H1N1 / Vaccination : Read before posting

bonkey

Posting as mod

It should go without saying, but this is the Conspiracy Theories forum - a forum for the discussion of Conspiracy Theories.

The ongoing H1N1 pandemic has led to a number of threads, most recently surrounding the various vaccination programs. Almost without exception, these threads have all ended up being either a discussion of something other than a conspiracy theory.

This is not a medical forum. It is not the appropriate place to be discussing medical issues. If you want to discuss your opinions on the safety or otherwise of a vaccine, this is not the forum for it.

This is not a sub-forum of Politics. If you want to criticise some government's policies or handling of issues relating to the pandemic, this is not the forum for it.

Do not start threads to discuss such topics.
Do not contribute to threads, in order to discuss such topics.

These rules apply to everyone, regardless of whether you are defending or criticising current policy or events.

bonkey

I've left this thread open, because I fully expect that someone will want to argue that this policy is unfair. Do so here....but please bear in mind that the statement outlined above will apply to your post.

Do not use this thread to launch into an attack or defence of medical or political issues regarding the pandemic. If you can't state your case without doing that, then don't post.

Penn

So if a conspiracy theory is set out to establish if the NWO or whatever are trying to reduce the population but killing people with this vaccine, this is acceptable, right?

But surely in the process of discussing that, the contents of the vaccine have to be discussed to see if there is anything harmful in it? I know this is a medical/chemistry topic, but it falls under the umbrella of the main topic being a conspiracy of governmental control etc

Same way, when discussing 9/11, a lot of discussion normally takes place on the structures of the towers, and if they could collapse without controlled demolition. But this isn't the engineering forum.

I'm not saying your policy is unfair, far from it. I just think a bit more clarification on whats acceptable and not may be required

robtri

thanks be to god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bonkey

So if a conspiracy theory is set out to establish if the NWO or whatever are trying to reduce the population but killing people with this vaccine, this is acceptable, right?

I'd provisionally consider that to be acceptable, yes.

But surely in the process of discussing that, the contents of the vaccine have to be discussed to see if there is anything harmful in it?

Not exactly. What would need to be discussed is whether or not there's something that's massively deadly in it. If someone wants to allege population reduction, then they need something that's going to kill off large numbers of the population. A discsusion on those lines is fine. What would not be fine, however, is discussing whether or not some of the ingredients might have some side-effects (of whatever nature) on comparatively tiny proportions of the population.

If someone tries to make that case, I expect that the discussion will first revolve around how such a tiny effect could possibly have the end-result claimed before we turn to looking at whether or not the effect is even possible.

Same way, when discussing 9/11, a lot of discussion normally takes place on the structures of the towers, and if they could collapse without controlled demolition. But this isn't the engineering forum.

Yes, but boards.ie doesn't have any issues with advising people whether or not they should go into skyscrapers. It does, however, have a blanket policy covering medical advice. I've become increasingly unhappy that the discussions here are being used as nothing more than a vehicle for people to argue their pet fears about the pandemic. I am increasingly of the opinion that this is (at least partly) because they believe others should take such fears into consideration when making a medical decision.

The line of where we cross into "medical advice" is too blurry to begin with and these discussions have had no real connection to any conspiracy theory. As a result, I'm moving where we've drawn the line. From this point forward, I expect the focus to be on the conspiracy theory.

If someone wants to make a claim regarding the safety or danger of something, I expect them first to set out what it is they're saying. Some blurry idea of having no idea how many people could be effected, how the might be effected, or to what end isn't a conspiracy theory, its just wild speculation.

Lets put the focus back where it should be.

If someone can stake their territory firmly enough....if someone could show, for example, that if effect A was caused to some amount (B) of the population, that it would fit with C (the conspiracy theory), then we have a framework to discuss what could cause effect A to the amount (B) of the population suggested. If the claims suddenly shift to "well we know it might cause X to some much smaller amomount Y of the population...", then its obvious where we're headed, isn't it.

