed. It boggles my mind to be honest.

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

Not sure if I've posted this already

Anyway, some good reading here and definitely a must read for anyone who may still be questioning the safety of the vaccine.

BTW, the conspiracy here is that we are being led to believe that this vaccine is safe when (IMO) it clearly isn't.

A HARD LOOK AT MANDATORY LIVE VIRUS VACCINATIONS:

WHAT’S REALITY AND WHAT TO DO

http://treeoflife.nu/allpdfdoc/vaccine.action.letter.pdf

11 POINT SUMMARY:

1. The proposed swine flu, squalene adjuvant, live virus vaccination is neither adequately or sufficiently tested, nor proven effective or safe; it is uninsurable and can stimulate the onset of a variety of debilitating auto-immune diseases, and is a serious assault on the immune system.

2. The swine flu vaccine contains dangerous & life-threatening fillers, including adjuvants such as squalene, animal tissues, which may include pig tissue, viral and bacterial proteins, and live viruses—all of which contain pig DNA.

3. Live viruses have a history of lethal danger, disease, and are contagious. Secondary Spread of live viruses from those vaccinated with a live virus lasting up to three weeks is a well-known fact.

4. The swine flu appears to have been laboratory generated and designed to have its dangerous effects amplified by the use of all the available swine flu vaccines..........

READ IT!

I'm sorry to labour the point again. But I've just had a look through some of the European Medicines Agency stuff on this new vaccine, and there's no mention of squalene in the ingredients.

No auto-immune diseases are caused by vaccines. Well, Guillain Barre syndrome MIGHT be autoimmune. No one knows. But ironically, the vast majority of cases are actually caused by viral infections, as opposed to vaccines.

Live bacteria containing pig DNA?????????? There are no bacteria in the swine flu vaccine! There are certainly viral proteins in there, as that's how vaccines work.

I'll leave people to judge point 4 themselves :P

Again, the point is not for me to get involved in the debate. The reason I'm posting is to encourage people who might read this to seek advice from their own doctor about any vaccination issues that concern them.

Every vaccine comes with an ingredients leaflet, that has been approved by at least 2 regulatory bodies. Your GP/immunisation nurse will show you the list if you ask them, and they'll explain what the ingredients are there for. There are minimal ingredients in the new Baxter vaccine from what I can see.

Your GP will also provide you with details of the safety checks tat have been performed.

You may not feel that the vaccine is right for you or your kids. But this information should be obtained from a healthcare professional.

Declaration of conflict of interest: I'm heavily involved in testing the swine flu vaccine on kids. Though I'm not paid by the drug company. I get paid whether the vaccine does well or flops.

tallaght01

King Mob wrote: »

All of this is pure intentional misrepresentation.

1. The preservative is not Mercury it's Thiomersal. A component of this is Ethyl-mercury which is not harmful at the levels present in vaccines.

2. It was not removed form vaccines because "evidence linked it to brain damage". No evidence ever linked it to any of those diseases.

3. It was removed because parents where buying into the bull**** that is being spread about vaccines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

And seriously the Daily Express?
Not exactly a bastion of truth and reason.

It was removed because it wasn't needed anymore. New technology comes and things change. But Thimerosol has never ever een shown to be harmful, despite lots of individual studies looking at the issue.

I doubt it's in the new vaccine. But if it is it wouldn't be stopping me having it.

uprising

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm sorry to labour the point again. But I've just had a look through some of the European Medicines Agency stuff on this new vaccine, and there's no mention of squalene in the ingredients.

No auto-immune diseases are caused by vaccines. Well, Guillain Barre syndrome MIGHT be autoimmune. No one knows. But ironically, the vast majority of cases are actually caused by viral infections, as opposed to vaccines.

Live bacteria containing pig DNA?????????? There are no bacteria in the swine flu vaccine! There are certainly viral proteins in there, as that's how vaccines work.

I'll leave people to judge point 4 themselves :P

Yea EMEA, best place to check if a medicine is safe or not, they are the experts to look to alright........EXCEPT.

