Get flu jab or be jailed - in IRELAND

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

Again I under stand that. But the death number is only confirmed cases as well aren't they?

The document you linked to stresses that the number of reported cases will be underreported. It does not stress that the number of reported deaths will be underreported.

It mentions that the Americans and Europe have stopped supplying figures for total cases. It does not say that they have stopped supplying figures for deaths.

Its your source. You can either accept what it says, or not. If you don't accept what it says, then the figure you took from it is not one you trust. If you do accept what it says, then accept what it says...the reported cases figure is too low. It does not say that the total deaths is too low in any sort of comparable manner.

Getting back somewhat on topic, don't you find it somewhat ironic that on one hand you're arguing against someone who you suggest is fearmongering, and on the other hand you're trying to defend a figure that you calculated by ignoring the detail surrounding the numbers you used....a figure that is, effectively, sensationalist.

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

The document you linked to stresses that the number of reported cases will be underreported. It does not stress that the number of reported deaths will be underreported.

It mentions that the Americans and Europe have stopped supplying figures for total cases. It does not say that they have stopped supplying figures for deaths.

Its your source. You can either accept what it says, or not. If you don't accept what it says, then the figure you took from it is not one you trust. If you do accept what it says, then accept what it says...the reported cases figure is too low. It does not say that the total deaths is too low in any sort of comparable manner.

I was under the impression that the figure wasn't that far off from the true figure when I quoted it from wikipedia.
But looking more into it I have to agree with you that the figure I gave was wrong.

What I don't understand is the discrepancy between the other two figures.

bonkey wrote: »

Getting back somewhat on topic, don't you find it somewhat ironic that on one hand you're arguing against someone who you suggest is fearmongering, and on the other hand you're trying to defend a figure that you calculated by ignoring the detail surrounding the numbers you used....a figure that is, effectively, sensationalist.

It was an honest mistake. I freely admit it and am not trying to rationalise the mistake.
It was lazy of me to just lift the figure from wikipedia.

Diogenes

King Mob wrote: »

It was an honest mistake. I freely admit it and am not trying to rationalise the mistake.
It was lazy of me to just lift the figure from wikipedia.

Its always respectable when someone admits an honest mistake.

Cipher

I'm new to this part of boards.

I'm wondering if anyone was aware that Baxter Pharma applied for the patent on the H1N1 virus in August 2008, not sure whether i can link to the patent.

Also the first outbreak occured within 50km of the Baxter plant in Mexico.

I'm not one for conspiracies usually but it posses some questions.

King Mob

Cipher wrote: »

I'm wondering if anyone was aware that Baxter Pharma applied for the patent on the H1N1 virus in August 2008, not sure whether i can link to the patent.

No, they filed a patent for a process to produce vaccines for several different strains of the flu including H2N2, H3N2, H5N1, H7N7, H1N2 and many others not just this particular strain.

The conspiracy site tend to leave little details like that out.

Cipher wrote: »

Also the first outbreak occured within 50km of the Baxter plant in Mexico.

I'd also bet money it was within 50km of a church too.

Cipher

King Mob wrote: »

I'd also bet money it was within 50km of a church too.

dont recall churches creating vaccines for H1N1

King Mob

Cipher wrote: »

dont recall churches creating vaccines for H1N1

Well given the fact the sites that claims that a Lab was within 50 Km is the same sites that completely misrepresent the patent, I would be very wary of the claim.

Cipher

King Mob, i have to agree with your viewpoint.

People do leave out information to further their standpoint.

I just find it suspect considering their past actions.

King Mob

Cipher wrote: »

King Mob, i have to agree with your viewpoint.

People do leave out information to further their standpoint.

I just find it suspect considering their past actions.

So then why are you buying what the conspiracy sites say considering their past actions (Ie spreading misinformation)?

Cipher

King Mob wrote: »

So then why are you buying what the conspiracy sites say considering their past actions (Ie spreading misinformation)?