This isn't an excuse, incidentally, for people making wild claims and then falling back on the defence that they can't be asked to back them up. If we head down that road, we'll revise the policy and issue a blanket-ban on the topic.

Diogenes

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Same way, when discussing 9/11, a lot of discussion normally takes place on the structures of the towers, and if they could collapse without controlled demolition. But this isn't the engineering forum.

I'm not saying your policy is unfair, far from it. I just think a bit more clarification on whats acceptable and not may be required

A spurious and yet at the same time valid analogy.

Considering how ass backward the claims from conspiracy theorist about the structure of the towards are (for example Richard Gage leader of "Architects and Engineers for truth, claims that the towers each resemble three cardboard boxes ontop of each other) it's an excellent analogy for the nonsense spread here by the anti vaccination crowd.

If you went onto a building or engineering webforum and offered advise that contravened health and safety standard or basic engineering standards, claiming that all of the above was a pure conspiracy by the construction industry, you'd not last four minutes.

However nothing here could be misconstrued as engineering or architecture advise, I sincerely doubt (and indeed pray) that no one will redraft skyscraper plans based on what they read on an internet forum, however someone could, and indeed do rethink their own personal health on what they read on the internet, however well or ill informed what they are reading is based on.

Over the past few weeks we've had people essentially saying "if you love your family for the love of god don't take let them take the vaccine" that's not a medical opinion its pure emotional blackmail.

Furthermore posting about medical advice is against the boards charter.

Just a suggestion, if you're worried about the vaccine speak to your family GP. And hey if you're not satisfied, heres shocking idea don't get the vaccine. As has been shown again and again on this thread any idea of a mandatory vaccine never even made it to the table.

bonkey

Diogenes wrote: »

Over the past few weeks we've had people essentially saying "if you love your family for the love of god don't take let them take the vaccine" that's not a medical opinion its pure emotional blackmail.

Furthermore posting about medical advice is against the boards charter.

Just a suggestion, if you're worried about the vaccine speak to your family GP. And hey if you're not satisfied, heres shocking idea don't get the vaccine. As has been shown again and again on this thread any idea of a mandatory vaccine never even made it to the table.

Which part of teh following did you not understand?

It is not the appropriate place to be discussing medical issues. If you want to discuss your opinions on the safety or otherwise of a vaccine, this is not the forum for it.
...
Do not contribute to threads, in order to discuss such topics.
...
These rules apply to everyone, regardless of whether you are defending or criticising current policy or events.


You're dredging up exactly the argument I said was out of bounds.

Its not "out of bounds" in teh sense that you get to criticise it and others don't get to defend themselves. Its out of bounds in the sense that no-one gets to post their opinions pro or contra....the sense that its out of bounds.

As the first person to step over that line, you get a yellow.
No more yellows.

Penn

bonkey wrote: »

I'd provisionally consider that to be acceptable, yes.


Not exactly. What would need to be discussed is whether or not there's something that's massively deadly in it. If someone wants to allege population reduction, then they need something that's going to kill off large numbers of the population. A discsusion on those lines is fine. What would not be fine, however, is discussing whether or not some of the ingredients might have some side-effects (of whatever nature) on comparatively tiny proportions of the population.

If someone tries to make that case, I expect that the discussion will first revolve around how such a tiny effect could possibly have the end-result claimed before we turn to looking at whether or not the effect is even possible.


Yes, but boards.ie doesn't have any issues with advising people whether or not they should go into skyscrapers. It does, however, have a blanket policy covering medical advice. I've become increasingly unhappy that the discussions here are being used as nothing more than a vehicle for people to argue their pet fears about the pandemic. I am increasingly of the opinion that this is (at least partly) because they believe others should take such fears into consideration when making a medical decision.

The line of where we cross into "medical advice" is too blurry to begin with and these discussions have had no real connection to any conspiracy theory. As a result, I'm moving where we've drawn the line. From this point forward, I expect the focus to be on the conspiracy theory.

