Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US State allows dentists and pharmasists to administer the jab.

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    This from the company who will be providing our(Ireland's) safe "Swine Flu Vaccine.

    Baxter admits flu product contained live bird flu virus

    Updated Fri. Feb. 27 2009 2:56 PM ET

    The Canadian Press

    Public health authorities concerned about what has been described as a "serious error" on Baxter's part have assumed the death of the ferrets meant the H5N1 virus in the product was live. But the company, Baxter International Inc., has been parsimonious about the amount of information it has released about the event.
    On Friday, the company's director of global bioscience communications confirmed what scientists have suspected.
    "It was live," Christopher Bona said in an email.
    The contaminated product, which Baxter calls "experimental virus material," was made at the Orth-Donau research facility. Baxter makes its flu vaccine -- including a human H5N1 vaccine for which a licence is expected shortly -- at a facility in the Czech Republic.

    People familiar with biosecurity rules are dismayed by evidence that human H3N2 and avian H5N1 viruses somehow co-mingled in the Orth-Donau facility. That is a dangerous practice that should not be allowed to happen, a number of experts insisted.
    Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences.
    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090227/Bird_Flu_090227/20090227?hub=Health


  • Options
    #93
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    uprising wrote: »
    This from the company who will be providing our(Ireland's) safe "Swine Flu Vaccine.

    Baxter admits flu product contained live bird flu virus

    Updated Fri. Feb. 27 2009 2:56 PM ET

    The Canadian Press

    Public health authorities concerned about what has been described as a "serious error" on Baxter's part have assumed the death of the ferrets meant the H5N1 virus in the product was live. But the company, Baxter International Inc., has been parsimonious about the amount of information it has released about the event.
    On Friday, the company's director of global bioscience communications confirmed what scientists have suspected.
    "It was live," Christopher Bona said in an email.
    The contaminated product, which Baxter calls "experimental virus material," was made at the Orth-Donau research facility. Baxter makes its flu vaccine -- including a human H5N1 vaccine for which a licence is expected shortly -- at a facility in the Czech Republic.

    People familiar with biosecurity rules are dismayed by evidence that human H3N2 and avian H5N1 viruses somehow co-mingled in the Orth-Donau facility. That is a dangerous practice that should not be allowed to happen, a number of experts insisted.
    Accidental release of a mixture of live H5N1 and H3N2 viruses could have resulted in dire consequences.
    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090227/Bird_Flu_090227/20090227?hub=Health

    So hang on.
    This contaminated ( ie. not inherently dangerous) vaccine wasn't going to be used on humans, was detected easily and has nothing to do with the swine flu vaccine?

    Bet that doesn't sound as scary as you want it to sound.

    Do you realise that you are using scaremongering right?


  • Options
    #94
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    King Mob wrote: »
    So hang on.
    This contaminated ( ie. not inherently dangerous) vaccine wasn't going to be used on humans, was detected easily and has nothing to do with the swine flu vaccine?

    Bet that doesn't sound as scary as you want it to sound.

    Do you realise that you are using scaremongering right?

    Listen you are free to think/ignore what you want, there are plenty more people reading this who may have had got the jab and now won't, because of the information put forward by myself and others.
    Either way your afraid of needles, so I don't see why you need to sound like a broken record, with no evidence which says it's safe, it's just "prove it's not safe" time and time again from you.
    I have proved my point a lot better than you have your point, you actually havent proved anything, apart from the fact your just ignorant to valid point's put forward.
    I started a thread/Poll on After Hours yesterday, thread was locked and I was banned for 2 weeks for supposed abuse of another member, which I didn't.


  • Options
    #95
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    uprising wrote: »
    Listen you are free to think/ignore what you want, there are plenty more people reading this who may have had got the jab and now won't, because of the information put forward by myself and others.
    So it doesn't matter whether the information is correct or not?
    As long as people are afraid and confused right?
    uprising wrote: »
    Either way your afraid of needles, so I don't see why you need to sound like a broken record, with no evidence which says it's safe, it's just "prove it's not safe" time and time again from you.

    And you have no evidence that it is dangerous.
    If it is dangerous why can't you just prove it then?

    That's why I keep asking. You're not offering a scrap of evidence you are just throwing up stuff that's completely irrelevant for the purpose of scaring people.
    uprising wrote: »
    I have proved my point a lot better than you have your point, you actually havent proved anything, apart from the fact your just ignorant to valid point's put forward.
    No my point is that there is no evidence that there is side effects.
    You have not been able to provide any such evidence.
    And you certainly haven't proved anything in the slightest.
    uprising wrote: »
    I started a thread/Poll on After Hours yesterday, thread was locked and I was banned for 2 weeks for supposed abuse of another member, which I didn't.
    Oh **** you mean the NWO is monitoring a message board?
    Gasp!