Earlier this month PharmaTimes World News reported how Pasqualino Rossi, one of Aifa's most senior representatives at the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), had been arrested along with another Aifa official and five drugs company lobbyists in connection with the scandal.

A preliminary report by a Government-appointed panel has suggested there is no evidence that any harm has been done to the public, however. The names of the drugs have not been revealed, despite demands from consumer groups for the government to do so.

Italy's La Repubblica newspaper earlier this month named the drug giants Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline, as two companies with links to some of the arrestees. Daniele Rosa, a spokesman for Bayer's Italian division said: "The investigation does not concern the behaviour of the company, but alleged behaviour that could be traced back to some collaborators whose behaviour the company has no knowledge of." Massimo Escani, a spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline in Italy, denied that any associates of the company were involved in the scandal. "The claims are completely untrue," he said.
http://www.eatg.org/eatg/Global-HIV-News/EU-Policy/Drug-licences-for-cash-scandal-unfolds-in-Italy

The Celvapan EMEA licensure supports fast track approval of a pandemic vaccine containing the A/H1N1 virus strain. Baxter will submit the A/H1N1 vaccine for approval upon completion of initial manufacturing runs.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baxter claiming the drug maker substituted an ingredient in its blood thinner heparin with a cheaper, more dangerous one in order to reap more profits, according to the Madison-St. Clair The Record. Twenty-eight people are named in the lawsuit, most of whom are spouses of individuals who died after receiving injections of the tainted heparin. The lawsuit was filed in St. Clair County Court in Illinois.
http://www.heparin-legal.com/news/2009/03/04/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-baxter-over-tainted-heparin-scandal/

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

tallaght01 wrote: »

It was removed because it wasn't needed anymore. New technology comes and things change. But Thimerosol has never ever een shown to be harmful, despite lots of individual studies looking at the issue.
I doubt it's in the new vaccine. But if it is it wouldn't be stopping me having it.

You say your testing it on children, yet you haven't got it yourself yet, and you DOUBT it's in the new vaccine.

OHH now I'm convinced.

I think you bolded the wrong bit there.

uprising

tallaght01 wrote: »

It was removed because it wasn't needed anymore. New technology comes and things change. But Thimerosol has never ever een shown to be harmful, despite lots of individual studies looking at the issue.

I doubt it's in the new vaccine. But if it is it wouldn't be stopping me having it.

You say your testing it on children, yet you haven't got it yourself yet, and you DOUBT it's in the new vaccine.

OHH now I'm convinced.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

I think you bolded the wrong bit there.

What difference does it make to you?, maybe I should have BOLDED it all, but with your selective viewing technique, it wouldn't have made any difference.
And honestly you and meglome here ranting and raving it's safe yet neither of you will be getting the shot, if it's so safe take meglomes hand and both of you skip down and get the magic cure for the BIG BAD DISEASE, just squeeze each others hands and close your eyes tightly.

6th

uprising wrote: »

What difference does it make to you?, maybe I should have BOLDED it all, but with your selective viewing technique, it wouldn't have made any difference.
And honestly you and meglome here ranting and raving it's safe yet neither of you will be getting the shot, if it's so safe take meglomes hand and both of you skip down and get the magic cure for the BIG BAD DISEASE, just squeeze each others hands and close your eyes tightly.

Thats it, more overly expressive comments directed at the posters a opposed to the posts. Take 2 days off to think about it.

tallaght01

uprising wrote: »

You say your testing it on children, yet you haven't got it yourself yet, and you DOUBT it's in the new vaccine.

OHH now I'm convinced.

I'll get it when it's available.

It's not in the vaccine I'm testing. But I'm not in Europe. The one being tested here has no adjuvants in it at all.

But the Baxter one is the one the Irish are buying. I haven't seen thimerosol on any of the ingredients list from the European Medicines Agency, so I doubt it's in it. I don't think it's relevant anyway. The autism rates haven't fallen since we stopped using it.

But I'm not trying to convince you. I'm asking the people who might stumble across this forum to get proper medical advice before making these decisions.

deereidy

maybe this is just a stupid question and I'm totally naive..but why would you want to kill your own people?