If someone wants to make a claim regarding the safety or danger of something, I expect them first to set out what it is they're saying. Some blurry idea of having no idea how many people could be effected, how the might be effected, or to what end isn't a conspiracy theory, its just wild speculation.

Lets put the focus back where it should be.

If someone can stake their territory firmly enough....if someone could show, for example, that if effect A was caused to some amount (B) of the population, that it would fit with C (the conspiracy theory), then we have a framework to discuss what could cause effect A to the amount (B) of the population suggested. If the claims suddenly shift to "well we know it might cause X to some much smaller amomount Y of the population...", then its obvious where we're headed, isn't it.

This isn't an excuse, incidentally, for people making wild claims and then falling back on the defence that they can't be asked to back them up. If we head down that road, we'll revise the policy and issue a blanket-ban on the topic.

Can't ask for fairer than that

King Mob

Bonkey, to clarify, would a discussion on whether or not doctors/scientists are covering up/ making up information be acceptable?

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

Bonkey, to clarify, would a discussion on whether or not doctors/scientists are covering up/ making up information be acceptable?

Good question.

I'd expect a coherent argument on what it was they were covering up, what the aims of the coverup were, and how it was that the poster came to this conclusion.

Some idea of "this event smacks of a coverup, but I don't know what and can't figure out why, but we should all be a bit wary of X as a result" won't cut it.

I guess the best answer I can give is this...

If I, or one of the other moderators, get the impression that such a thread is being started or used to try and run-around these guidelines, so that people can restart the same lines of argumentation that have led to this stance, then we're going to step in hard.

I'm not going to try and detail everything that is and is not allowable, because thats a mugs game. We're on to a loser straight away if we do that.

If someone feels really strongly that they've a good thread (or response for a thread) but are worried it'll step over these lines, then they should either play safe and not post it, or play safe and PM it to us for an opinion.

bonkey

AS a clarification to an earlier post...

I should have cut out the part of Diogenes' quote that said "if you're worried about the vaccine speak to your family GP" when I explained why I yellow-carded him.

This comment was perfectly in order. It was the rest of what I quoted that was the issue.

Kernel

I think you're letting your personal views on the H1N1 virus and vaccination affect the natural flow of conspiracy theory related discussion on the topic. Hypothetically, if the H1N1 strain was engineered and released in order to boost pharmaceutical profit margins, then you are engaging in censorship. If it was naturally occurring and people felt that it was deliberately hyped and the vaccinations sold to governments without proper testing, then again, it should be open to discussion.

Anybody who comes onto the conspiracy theories forum for medical advice should realise that there is probably going to be a prevailing (and possibly biased) opinion with regard to vaccinations and new flu strain virii. They should do their own research, make up their own minds on whether they need the vaccine or not. But it's a worrying trend to lock all discussion on a topic on a forum such as this - I don't see the need for it either.

mysterious

Good post Kernal. We need to be more objective and self responsble. Not this wishy washy crap where we just blindly accept the powers of be/media with this info. Afterall this is a conspiracy site, lets stop been so hellbent on keeping this under the carpet. As Kernal said all factions of internal and external awareness has to be brought into our situation when it comes to the vaccine. We are the ones to make a decision not the doctor or politician.


It is our body, and we know our body best. Therefore personal view takes on it is acceptable.

tony 2 tone

Kernel wrote: »

Anybody who comes onto the conspiracy theories forum for medical advice should realise that there is probably going to be a prevailing (and possibly biased) opinion with regard to vaccinations and new flu strain virii. They should do their own research, make up their own minds on whether they need the vaccine or not. But it's a worrying trend to lock all discussion on a topic on a forum such as this - I don't see the need for it either.

I would hope people wouldn't come to a CT forum for medical advice. I feel the reason the threads are being locked is because of that, the medical advice. On the biology/health forum any threads looking for medical advice are locked right. It's not just a CT forum thing. The powers that be feel, and I agree here, that giving it out to random users from other random users would not be good for any one. They have no idea what their backround is and in what way they would use the advice. And they are covering their backs.

mysterious

tony 2 tone wrote: »

I would hope people wouldn't come to a CT forum for medical advice..