I just stated it posed some questions, which it did. I didn't buy anything.

King Mob

Cipher wrote: »

I just stated it posed some questions, which it did. I didn't buy anything.

What posed questions exactly?

That they applied for a patent that in no way required them to have foreknowledge of this current strain of the swine flu?
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Baxter%20Vaccine%20Patent%20Application.pdf

This poses it's own questions.
Such as, if they where involved in some kind of plot why the hell would they put a patent on their vaccine and make the paper work available to anyone with an internet connection?

Or is it the unsubstantiated claim that there was a lab near the initial outbreak that raises your questions?

This too raises even more questions.
Why would they release the virus so close to one of their labs and not some where it couldn't be traced back to them?

Cipher

King Mob wrote: »

What posed questions exactly?

That they applied for a patent that in no way required them to have foreknowledge of this current strain of the swine flu?
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Baxter%20Vaccine%20Patent%20Application.pdf

This poses it's own questions.
Such as, if they where involved in some kind of plot why the hell would they put a patent on their vaccine and make the paper work available to anyone with an internet connection?

Or is it the unsubstantiated claim that there was a lab near the initial outbreak that raises your questions?

This too raises even more questions.
Why would they release the virus so close to one of their labs and not some where it couldn't be traced back to them?

I see 4 questions in your above statement.

Cipher

King i'm not disagreeing with what you say.

But it's only when someone argues a point against the case that you can see things in a different light.

Your questions argue the case well and is food for taught.

King Mob

Cipher wrote: »

I see 4 questions in your above statement.

Yes but I'm asking why the non facts you posted posed questions to you?

My questions point out the implied answer to your questions (that it's a conspiracy) makes no sense.

Now seeing that both of the issues you raised are either misrepresented or unsubstantiated to you think that they still raise questions?

Cipher

Both issues raised:
1. a patent filed for production of a vaccine(H1N1)
2. release of intital case within 50km of Baxter plant.

There maybe additional data that could be tagged to issue 1, as you stated for the patent on other strains, but i cant see how they are unsubstantiated.

I didnt say that Baxter played any part in the production of the virus or it's release, just maybe coincidental.

Cipher

Also, how are either issues, non fact.

When you break them down, they clearly are fact.

King Mob

Cipher wrote: »

Both issues raised:
1. a patent filed for production of a vaccine(H1N1)
2. release of intital case within 50km of Baxter plant.

There maybe additional data that could be tagged to issue 1, as you stated for the patent on other strains, but i cant see how they are unsubstantiated.

1. A patent filed for a process of producing vaccines for a wide variety of flu subtypes.
Not for just this particular strain.
If you actually read the freely available patent you can see that the process uses a sample of any particular flu to produce a vaccine for that strain.
You don't need to know the exact makeup of the particular strain to develop the process.

The patent doesn't indicate that they had foreknowledge of any upcoming pandemic. But conspiracy sites claim it does anyway, and the leave out important information to reinforce this idea. This makes this misinformation.

2. Conspiracy sites claim that there was a lab within 50 km of the initial outbreak.
They don't back this up with any evidence. It is an unsubstantiated claim.

Cipher wrote: »

I didnt say that Baxter played any part in the production of the virus or it's release, just maybe coincidental.

So then what questions are you raising exactly?
Cause claiming that the initial outbreak was close to a baxter lab implies that they are responsible for the release.

Cipher wrote: »

Also, how are either issues, non fact.

When you break them down, they clearly are fact.

Nope one claim is a misrepresentation of facts the other is an unsubstantiated claim.
I wouldn't call either claim "fact".

Cipher

King Mob wrote: »

2. Conspiracy sites claim that there was a lab within 50 km of the initial outbreak.
They don't back this up with any evidence. It is an unsubstantiated claim.

So then what questions are you raising exactly?
Cause claiming that the initial outbreak was close to a baxter lab implies that they are responsible for the release.


Nope one claim is a misrepresentation of facts the other is an unsubstantiated claim.
I wouldn't call either claim "fact".