    Soon you'll be made to disappear!


  • Options
    #96
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    King Mob wrote: »
    So it doesn't matter whether the information is correct or not?
    As long as people are afraid and confused right?



    And you have no evidence that it is dangerous.
    If it is dangerous why can't you just prove it then?

    That's why I keep asking. You're not offering a scrap of evidence you are just throwing up stuff that's completely irrelevant for the purpose of scaring people.

    No my point is that there is no evidence that there is side effects.
    You have not been able to provide any such evidence.
    And you certainly haven't proved anything in the slightest.


    Oh **** you mean the NWO is monitoring a message board?
    Gasp!

    Soon you'll be made to disappear!

    The sad fact is that those who repeatedly accuse anyone presenting coherent argumentation that acts to question an establishment viewpoint, of being a "conspiracy nut" are themselves subscribing to a version of reality that is nothing more than the official conspiracy theory. If you dispute the basis for the so called War on Terror or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you are readily and reflexively labeled a nut. But the various establishment tropes that allude to the "fact" of WMD's etc. is in and off itself nothing more than baseless conspiracy theory! Of course, adhering to the establishment's versions has the add-on of an appeal to authority (fallacy). So you can just kiss my ***! :p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    The sad fact is that those who repeatedly accuse anyone presenting coherent argumentation that acts to question an establishment viewpoint, of being a "conspiracy nut" are themselves subscribing to a version of reality that is nothing more than the official conspiracy theory. If you dispute the basis for the so called War on Terror or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you are readily and reflexively labeled a nut. But the various establishment tropes that allude to the "fact" of WMD's etc. is in and off itself nothing more than baseless conspiracy theory! Of course, adhering to the establishment's versions has the add-on of an appeal to authority (fallacy). So you can just kiss my ***! :p

    I'm sorry what has the war on terror have to do with the swine flu vaccine?

    I'm exactly seeing any coherent argument that the vaccine is harmful.
    No scientific evidence or anything. Just scaremongering.


  • Options
    #98
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm sorry what has the war on terror have to do with the swine flu vaccine?

    I'm exactly seeing any coherent argument that the vaccine is harmful.
    No scientific evidence or anything. Just scaremongering.

    Can you at least try to prove it's not harmful, oh no you can't cause they didn't have time to test it as you pointed out.
    So I can't say it's harmful and you can't say it's safe, but you can say it may not be harmful and I can say It may not be safe.
    So officially It may not be safe, so I dont see why we should spend millions on it being a recession and all added to the fact it's not actually really needed, sure there's you and me won't be getting it, thats 2, the majority on my After hours poll, don't think they'll need the millions of doses they'll be getting.


  • Options
    #99
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm sorry what has the war on terror have to do with the swine flu vaccine?

    I'm exactly seeing any coherent argument that the vaccine is harmful.
    No scientific evidence or anything. Just scaremongering.

    The legal cases all considered various scientific/biological data, as required. Those cases, and I think this your point, did not rebuke all producers, or investigate all vaccine types... but the point is there is a basis in recent history for asking questions as to the sources, composition, profitability etc. of any new vaccines. Such allowances are in addition to the individual's right to refuse the vaccine. It stops being a "funny theory" when we find that many people, from a variety of backgrounds, refuse the injection.


  • Options
    #100
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    uprising wrote: »
    Can you at least try to prove it's not harmful, oh no you can't cause they didn't have time to test it as you pointed out.
    How about the fact that the seasonal vaccine is not dangerous?
    And that all the reasoning you and others have offer that it might be dangerous is scientifically flawed and simply not based on reality.
    uprising wrote: »
    So I can't say it's harmful and you can't say it's safe, but you can say it may not be harmful and I can say It may not be safe.
    But you haven't been saying it may not be safe.
    You have been claiming that it is dangerous.
    uprising wrote: »
    So officially It may not be safe, so I dont see why we should spend millions on it being a recession and all added to the fact it's not actually really needed,
    Again you're really showing your ignorance about how vaccines work and why they are needed.
    As I have pointed out there are risk groups that in danger from this and other flus. There are also people who come into regular contact with these risk groups who have to be careful not to pass it on.

    And if the government didn't prepare for this flu, there'd be people crying that they aren't doing enough to protect the people. And there'd certainly be people claiming it's part of some conspiracy to let swine flu wipe us all out.

    uprising wrote: »
    sure there's you and me won't be getting it, thats 2, the majority on my After hours poll, don't think they'll need the millions of doses they'll be getting.
    And Boards.ie polls are reliable sources of information how exactly?