Run_to_da_hills

50% of GPs are refusing the Jab over testing fears. This says a lot as these guys actually know their stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html

Nehaxak

deereidy wrote: »

maybe this is just a stupid question and I'm totally naive..but why would you want to kill your own people?

Cheaper than health care I guess. I guess it's why alternatives to smoking or those alternatives that help you to quit are so expensive in this country because it's cheaper for people just to die from smoking than it is to give them cheaper alternatives to help them quit.

Absolutely simple question - if the population have doubts over some ingredients that aren't absolutely required to be in a vaccine in the first place, like a preservative or anything to do with mercury for example - then why not just put their minds at ease and remove it rather than shouting at them and calling them stupid ?

Seems simple enough to me, remove that which is not required to be there in the first place, thereby removing the cause of peoples concerns, therein providing the ability for the vaccines in question to be distributed and used more widely without such public worries.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

50% of GPs are refusing the Jab over testing fears. This says a lot as these guys actually know their stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html

Did you even bother to read any of the response to the other similar article you posted?

But if these GPs are not taking the vaccine because of actual evidence rather than the irrational fear and scaremongering that everyone else is buying, how come they don't share it?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Did you even bother to read any of the response to the other similar article you posted?

But if these GPs are not taking the vaccine because of actual evidence rather than the irrational fear and scaremongering that everyone else is buying, how come they don't share it?

THe report isprobably not official, and made on a survey, It could probably go against them if they publicly disclosed names. I will certainly take the advice from my GP, and I hnow for sure that he is very concerned about the jab. It wouldn't surprise me if doctors could eventually loose their licences if they refused to carry it out the jab under orders.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

THe report isprobably not official, and made on a survey, It could probably go against them if they publicly disclosed names. I will certainly take the advice from my GP, and I hnow for sure that he is very concerned about the jab.

So it wouldn't matter then this advice might be based on irrational fear and misinformation rather than scientific evidence?

And what about the 50 percent of the doctors who say they will get the jab?
How do you know these doctors are wrong and the doctors that you agree with are right?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It wouldn't surprise me if doctors could eventually loose their licences if they refused to carry it out the jab under orders.

And is there any basis at all for this?

Under orders from who?
What laws allow any official body to do that?

Black Uhlan

Hi everyone. I came across this site while I was researching swine flu. This is my first post, I just thought I could actually give a unique perspective so go easy...

The reason I was looking it up is because my young daughter apparently has caught swine flu and in all probability I have "suffered" it recently as well. To be honest it just felt like a really bad dose, no worse than anything before, but I didn't visit a doctor and I was okay after a week so in my experience it is nothing to get too bothered about. Without all the media hype I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

I should explain the reason I have come to this conclusion is that my local doc diagnosed my daughter with swine flu on the basis of nothing but the fact that she had a high temperature!!! So that is where they get their figures from I guess. A word to the wise to any parents out there don't give your children Tamiflu, it gave her diahrea and terrible nightmares.

Run_to_da_hills

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Hi everyone. I came across this site while I was researching swine flu. This is my first post, I just thought I could actually give a unique perspective so go easy...

The reason I was looking it up is because my young daughter apparently has caught swine flu and in all probability I have "suffered" it recently as well. To be honest it just felt like a really bad dose, no worse than anything before, but I didn't visit a doctor and I was okay after a week so in my experience it is nothing to get too bothered about. Without all the media hype I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

I should explain the reason I have come to this conclusion is that my local doc diagnosed my daughter with swine flu on the basis of nothing but the fact that she had a high temperature!!! So that is where they get their figures from I guess. A word to the wise to any parents out there don't give your children Tamiflu, it gave her diarrhea and terrible nightmares.

I agree, most cases of Swine flu are no more than that of a common cold, I probably got myself last week when I was a bit wheezy and it just passed away. All this media hype is just nonsense. The only fatalities in this country were those that had additional medical conditions. Hope your child makes a full recovery and will never go near that unnecessary potent stuff again.