Original location of the outbreak was stated as being in Veracruz, Mexico.
Baxter Pharma has a plant at Cuernavaca, Mexico.

Not a million miles away.

King Mob

Cipher wrote: »

Original location of the outbreak was stated as being in Veracruz, Mexico.
Baxter Pharma has a plant at Cuernavaca, Mexico.

Not a million miles away.

And two minutes on google maps shows that Veracruz is well well over 50 km from Cuernavaca.
In fact it's closer to 300 km.

I wonder how many other pharma companies are within that radius?
Or any other possible source of swine flu.
Like pigs.

IrelandSpirit

Diogenes wrote: »

The threa title is "get a flu jab or jailed' its dishonest to claim this thread isn't about fearmongering about vaccines.

Oh and "we" haven't conclusively proved anything. You have conclusively proved to be scarmongering other posters have proved that you haven't the first clue about this. And Finally all has been proved is that the WHO have asked for powers in case of dire emergency. Theres no legal frame work for it.

You clearly haven't been reading how clearly you've been pwn'd on this thread, repeatedly.

Ridiculous. You clearly don't know what you're talking about and have again debased yourself casting inane accusations and insults rather than looking at the facts. The thread title is 'Get flu jab or be jailed - in IRELAND' and it HAS been proved that the legal framework is in place. I am not being dishonest, I am not fearmongering. Read back, you'll see that's true and you'll also see I have been genuinely concerned over this issue, and have expressed those concerns but I never once made claims that those concerns ARE GOING TO BE REALISED - I merely discussed various scenarios where such measures could be implemented in the light of the global mass panic over swine flu. That's what I thought this thread was supposed to be about, no? Cos if it's about slagging each other off then just say so and believe me I'll give you a thrashing you'll never forget - if you want I'll happily start up a new thread for the purpose.

So lets put this 'lurid' 'dishonest' 'fearmongering' baby to rest, who's fearmongering about swine flu here?

Swine flu appeared in April, and by the end of the month the WHO had already upped its pandemic level alert to phase 5 - and by June the entire world's in phase 6 emergency with special emergency helplines being set up; governments placing huge orders for vaccines and buying enough to inoculate entire populations (twice over in cases); and with officials and so-called experts claiming that the swine flu is "unstoppable" and similar to the 1918 Spanish Flu - the worst infectious disease outbreak in known history estimated to have killed more than 60 million people worldwide - and yet the death rate for swine flu was (and still is) substantially lower than the seasonal flu. In fact by April more than 13,000 had already died from seasonal flu in America alone, and as we've previously discussed the worldwide total of deaths is generally around 250,000 to 500,000 a year.

As of November there are around 8,000 confirmed deaths from swine flu worldwide.

If the fears over swine flu are founded and comparable to the seasonal flu, then surely the seasonal flu should at least be treated with equal consideration, either that, or the government have shirked their responsibility for public health in favour of a less virulent disease (for some unknown reason) or they've totally ignored the scientific evidence (for some unknown reason) and succumbed to media fearmongering (for some unknown reason) or they somehow believe swine flu will become more virulent in the future (for some unknown reason).

A lot of 'unknowns' begets a lot of questions, but one thing we know for sure is that the WHO finger is still firmly on the swine flu panic button, and personally, I can't help but find this entire high profile vaccination program fecking strange, considering the fact that it is a comparably mild pandemic and in most cases people recover unaided. A lot of things simply don't add up and unless you look at it in terms of fearmongering - for example, a friend last night (midwife) pointed out that the placenta already offers the unborn very high levels of natural protection against infection - and something I didn't know and which came as a bit of a surprise - reading the CDC website earlier it appears that: "Currently, there have been no reports of 2009 H1N1 virus infection in the foetus transmitted via the placenta."

http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1flu/guidance/obstetric.htm

And yet pregnant women are in the high risk category and first in line for vaccination, why? Is pregnancy an illness? Just because they're pregnant doesn't necessarily mean their ability to fight off infection is compromised; all that does is create the fear that they're risking the life of their unborn child unless they submit to the jab.