  • Options
    #101
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    The legal cases all considered various scientific/biological data, as required. Those cases, and I think this your point, did not rebuke all producers, or investigate all vaccine types... but the point is there is a basis in recent history for asking questions as to the sources, composition, profitability etc. of any new vaccines. Such allowances are in addition to the individual's right to refuse the vaccine. It stops being a "funny theory" when we find that many people, from a variety of backgrounds, refuse the injection.

    Ok then if there is side effects or inherent danger of the vaccine can you produce the evidence of their existence or not?

    And I don't know why this has to be pointed out again but: No one is being forced to take the vaccine.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok then if there is side effects or inherent danger of the vaccine can you produce the evidence of their existence or not?

    And I don't know why this has to be pointed out again but: No one is being forced to take the vaccine.

    Baxter Files Swine Flu Vaccine Patent a Year Ahead of Outbreak
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14430

    These people are psychic


  • Options
    #103
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    uprising wrote: »
    Baxter Files Swine Flu Vaccine Patent a Year Ahead of Outbreak
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14430

    These people are psychic
    Yet another complete misrepresentation.

    If you actually and honestly read the patent you'd see it was a patent for the process to make the vaccine.

    But you haven't let the facts stop you yet.

    Do you not realise how dishonest it is to claim that this is evidence that Baxter created the virus?

    And don't you think it's a bit weird that they develop the virus completely in secret then, oops butterfingers, they let part of their evil plot slip and publish it on a source freely accessible to the public?


  • Options
    #104
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yet another complete misrepresentation.

    If you actually and honestly read the patent you'd see it was a patent for the process to make the vaccine.

    But you haven't let the facts stop you yet.

    Do you not realise how dishonest it is to claim that this is evidence that Baxter created the virus?

    Yea just a coincidence the process then becomes the process for swine flu, how convienient, it's one thing trying to develop a process after an outbreak, these genius's were a year ahead of the outbreak, they even have the patent to prove it.


  • Options
    #105
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    uprising wrote: »
    Yea just a coincidence the process then becomes the process for swine flu, how convienient, it's one thing trying to develop a process after an outbreak, these genius's were a year ahead of the outbreak, they even have the patent to prove it.

    It just shows that you have no idea what you're taking about.

    The process for creating a vaccine as you claimed used the "flesh of diseased monkeys" to produce the inactive version of the virus present in the vaccine.

    It's not a process for creating a vaccine for the H1N1 strain specifically but for multiple strains of the flu virus.
    As evidenced by the ****ing title of the patent.
    "Method for Producing Viral Vaccines."

    The Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 isn't new.
    The swine flu we are talking about is a strain of H1N1.

    This process that was patented covers all strains of H1N1 viruses as well as H5N1 and many others.

    But "Baxter Patents Swine Flu Vaccine Before Outbreak" sounds much scarier doesn't it? Why bother with the facts?

    And why exactly would they release a vital and sensitive part of their evil plot to the public domain?


  • Options
    #106
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    King Mob wrote: »
    It just shows that you have no idea what you're taking about.

    Says the man who has repeatedly changed his story from the very start, stating "Second there is no side effects. You're making that up." in post #6, then embarassingly backed away from that with a few twisted words and contradictions, pointed out in post#45, now 24 hrs later we have a leading microbiologist on our hands who can't back up ANYTHING he says.
    Your saying it's not dangerous, so for the umpteenth time, show me that its safe, because if its not dangerous, then its safe, so prove its safe.


  • Options
    #107
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    uprising wrote: »
    Says the man who has repeatedly changed his story from the very start, stating "Second there is no side effects. You're making that up." in post #6, then embarassingly backed away from that with a few twisted words and contradictions, pointed out in post#45,
    No I explained what I actually meant later in the thread when you accused me of the same thing. But it seems you've ignored that.
    uprising wrote: »
    now 24 hrs later we have a leading microbiologist on our hands who can't back up ANYTHING he says.
    Really?
    Cause all the backup I need for the last post was in the patent you linked.

    Can you explain where I was wrong in my description of the process outlined in the patent?

    Or was I right in saying the claiming this patent is evidence of foreknowledge is dishonest?

    uprising wrote: »
    Your saying it's not dangerous, so for the umpteenth time, show me that its safe, because if its not dangerous, then its safe, so prove its safe.
    But I'm not claiming it's not dangerous, I'm claiming that there is no evidence that it is.

    I believe it is safe because the seasonal vaccine is safe and this vaccine isn't much different.

    You are claiming it is dangerous and you have failed to produce a scrap of evidence to back up your claim.