That was not what he was implying at all. But I understand his point, and thats ok for me.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

I think you're letting your personal views on the H1N1 virus and vaccination affect the natural flow of conspiracy theory related discussion on the topic.

No, I'm not. Its got nothing to do with my personal views on the H1N1 virus. Its got to do with my personal views on legal liability and responsible behaviour.

And you know what? I'll defend those. I'm answerable for those, to the people who run this site. I've already consulted the Category Mod about this, and he backs my stance 100%. That would leave the Admins, via Helpdesk. If you think I'm taking an unreasonable stance, then take it to them. If they don't support me, I'll change my position. If they do support me, then my moderation is consistent with the policies of boards.ie which its supposed to be.

So seriously Kernel...take it up with them. Go argue that I'm being unfair with the people who's legal liability for the content on this site is a prime factor in my position.

Tell you what....if they agree that I'm being unreasonable, I'll stand down alongside 6th, and I'll play no part in deciding who the new mods are.

I'm asking nothing in return....no sacrifice for you to make if they back me up. So seriously....if you really feel I'm being unreasonable, and that I'm not representing the best interests of the site....go for it.

If for any reason you're banned from Helpdesk and can't start a thread, then just give the nod to someone else to do it for you. I'll do it for you if you want.

Anybody who comes onto the conspiracy theories forum for medical advice should realise that there is probably going to be a prevailing (and possibly biased) opinion with regard to vaccinations and new flu strain virii.

Yes. I agree. They should realise that. The risk is that they don't.

mysterious wrote:

We need to be more objective and self responsble.

Exactly the problem, in fact.

By recognising that people are not "self responsible", you implicitly admit two things:

1) People could come here, and be directly influenced by what they read.
2) People post here, either aware of point 1 or not, and are making comments by which they are directly attempting to influence others.

I am not only advocating "self responsibility", I am deal with the lack of it. Posters here are attempting to influence others, under the guise of discussion....they are seeking to take advantage of others not having this "self responsibility" and they are showing no responsibility for their own actions at the same time.

If people could be trusted to take responsibility for their own actions, we wouldn't have this problem. I wouldn't have to care what anyone said, because I could trust that no-one would be influenced by it, and that no-one would be trying to influence others by what they say.

Unfortunately, that is far from the case.

I'll readily agree that I've drawn a harsh line. I've done so and yet we still see people trying to start threads which are nothing but a shallow pretext to once again wax lyrical about the dangers of H1N1 vaccines or vaccines in general...based on a complete lack of evidence.

boards.ie has never guaranteed freedom of speech, but even if it had, freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to stand up in a crowded theatre and cry fire.

The H1N1 threads to date are like someone deciding that because they've heard a rumour that some Bic lighters have exploded and they've seen people outside the theater smoking, they are fully entitled to stand up and tell people that the theater is not only in imminent danger of burning down, but that the staff are going to lock the doors and start the fires themselves.

Now you're doing the equivalent of arguing that it should be OK to stand up and cry fire, because its someone else's responsibility to see whether or not you're right, rather than being influenced by you.

Don't you find it ironic, though, that what you're basically saying is that people shouldn't believe what they read on Conspiracy Theories websites?

But it's a worrying trend to lock all discussion on a topic on a forum such as this - I don't see the need for it either.

I haven't locked all discussion. I've made it as clear as I can where the boundaries are drawn. Yes, those boundaries are harsh...because people were abusing our original, milder stance.

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Yes. I agree. They should realise that. The risk is that they don't.


Exactly the problem, in fact.I am not only advocating "self responsibility", I am deal with the lack of it. Posters here are attempting to influence others, under the guise of discussion....they are seeking to take advantage of others not having this "self responsibility" and they are showing no responsibility for their own actions at the same time.

By recognising that people are not "self responsible", you implicitly admit two things:

1) People could come here, and be directly influenced by what they read.
2) People post here, either aware of point 1 or not, and are making comments by which they are directly attempting to influence others.