Pregnant women are naturally very protective and sensitive to concerns surrounding their pregnancy, and I've yet to find an official comment in the mass media here espousing the simple fact: "there have been no reports of 2009 H1N1 virus infection in the foetus transmitted via the placenta." And as I've already explained, it's quite likely at this stage that I. and a lot of people we know have already had swine flu and probably not even realised what it was. How's that fearmongering?

I've also acknowledged that the countries involved (and allegedly involved) in planning mandatory vaccination programs have apparently backed out, but considering the exceptional paranoia being generated over this virus, that alone does not mean plans were not in place, or that plans are not currently in place.

Obviously it can't be conclusively proved or disproved at this stage, unless someone digs up the evidence if it exists or gets hold of their private emails (like those hackers who recently exposed scientists lying about global warming) but with media fearmongering of second (and third) deadly waves coming, it seems more likely to me that plans are in place. Sorry, but that's just how my mind works. And If there hasn't been a precedent for mandatory vaccinations, it only supports the notion further due to the unprecedented fear (hysteria) over this whole swine flu issue in general.


Now, explain to me what you meant, how I'm being 'dishonest' and 'fearmongering' in any of this.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And yet pregnant women are in the high risk category and first in line for vaccination, why? Is pregnancy an illness? Just because they're pregnant doesn't necessarily mean their ability to fight off infection is compromised; all that does is create the fear that they're risking the life of their unborn child unless they submit to the jab.

You realise that pregnant women are advised to get the vaccine every year right?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Pregnant women are naturally very protective and sensitive to concerns surrounding their pregnancy, and I've yet to find an official comment in the mass media here espousing the simple fact: "there have been no reports of 2009 H1N1 virus infection in the foetus transmitted via the placenta." And as I've already explained, it's quite likely at this stage that I. and a lot of people we know have already had swine flu and probably not even realised what it was. How's that fearmongering?

So pregnant women get their medical advice from the mass media now?
And you've just said that actual medical professionals and agencies put those fears to rest.

Seriously dude you're picking semantic arguments, taking things out of context, using lack of understanding about medicine and making wild assumptions to argue that government agencies are acting suspicious.
And you're saying that because they are acting suspicious that means they plan to make vaccinations mandatory for some evil purpose.

You are not presenting facts, you are presenting paranoia and suspicion as fact.
In my opinion that is fear mongering.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

You realise that pregnant women are advised to get the vaccine every year right?

So pregnant women get their medical advice from the mass media now?
And you've just said that actual medical professionals and agencies put those fears to rest.

Seriously dude you're picking semantic arguments, taking things out of context, using lack of understanding about medicine and making wild assumptions to argue that government agencies are acting suspicious.
And you're saying that because they are acting suspicious that means they plan to make vaccinations mandatory for some evil purpose.

You are not presenting facts, you are presenting paranoia and suspicion as fact.
In my opinion that is fear mongering.

Jeezus, you're one for twisting people's words around and conveniently avoiding the issue, arent ya! lol Ok, see how you like it.

I do realise that pregnant women are advised to get the vaccine every year, but not every day for months on end in mass media and this scaremongering manor.

So you're saying pregnant women don't listen to medical advice from the mass media now? lol

And if the actual medical professionals and agencies put those fears to rest, then why aren't they commonly known?

Seriously dude you're picking semantic arguments, taking things out of context, using lack of understanding about medicine and making wild assumptions to argue that government agencies are not acting suspicious.

I'm saying the media is omitting certain facts, creating paranoia and suspicion and in my opinion that is fearmongering and there could yet be plans to make vaccinations mandatory.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Jeezus, you're one for twisting people's words around and conveniently avoiding the issue, arent ya! lol Ok, see how you like it.

I do realise that pregnant women are advised to get the vaccine every year, but not every day for months on end in mass media and this scaremongering manor.