King Mob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I agree, most cases of Swine flu are no more than that of a common cold,

Well except for the people who died.
But they don't count.

Great medical advice RtdH.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

50% of GPs are refusing the Jab over testing fears.

Thats not what the article you linked to says.

It says that there were two seperate polls. One, consisting of 15 GPs, 49% said they would opt out and 9% were unsure.

The other, consisting of 216, showed 29 percent opting out, 29 percent unsure, and 41% definitely opting in.

Leaving aside the mathematical impossibility of getting a sub-group of 49% from a sample-size of 15 people, it should be clear that the sample-size of 216 is going to reveal more reliable results.

So, we're down to 29% saying they won't have the jab.

Of that 29% who said they were opting out, 71% said that it was because of testing concerns. That would be a net of 21%.

So, one in five GPs said it was over testing concerns...not half. Conversely, double that amount were definitely opting in. From the remainder, we cannot determine their stance regarding testing.

This says a lot as these guys actually know their stuff.

What we can state from the polls is that 2 of 3 GPs who expressed an identifiable position regarding testing do not have a problem with the testing.

If these guys "actually know their stuff", then perhaps you can explain why its worth listening to only one in three of them?

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The only fatalities in this country were those that had additional medical conditions.

Nice selective use of numbers there.

The only fatalities in this country.

Of course, of the total fatalities, roughly one in three had no additional medical conditions.

Also please note, that roughly one in a thousand identified cases has resulted in death. If you're arguing that anything like a high temperature is being classified as swine flu, then what you're saying is that the identified cases are artificially high and should be a lot lower.

The attributed deaths, however, are all lab-confirmed cases, so those are not just someone who died and they decided "oh, it was swine flu".

So...if the number of identified cases was lower, this would mean that the mortality rate of people who actually catch swine flu is a lot worse than one in a thousand.

If half of the reported cases are "false alarms", then the mortality rate jumps to one in five hundred. If three quarters are false alarms, then it becomes one in two hundred and fifty cases.

In essence, what you're saying is that this whole thing is a load of hype, because swine flu is actually a lot deadlier than the current figures show.

Mathematically, the argument doesn't hold up.

eyejuice

anyone interested might want to look at these articles

"Antibodies to Squalene in Recipients of Anthrax Vaccine" (Exp. Mol. Pathol. 73,19-27 (2002)).
ARTICLE(s)
http://www.autoimmune.com/GWSTest.html
http://www.autoimmune.com/GWSGen.html
ABSTRACT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

another article from the university of lousiana
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

good ol' science. makes fools of most of us. Intravenous squalene does cause gulf war syndrome (probably).


if the swine flu vaccine contains squalene then it would likely trigger and autoimmune response similar to gulf war syndrome.

we can test people with the assay for the anti-squalene antibodies that are responsible for the autoimmune disorder. Until those tests come out negative i would not assume that the H1N1 vaccine is safe.

oh and here's even more articles on squalene in vaccines and GWS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=link&linkname=pubmed_pubmed&uid=12127050&ordinalpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

oh wait a lot of those say that squalene is safe...
screw this. I'm going to bed.

bonkey

eyejuice wrote: »

good ol' science. makes fools of most of us.

Science can make a fool of anyone. It can also be wrong, at times, or merely wrongly interpreted.

In the interests of balance...here is an article which offers a counterpoint to the stuff eyejuice linked to. It has links to the various studies that it references, for anyone wishing to go to that level of detail.

King Mob

eyejuice wrote: »

oh and here's even more articles on squalene in vaccines and GWS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=link&linkname=pubmed_pubmed&uid=12127050&ordinalpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

oh wait a lot of those say that squalene is safe...
screw this. I'm going to bed.

Have you actual read any of these.
At least three of those papers conclude the exact opposite of what you are saying.

One study shows that squalene antibodies are naturally produced and another shows that there was no squalene in the vaccine received by gulf war soldiers.