Glad you see my point, but been self responsible means using your own intellegence to apply to reality and not the constant drilling mainstream science. You know I have to point this out so bluntly, as Bonkey you've (at your own unawareness) completely disrespected the fact of the matter, inrelation to self responsibility, if your going to assume or accuse that some Conspiracy theorists or people speaking their mind our influencing others, then what are skeptics doing, by following governments systems? Influnce is everywhere, and this is where self responsibilty comes into practise we are here to work this out individually. If everyone did this, the world and this thread would change in an instant.


Aren't the Governments and aka scientists influencing peoples minds also?


See how inbalanced this has become. It's quite absurd to be honest. We should be relying on our intellgence and common sense to this whole vaccine conspiracy. Nowhere did I influence others as I've always said people should make their own mind on this issue. It's about self responsibiity. People should have the right to express their view take on it and personal views are welcomed from all sides.

If people could be trusted to take responsibility for their own actions, we wouldn't have this problem. I wouldn't have to care what anyone said, because I could trust that no-one would be influenced by it, and that no-one would be trying to influence others by what they say.I'll readily agree that I've drawn a harsh line. I've done so and yet we still see people trying to start threads which are nothing but a shallow pretext to once again wax lyrical about the dangers of H1N1 vaccines or vaccines in general...based on a complete lack of evidence.

Some trust themselves Bonkey and sometimes you may not trust that, and that comes back to yourself, not the poster. This is what I mean by been objective. I have accepted both sides of the argument, but i've come to a balance view where this issue really comes down to your own decision at the end of the day. I don't see this message been brought forward, I see people and the moderation constantly locking threads, because they don't agree with the information been posed. Though I'm closed on this issue myself personally. I do think it's important what you said, but I find it even more important to point out that you bring all sides into consideration.

boards.ie has never guaranteed freedom of speech, but even if it had, freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to stand up in a crowded theatre and cry fire.

No but if people were more responsible for what they say and do free speech could be more convienant and accepted, that is however a separate issue for another topic.

The H1N1 threads to date are like someone deciding that because they've heard a rumour that some Bic lighters have exploded and they've seen people outside the theater smoking, they are fully entitled to stand up and tell people that the theater is not only in imminent danger of burning down, but that the staff are going to lock the doors and start the fires themselves.

Rumours are rumours, you can ignore them, you can pay attention to them, but putting your decision over others choices is not really the best way forward, because you may assume that its a rumour. It's good to discuss conspiraceis and rumours especially on topics like this, as dicussion gets to the bottom of things again if everyone played up to their respect and responsibility on their behalf. So again it comes to down to how posters carry themselves forward where they may abuse the information, not the other way around. I have seen very little influence coming from people who posted the conspiracies on the vaccine, they are showing the reality of whats going on in the real world. The fear, the hysteria, the conspiracy itself and so on. Most of the Conspiracy theorists are open to been proven wrong, I myself included. Nobody has been able to provide the proof that it's safe. No one has shown any evidence to suggest its any benifet. No one has mentioned the basic logic and common sense behind what is going on in front of our eyes. So it seems the only conclusion, that the agenda on this very forum would be of the opinion that, the moderation wants to take the responsbility off the people by closing the threads, and silencing the conspiracy. This is a conspiracy forum.

Now you're doing the equivalent of arguing that it should be OK to stand up and cry fire, because its someone else's responsibility to see whether or not you're right, rather than being influenced by you.

Don't you find it ironic, though, that what you're basically saying is that people shouldn't believe what they read on Conspiracy Theories websites?

What's right to you, maybe wrong for another, See how again, you fail to miss self responsibility?. This issue affects the world and its effects others differently. So you can't say its about been right and what others believe to be true.

6th

Before anyone else posts on this thread I want them to re-read the 1st post and ask youself .... will my post be on topic?

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

No, I'm not. Its got nothing to do with my personal views on the H1N1 virus. Its got to do with my personal views on legal liability and responsible behaviour.