What scaremongering manner? Show one credible source claiming everyday for months that not having a vaccine is putting you baby at risk.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

So you're saying pregnant women don't listen to medical advice from the mass media now? lol

And if the actual medical professionals and agencies put those fears to rest, then why aren't they commonly known?

You just showed a CDC press release saying that H1N1 has not been observed to transfer from mother to child.
You also claimed that a midwife you knew said the exact same thing.
So it's not a long bet to imagine that doctors would know this and tell their patient.

And if a mother isn't visiting a doctor and getting advice by watching the more sensational news, swine flu is the least of her worries.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Seriously dude you're picking semantic arguments, taking things out of context, using lack of understanding about medicine and making wild assumptions to argue that government agencies are not acting suspicious.

What wild assumptions am I making exactly?
That doctors and the government aren't super-villains?

What have I taken out of context?
When have I displayed a lack of understanding about medicine?

I can easily point out where you do all these things.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I'm saying the media is omitting certain facts, creating paranoia and suspicion and in my opinion that is fearmongering and there could yet be plans to make vaccinations mandatory.

Oh look there's an assumption!
That the media is totally controlled by the government.

And at worst all you've shown the media has done is sensationalise swine flu.
I haven't seen a jot of evidence that they are "creating paranoia and suspicion".

In fact that seems to be what you're doing.
You omitted the fact that pregnant women are advised to get vaccinated every year and omitted the fact why they do.
You're creating suspicion by claiming the government and the media are conspiring together to spread false information.
You're spreading paranoia by claiming that "there could yet be plans to make vaccinations mandatory" despite having no evidence at all that there is.

So how is what you're doing not scaremongering?

IrelandSpirit

Can't we just explore possibilities that are not in the mainstream for once? You're sounding a little paranoid, seriously, not everybody who has an opinion contrary to you is scaremongering.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Can't we just explore possibilities that are not in the mainstream for once? You're sounding a little paranoid, seriously, not everybody who has an opinion contrary to you is scaremongering.

This has nothing to do with "the mainstream".

It's about the fact that you're claiming that the media and government are scaremongering on one hand then claiming that they are conspiring together with drug companies to force you to take the vaccine.

How does that make sense?

IrelandSpirit

I've explained how it makes sense to me, and you're making it practically impossible for us to engage in any coherent discussion - I'm not going over it all again and again and again...

Good night.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I've explained how it makes sense to me, and you're making it practically impossible for us to engage in any coherent discussion - I'm not going over it all again and again and again...

Good night.

Here's the thing, you constantly claim the government and media are scaremongering.
You then use complete scaremongering yourself.

This doesn't make sense.

The only reason (and you have admitted this yourself) you have to believe any of the claims you've made or suggested, is your own personal paranoia.

Now if this was someone else making the claims based on the similar reasons do you think that it would be a solid reason to believe any of the claims?

imstrongerthanu

A Russian deputy of the Duma has called for Russia to withdraw from the WHO if an investigation into the alleged collusion between the WHO and pharmaceutical companies on the swine flu scandal proves to be accurate, according to reports in the European media.

Then a train gets bombed, hmmm.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

Here's the thing, you constantly claim the government and media are scaremongering.
You then use complete scaremongering yourself.

This doesn't make sense.

The only reason (and you have admitted this yourself) you have to believe any of the claims you've made or suggested, is your own personal paranoia.

Now if this was someone else making the claims based on the similar reasons do you think that it would be a solid reason to believe any of the claims?

Fine, I will reiterate.

If the fears over swine flu are founded and comparable to the seasonal flu, then surely the seasonal flu should at least be treated with equal consideration, either that, or the government have shirked their responsibility for public health in favour of a less virulent disease (for some unknown reason) or they've totally ignored the scientific evidence (for some unknown reason) and succumbed to media fearmongering (for some unknown reason) or they somehow believe swine flu will become more virulent in the future (for some unknown reason).