Edit: Whoops, didn't read you last sentence.:o

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

Have you actual read any of these.
...
Edit: Whoops, didn't read you last sentence.:o

Irony in action

Hugo Drax

Mass murder of who? Doesn't really say does it?

humanji

deereidy wrote: »

maybe this is just a stupid question and I'm totally naive..but why would you want to kill your own people?

There's many theories. Originally, It was theorised that the Swine-flu was man made in order to kill ethnic groups, in order to kill specific individuals, or in order to cull the population.

There's also a theory that it was man made so that people would think they need a vaccine and the vaccine they were given has something in it that will kill ethnic groups, kill specific individuals or cull the populace. Or there could be something in the vaccine that made the human mind more susceptible to suggestion, making the populace more docile.

There's also the possibility that the intent isn't to kill, rather that pharma companies don't care about any repercussions that occur because of their vaccines and simply want the make a profit and they want to make it now.

There's any number of reasons, to be honest. Just pick one and roll with it.

Nehaxak wrote: »

Absolutely simple question - if the population have doubts over some ingredients that aren't absolutely required to be in a vaccine in the first place, like a preservative or anything to do with mercury for example - then why not just put their minds at ease and remove it rather than shouting at them and calling them stupid ?

Seems simple enough to me, remove that which is not required to be there in the first place, thereby removing the cause of peoples concerns, therein providing the ability for the vaccines in question to be distributed and used more widely without such public worries.

My guess would be that once the pharma company decided on a final recipe they went into mass production. Stopping mass production, bringing the vaccine back to formula, testing it again, recalling all previously released vaccines and releasing the new one, would cause them millions if not billions. They're not going to waste money on something when they don't believe there is a problem.

bonkey

humanji wrote: »

My guess would be that once the pharma company decided on a final recipe they went into mass production. Stopping mass production, bringing the vaccine back to formula, testing it again, recalling all previously released vaccines and releasing the new one, would cause them millions if not billions. They're not going to waste money on something when they don't believe there is a problem.

There's an even simpler answer.

Vaccines are produced on a continuous basis.

Seasonal flu vaccines are produced year-in, year-out. While the specifics of the flu being targetted may change, the actual methods of producing the vaccines are not.

So, we've a situation where these allegedly-dangerous materials have been in vaccines for years. All of a sudden, people are crying out that there is something new and dangerous about a well-established process.

The manufacturers are saying "you're wrong, because there's nothing new about this process". If these dangers exist - and exist to the extent being alleged - then we'd expect to see them clear-as-day amongst those who take seasonal flu vaccines.

Its somewhat ironic that the same people who tell us that there's far too much hype over the entire swine-flu pandemic are by-and-large the same people asking us to buy into the hype about the new danger posed by a well-established process.

Slugs

I'm not pretending to be an expert here, but I'm just going on my own experience and thoughts on the matter.

I read an article a while back (Don't ask me to link, this was back in like 2008 sometime) where an entire class of children was infected with a virus due to the vaccine being given to a child who had early stages of the virus. According to the doctors involved, the vaccine lowered the defence systems of the children, and this apparently allowed the virus to infect the hosts more efficiently. None died, but they all got the virus.

If anyone here is in secondary school, recently they gave away free MMR Vaccines to teenagers back in like April or May. Now let me get this straight, Mary Harney will not hand out €8 million for cervical cancer vaccines, but she will pay for free MMR Vaccines, doesn't make sense to me. A girl in my class contracted Mumps the week the vaccines were being given out, she comes back to school a week later. NO ONE, VACCINATED OR OTHERWISE CONTRACTED THE VIRUS. No one, that just doesn't make sense to me in the slightest. And what the worst thing is, None of this was mentioned in the mainstream media at the time, at least as far as I could see anyway.

Personally I just don't see the point in vaccines, you're infecting your self with the virus in the hopes that your body will produce the antibodies to fight off the virus. But what if you are in the early stages of the virus. What if you have a weak immune system. What if the virus' are tainted? Or too concentrated? What if you already have traces of the virus, but it just hasn't taken yet?