And you know what? I'll defend those. I'm answerable for those, to the people who run this site. I've already consulted the Category Mod about this, and he backs my stance 100%. That would leave the Admins, via Helpdesk. If you think I'm taking an unreasonable stance, then take it to them. If they don't support me, I'll change my position. If they do support me, then my moderation is consistent with the policies of boards.ie which its supposed to be.

Bah, pull the other one there bonkey. Like anyone will sue boards.ie because of a thread about swine flu vaccinations on a public bulletin board. :rolleyes: Abovetopsecret.com must be about to be sued into oblivion in that case, since there have been discussions on government engineered virii and vaccinations being bad for years now. Be honest. You think the CT view on the vaccination being a bad thing is a load of hogwash, so you're locking all discussion based on some wishy washy notion of medical advice = bad mmmkay.

bonkey wrote: »

So seriously Kernel...take it up with them. Go argue that I'm being unfair with the people who's legal liability for the content on this site is a prime factor in my position.

Tell you what....if they agree that I'm being unreasonable, I'll stand down alongside 6th, and I'll play no part in deciding who the new mods are.

I'm asking nothing in return....no sacrifice for you to make if they back me up. So seriously....if you really feel I'm being unreasonable, and that I'm not representing the best interests of the site....go for it.

If for any reason you're banned from Helpdesk and can't start a thread, then just give the nod to someone else to do it for you. I'll do it for you if you want.

Why do you always suggest I take minor things like this to helpdesk? I'm arguing the point with you, I don't think that it's important enough to bother anyone else with, nor do I ever run to helpdesk or feedback with my own grievances (mainly because I'm banned from there.. haha.. no, because this is just a discussion board and not that important in real life to go causing problems). If you and 6th both stand down, who'll take over then, Diogenes and King Mob? Will they pretend to be non-biased if they do take over as mods?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Bah, pull the other one there bonkey.
...
Be honest. You think the CT view on the vaccination being a bad thing is a load of hogwash, so you're locking all discussion based on some wishy washy notion of medical advice = bad mmmkay.

I don't appreciate being called a liar, but that's effectively what you're doing here.

Don't post to this thread again, unless its to apologise.

Why do you always suggest I take minor things like this to helpdesk?

You felt it was worth posting to the forum to complain.

I gave the courtesy of making sure you know (and anyone else reading this knows) where I stand, and what avenues are open if they feel strongly enough that I'm out of order.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to divine that you felt it was important enough to make one of your rare appearances here, but not important enough to try and get what you see as a problem fixed.

I'm arguing the point with you,

You've assumed my position, complained about it, and then implied that I'm a liar because I've told you that your assumption was wrong.

If that's your opinion of what constitutes "arguing the point", then we can do without it, thanks.

6th

Kernel wrote: »

If you and 6th both stand down, who'll take over then, Diogenes and King Mob? Will they pretend to be non-biased if they do take over as mods?

Jesus kernel, you're around long enough to know I should really be biase against the skeptics with my history on the paranormal forum!

Penn

Kernel wrote: »

Bah, pull the other one there bonkey. Like anyone will sue boards.ie because of a thread about swine flu vaccinations on a public bulletin board. :rolleyes: Abovetopsecret.com must be about to be sued into oblivion in that case, since there have been discussions on government engineered virii and vaccinations being bad for years now. Be honest.

But abovetopsecret.com is a very specific website. People visiting that website know exactly what type of website that is.

Boards.ie is very different. It is a site which attracts people from all walks of life, with hundreds of forums and sub-forums on a wide range of topics. One of those people could come across the thread saying that the vaccine is dangerous, and it could influence their decision in a way which would leave the site admins liable.

Whether anyone would actually sue boards.ie or not isn't the issue, its the admins and mods responsibility to eliminate the risk, however low that risk may be

Diogenes

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

But abovetopsecret.com is a very specific website. People visiting that website know exactly what type of website that is.

Boards.ie is very different. It is a site which attracts people from all walks of life, with hundreds of forums and sub-forums on a wide range of topics. One of those people could come across the thread saying that the vaccine is dangerous, and it could influence their decision in a way which would leave the site admins liable.