A lot of 'unknowns' begets a lot of questions, but one thing we know for sure is that the WHO finger is still firmly on the swine flu panic button, and personally, I can't help but find this entire high profile vaccination program fecking strange, considering the fact that it is a comparably mild pandemic and in most cases people recover unaided.

Calling me paranoid and accusing me of fearmongering doesn't alter the fact that seasonal flu is more virulent than swine flu, and that the last nine months we've had this WHO/media/gov global panic over swine flu. It's an ongoiing campaign, a total assult. I am not being paranoid, I am not fearmongering - it is fact.

Ask anybody on the street which of the two types of influenza is more virulent, swine flu or seasonal flu, and the overwhelming majority will say swine flu.

We're being conditioned to accept a complete falsehood, President Obomber even declared a state of national emergency over swine flu (the same week the courts ruled in favour of NY health workers' against mandatory vaccination), and if you could just think outside the box for a moment it's not too difficult to see where all their fearmongering could all be heading.

tony 2 tone

Where did you come across this "fact" that the Swine flu is less virulent than the seasonal flu?

IrelandSpirit

tony 2 tone wrote: »

Where did you come across this "fact" that the Swine flu is less virulent than the seasonal flu?

I'm not surprised you didn't know swine flu's less virulent, it's not a well-known fact due to the way it's all been handled, but check and compare figures with WHO, CDC, etc

IrelandSpirit

imstrongerthanu wrote: »

A Russian deputy of the Duma has called for Russia to withdraw from the WHO if an investigation into the alleged collusion between the WHO and pharmaceutical companies on the swine flu scandal proves to be accurate, according to reports in the European media.

Then a train gets bombed, hmmm.

Interesting, will check that out, thanks

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If the fears over swine flu are founded and comparable to the seasonal flu, then surely the seasonal flu should at least be treated with equal consideration, either that, or the government have shirked their responsibility for public health in favour of a less virulent disease (for some unknown reason) or they've totally ignored the scientific evidence (for some unknown reason) and succumbed to media fearmongering (for some unknown reason) or they somehow believe swine flu will become more virulent in the future (for some unknown reason).

And we've pointed out to you several times, the seasonal flu is an annual occurrence. The media can't really sensationalise something that happens every year.

And what do you mean "shirked their responsibility"?
Have they stop giving the seasonal vaccine?

So why don't you see the same panic about mandatory vaccinations and vaccine safety every year?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

A lot of 'unknowns' begets a lot of questions, but one thing we know for sure is that the WHO finger is still firmly on the swine flu panic button, and personally, I can't help but find this entire high profile vaccination program fecking strange, considering the fact that it is a comparably mild pandemic and in most cases people recover unaided.

So unknowns equal vast global conspiracy?

And again you are confusing the WHO with the media.
All the press releases about the swine flu aren't scaremongering.

The closest thing you've shown to scaremongering is "they increased it to a level 6".
But we've shown you don't understand what that term means.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Calling me paranoid and accusing me of fearmongering doesn't alter the fact that seasonal flu is more virulent than swine flu, and that the last nine months we've had this WHO/media/gov global panic over swine flu. It's an ongoiing campaign, a total assult. I am not being paranoid, I am not fearmongering - it is fact.

You're not paranoid or fearmongering but the WHO, the governments and the media are all out to get us?
Do you not see the contradiction?

If they were trying to cause panic, why aren't they saying the virus is more virulent? Why don't they alter the statistics?
How can it be a total assault if they aren't doing this?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Ask anybody on the street which of the two types of influenza is more virulent, swine flu or seasonal flu, and the overwhelming majority will say swine flu.

So? All it shows is that most people don't look into the facts properly.
I'm sure that the majority of people will say they won't be getting the vaccine either.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

We're being conditioned to accept a complete falsehood, President Obomber even declared a state of national emergency over swine flu (the same week the courts ruled in favour of NY health workers' against mandatory vaccination), and if you could just think outside the box for a moment it's not too difficult to see where all their fearmongering could all be heading.