I know these are all variables and with anything there're risks, I just think by taking the vaccines you're increasing the risks of contracting the virus. I mean come on, you don't break your own leg on purpose so that in the future, when you break your leg unintentionally, it'll be easier to deal with. That's just plain stupid.

tallaght01

bonkey wrote: »

There's an even simpler answer.

Vaccines are produced on a continuous basis.

Seasonal flu vaccines are produced year-in, year-out. While the specifics of the flu being targetted may change, the actual methods of producing the vaccines are not.

So, we've a situation where these allegedly-dangerous materials have been in vaccines for years. All of a sudden, people are crying out that there is something new and dangerous about a well-established process.

The manufacturers are saying "you're wrong, because there's nothing new about this process". If these dangers exist - and exist to the extent being alleged - then we'd expect to see them clear-as-day amongst those who take seasonal flu vaccines.

Its somewhat ironic that the same people who tell us that there's far too much hype over the entire swine-flu pandemic are by-and-large the same people asking us to buy into the hype about the new danger posed by a well-established process.

This is the best summing up of the issue I've seen in a while.

bonkey

Slugs wrote: »

Personally I just don't see the point in vaccines, you're infecting your self with the virus in the hopes that your body will produce the antibodies to fight off the virus.

This comment suggests that you don't understand the theory and practice behind immunizatuin....in which case, its understandable that you don't see the point.

I just think by taking the vaccines you're increasing the risks of contracting the virus.

Statistically speaking, you're demonstrably wrong.

I mean come on, you don't break your own leg on purpose so that in the future, when you break your leg unintentionally, it'll be easier to deal with. That's just plain stupid.

Yes...that would be just plain stupid. I'm not sure what the relationship to immunization is, though.

Also, other than htis being a "I disagree with the establishment" viewpoint, I don't really see the relevance to conspiracy theories.

Slugs

bonkey wrote: »

This comment suggests that you don't understand the theory and practice behind immunizatuin....in which case, its understandable that you don't see the point.

Well I mean as I stated I've only barely looked into it, I mean I don't plan on getting vaccines for the very simple reason, I don't know what is in them. You have an immune system, use it or lose it.

I do however understand the concept. I know the vaccine used is actually a dead form of the virus and basically you're using that dead virus to trick your system into thinking that you have the virus. But the whole business sounds sketchy to me, after all if it's dead how can it be infected. And I think immunizing yourself against a virus only encourages the mutation of the virus.

King Mob

Slugs wrote: »

Personally I just don't see the point in vaccines, you're infecting your self with the virus in the hopes that your body will produce the antibodies to fight off the virus. But what if you are in the early stages of the virus. What if you have a weak immune system. What if the virus' are tainted? Or too concentrated? What if you already have traces of the virus, but it just hasn't taken yet?

You don't just hope your body produce antibodies that's how a vaccine works.
It provokes you immune system into producing the right antibodies.
It's the exact same as how your body normally fights a virus except you don't suffer the same symptoms and there's a lot less of the virus in your body.

Many diseases that are vaccinated against are quite dangerous. Mumps and polio for instance. So it's much much better to fight the disease before any symptoms can do damage.

Further more there are a few people who can't be vaccinated (very young infants and people with underlying conditions) these people rely on the majority of people not having the disease.

And the vast vast majority of vaccines are safe and in the right dosages and free of contaminants.

Slugs wrote: »

I know these are all variables and with anything there're risks, I just think by taking the vaccines you're increasing the risks of contracting the virus. I mean come on, you don't break your own leg on purpose so that in the future, when you break your leg unintentionally, it'll be easier to deal with. That's just plain stupid.

But you don't get immunity from leg breaking by pre breaking your leg.
It's a bad analogy.

It's more like once you have the chicken pox you increase the risk of contracting it later in life.
Oh wait...

By taking vaccines you don't increase the risk of contracting the virus at all.
In fact it's the opposite. When you do come into contact with the virus you're far far more likely to be able to fight it off because your immune system will already have the antibodies necessary to fight the virus thus leaving you with less exposure to active viral antigens and you will not suffer the symptoms of the virus which sometime could lead to complications like pneumonia.