Whether anyone would actually sue boards.ie or not isn't the issue, its the admins and mods responsibility to eliminate the risk, however low that risk may be

Furthermore and not to harp on, Abovetopsecret can do whatever they damn well like, and hold themselves to whatever standard they like. They can live with the consequences of the decisions they make.

As I understand it, Boards.ie has a blanket approach to medical advise, and the giving of medical advise on it's forums. They don't think people should give, or seek medical advise on this forum. I refer you to the site rules

Theres no reason this forum should be excluded from the overall boards rules, they applies across this board, and simply because some people feel that they should be able to make extraordinary, spurious, and unsupported claims about H1N1, vaccines, and anti virals on the CT forum, doesn't make it acceptable.

As Kernel pointed out theres another forum, that he's oh so fond of, that you can go to, if you want to spread this kind of unsubstantiated nonsense.

Apparently the owners of boards.ie don't want to liable for the spreading of these claims; be it legal, moral or ethical liability. You should accept it instead of making insinuations about the reasons for a Mod's decision. If you don't like it, well there's the door, you seem to storm in and out of it with reliable frequency.

Kernel

Turns out I have swineflu now. Not a horrendously bad dose at all, like a bad head cold with fatigue, sore throat and a very bad chest infection/cough. Very manageable though glad I didn't get the untested vaccine.

Think the whole thing was a scam to sell drugs tbh, looking at the dose itself and the mortality rates.

mysterious

Kernel wrote: »

Turns out I have swineflu now. Not a horrendously bad dose at all, like a bad head cold with fatigue, sore throat and a very bad chest infection/cough. Very manageable though glad I didn't get the untested vaccine.

Think the whole thing was a scam to sell drugs tbh, looking at the dose itself and the mortality rates.

I think I had too. If not on one of the two occaisions. It's a sweaty fever like flu, with awful headaches. It's deffo a virus that really shakes the body out. I didn't take the vaccine. Because I know my immune system is in my body for a reason.


Two people died from China the other day from taking the vaccine. It's happening and people need too see the bigger picture as to whats going on.

You will pull through Kernal. Remember the energy points in the body if kept positive will fight off any illness.

Undergod

Kernel wrote: »

Turns out I have swineflu now. Not a horrendously bad dose at all, like a bad head cold with fatigue, sore throat and a very bad chest infection/cough. Very manageable though glad I didn't get the untested vaccine.

Think the whole thing was a scam to sell drugs tbh, looking at the dose itself and the mortality rates.

It's pretty feasible that the drug companies tried to make the media trump it up to sell drugs, was that what you meant? I don't think that it was a manufactured virus.

6th

Lads this isnt a thread to discuss the CT. Any more off topic posting will result in a 1 week ban.

alrightcuz

Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 - Updated on 1 April 2010

Latest Information

Update on National Monitoring Experience with Pandemic H1N1 Vaccines

In the past two weeks (Tuesday 16 March to Tuesday 30 March 2010), 27 reports of suspected adverse reactions to the Pandemic H1N1 vaccines (Pandemrix and Celvapan) have been received by the Irish Medicines Board (IMB). A single report may include more than one suspected reaction. The reports received to date remain consistent with the expected pattern of adverse effects for the pandemic vaccines.

A detailed report on the adverse reactions received by the IMB to date can be found via the link below.

IMB National Monitoring Update (01/04/2010)

As of 31 March 2010, the HSE vaccination clinics have closed. Due to the decreasing numbers of patients being vaccinated, and an expected reduction in the number of adverse reaction reports, the IMB will discontinue publication of routine updates. The safety of the H1N1 vaccines will continue to be monitored and further safety updates will be provided as appropriate.

The European Medicines Agency also publishes pandemic H1N1 update reports. These reports provide information on adverse reactions reported for both pandemic vaccines and antivirals in the European Union.

Visit the Agency's Pandemic Influenza Website for the latest report.