No he didn't.

And why if the government wanted to force vaccinations did the court rule against them?

The actual facts are a new strain of flu has emerged. There was no vaccine. The WHO tracked and monitored the flu. A vaccine is developed. The Who recommends people should get it to protect those at risk for the flu just like they do with the seasonal flu. The media sensationalises the story.

What you however infer from these facts is that the WHO the media and the government are all working together to force people to have the vaccine, and that mandatory vaccines are inevitable.

Now the only evidence you have to believe any of this is your personal paranoia as you have said many times.

You're looking for any anomaly you personally can't explain and latching on to it a proof of your presupposed notion that the government wants to enforce mandatory vaccinations.
And despite these anomalies being explained to you, you still latch onto them because you believe that a vast global conspiracy is still more likely than a newspaper scaremongering.

Your position is not based on evidence or reasoning, just paranoia.

IrelandSpirit

Change the record, please King Mob, you're really beginning to sound a little crazy continuously accusing me of this; knowingly spreading false information and fearmongering are serious accusations, when all you've been doing is adhering religiously to the mainstream party line, which based on the evidence you're conveniently ignoring does amount to fearmongering. You only need to do a quick google search comparison between the two to get some idea of the mass media effectiveness.

33,300,000 for "Swine Flu Vaccine".

6,900,000 for "Seasonal Flu Vaccine".

It's had a huge impact on the global psyche and for such a new subject.

And if they're warning us that the swine flu vaccine isn't safe for children under 6 months of age, then how on earth is it be safe for pregnant women and their babies? That doesn't make any sense, does it?

There's nothing wrong in keeping an open mind on the subject. Yes I think it could yet become mandatory, if swine flu becomes more deadly (or is perceived to become more deadly), though it would no longer be the same H1N1. Something to keep in mind in regards this current vaccination program too.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Change the record, please King Mob, you're really beginning to sound a little crazy continuously accusing me of this; knowingly spreading false information and fearmongering are serious accusations, when all you've been doing is adhering religiously to the mainstream party line, which based on the evidence you're conveniently ignoring does amount to fearmongering.

You are saying that the Government the WHO and the media are conspiring together to force us to be vaccinated so you shouldn't trust them or the vaccine.
How is this not fearmongering?

And you haven't provided anything that shows the WHO or the government are scaremongering, just that the media is sensationalising.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You only need to do a quick google search comparison between the two to get some idea of the mass media effectiveness.

33,300,000 for "Swine Flu Vaccine".

6,900,000 for "Seasonal Flu Vaccine".

It's had a huge impact on the global psyche and for such a new subject.

And how many of those hits are from conspiracy sites about the safety of the vaccine and other such nonsense I wonder?

So why isn't there the same accusations about safety and mandatory vaccines every year?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And if they're warning us that the swine flu vaccine isn't safe for children under 6 months of age, then how on earth is it be safe for pregnant women and their babies? That doesn't make any sense, does it?

How come milk isn't safe for young children?

But didn't you say a few posts ago that the placenta is a great natural barrier and that the swine flu doesn't transmit through it?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

There's nothing wrong in keeping an open mind on the subject. Yes I think it could yet become mandatory, if swine flu becomes more deadly (or is perceived to become more deadly), though it would no longer be the same H1N1. Something to keep in mind in regards this current vaccination program too.

And it shows exactly how much you know.
Even if the swine flu becomes more deadly it's still H1N1 and it will have the same antigens for the immune system to work on.

Speaking of open minds, is there any evidence or reasoning that could convince you that the government/WHO aren't trying to force vaccinations?

6th

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Change the record, please King Mob, you're really beginning to sound a little crazy

You know the bit in the charter about respecting other posters? (Rhetorical).

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

There's nothing wrong in keeping an open mind on the subject.

Absolutely not.
But all of your arguments really amount to this: 'the media hype sh!t up'. Which of course they do.

But once you remove any references to what the media are saying and stick to what the authorities are actually saying, pretty much all of your fears fade away.

Undergod

The reason that we hear so much more about the swine flu is, as KM pointed out, the media can make more money talking about the new flu than by talking about the seasonal one. People want to hear more about the swine flu anyway.

The government and the agencies seem to have issued a pretty reasonable amount of quite reasonable information.

Slozer

King Mob wrote: »

You are saying that the Government the WHO and the media are conspiring together to force us to be vaccinated so you shouldn't trust them or the vaccine.
How is this not fearmongering?

And you haven't provided anything that shows the WHO or the government are scaremongering, just that the media is sensationalising.

Whats this?

Samsun09 wrote: »

"A HSE spokeswoman said "The position is that the Department is satisfied that the provisions in the 1947 Health Act for the control and management of infectious diseases gives it sufficient powers to deal with a pandemic outbreak". The Act also states that anyone who willfully obstructs the execution of a regulation-such as compulsory vaccination-shall be liable for conviction in court".

Lets take the facts.

1. Governments lie and cover up(see History).
2. Vaccines and Immunizations are generally untested. ie they dont go throught the rigirous controls that surround other drugs before they are deemed to be acceptable to be taken by humans.

I dont like being treatened or told I should take something and for that reason among others I will not be having this vaccine.

Also you completely disregard others comments on here with a tone of "I am right and you are wrong" I suggest you take on board others comments and digest them.

humanji

Slozer wrote: »

Whats this?

That's not the government scaremongering. That's someone pointing out a provision that's in our constitution. They aren't saying it'll be implemented, only that it's there.

Slozer wrote: »

Lets take the facts.

1. Governments lie and cover up(see History).

Have you ever told a lie? Because by your logic, if you ever have, then everything you say must be taken as a lie.

Slozer wrote: »

2. Vaccines and Immunizations are generally untested. ie they dont go throught the rigirous controls that surround other drugs before they are deemed to be acceptable to be taken by humans.

Where did you hear that?

Slozer wrote: »

I dont like being treatened or told I should take something and for that reason among others I will not be having this vaccine.

You are not being threatened. And you are not being told to take the vaccine "or else!". You're being told that if you are in one of the groups where the virus poses a danger, then you should take it and if you're not, then the vaccine will be available if you choose to take it.

King Mob

Slozer wrote: »

Whats this?

An out of context quote?

Slozer wrote: »

Lets take the facts.

1. Governments lie and cover up(see History).

Yes they do. However there is no evidence (and arguably contradictory evidence) that they are covering up anything about the swine flu the vaccine or plans for mandatory vaccination.
So I don't see what makes this a "fact" in the matter.

Slozer wrote: »

2. Vaccines and Immunizations are generally untested. ie they dont go throught the rigirous controls that surround other drugs before they are deemed to be acceptable to be taken by humans.

And that's simply not a fact by any stretch.

Slozer wrote: »

I dont like being treatened or told I should take something and for that reason among others I will not be having this vaccine.

But you will be threatened by the people claiming the vaccine is unsafe?

That's the question I keep asking: why are people going on about the government allegedly scaremongering then either scaremonger themselves or say that they has bought into scaremongering from the Antivaxxers.

Slozer wrote: »

Also you completely disregard others comments on here with a tone of "I am right and you are wrong" I suggest you take on board others comments and digest them.

I'm only disregarding unsubstantiated claims, biased opinion and out right paranoia.
Oh wait......

Undergod

"A HSE spokeswoman said "The position is that the Department is satisfied that the provisions in the 1947 Health Act for the control and management of infectious diseases gives it sufficient powers to deal with a pandemic outbreak". The Act also states that anyone who willfully obstructs the execution of a regulation-such as compulsory vaccination-shall be liable for conviction in court".

Seems to be that it'd be for people who are preventing others from receiving the vaccine rather than refusing to take it themselves. Could be wrong here.