    Why are you demanding I provide evidence when it doesn't seem to bother you that you have none?


  • Options
    #108
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why are you demanding I provide evidence when it doesn't seem to bother you that you have none?

    I've quoted and added plenty of links from physicians and professors that claim it is NOT safe, you have posted NOTHING to back up your claim.
    Now big pharma have nothing to worry about thanks to good old Bill Frist, even if they knowingly harm people they are still immune from prosecution, how convienient....

    Before he was voted out of office in 2006, then-senator Bill Frist (R-TN), a physician, drove through a bill that gave drug companies more immunity than any bill ever passed by Congress. The legislation, referred to as "Division-E" was tacked on to a Defense appropriations bill in the final minutes of the Congressional sessions before the Christmas recess. This bill provides at least four sweeping provisions:

    1. Immunity from liability for all drugs, vaccines, or biological products deemed as a covered countermeasure against bioterrorism in the event of an outbreak of any kind. The proposal is not only limited to new drugs or vaccines developed under the umbrella of "bioterrorism" or "pandemic" protection. The proposal is so broad that it could include drugs like Tylenol, Advil…and would have applied to Vioxx.


    2. Immunity for any product used for any public health emergency declared by the secretary of HHS. The authority to declare an emergency now rests completely in the hands of the secretary of HHS— an appointed, non-medical person who has no accountability to the general public. The president’s hand-picked person that is part of his inner circle will have the power to mandate vaccines and other medications given to the American people.


    3. Immunity from accountability. No matter what a drug company do wrong in this arena, they are protected. Even if the company’s dirty facility created a batch of contaminated vaccines that resulted in death or injury to thousands of people, the drug company will not be held accountable.


    4. Immunity from lawsuits. A person who suffers any type of loss will be prohibited from suing the drug companies. Vaccine manufacturers have immunity from almost everything, perhaps even murder. The bill provisions provide a mechanism for filing a lawsuit, but the language explicitly prevents frivolous suits by setting a standard for liability more rigid than any known standard of negligence.

    In simple terms, if a claim is filed by a plaintiff it can only go forward if the injured party can prove that the company performed an act of "willful misconduct" resulting in an injury or a death. In other words, the injured party would have to prove the vaccine maker intentionally caused him harm.

    Division-E goes even one step further. Unbelievably, even if a pharmaceutical company knowingly harms people, the company will be immune from legal prosecution unless the U.S. attorney general initiates "enforcement action" against the drug company in the name of the claimant. This means the U.S. government would have to go to bat for the injured party for the lawsuit to move forward, as unlikely as the current swine flu fiasco being an unplanned pandemic.
    http://drtenpenny.com/swine_flu.aspx


  • Options
    #109
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    uprising wrote: »
    I've quoted and added plenty of links from physicians and professors that claim it is NOT safe, you have posted NOTHING to back up your claim.
    They can claim it all they want there's still no scientific evidence.
    And how exactly do you know these doctors are right without evidence?
    Without that, their claims are at best opinion and at worst pure bull****.

    And again because apparently you're not reading my posts: I only claiming that there is no evidence that the swine flu vaccine is dangerous.
    I could probably name a good few doctors who refute your claims.

    Oh wait I did.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61622176&postcount=22

    You just claim they were
    uprising wrote: »
    from the same cabal trying to push the vaccine on you's.
    Are you going to back this claim up with anything perhaps?
    uprising wrote: »
    Now big pharma have nothing to worry about thanks to good old Bill Frist, even if they knowingly harm people they are still immune from prosecution, how convienient....
    And this proves the vaccine is dangerous how?

    Or is it just to distract from the fact you have no evidence?

    Also I notice you're completely dodging my points on the patent you brought up.
    Is there something wrong with my description?
    Or was you claim that it was a vaccine specifically intended for the current strain before it emerged not true?


  • Options
    #110
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    uprising wrote: »
    you have posted NOTHING to back up your claim.

    I think KM isn't making a claim as such, other than the mispost in #6 which he has since admitted and retracted. He's just saying that the claim that the vaccine is dangerous is not yet backed up by any reliable data, but is based on misleading information and misleading interpretations of information.


  • Options
    #111
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    once again the counter-argument is to refer to recent history demonstrating (by way of court trials) that some vaccines have proven unsafe. On this basis, there is reason to at least question the veracity of claims made in relation to current or new vaccines.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    once again the counter-argument is to refer to recent history demonstrating (by way of court trials) that some vaccines have proven unsafe. On this basis, there is reason to at least question the veracity of claims made in relation to current or new vaccines.

    Which court trials are these exactly?

    You also have to realise that court trials don't count as scientific evidence.

    But none of the points raised by uprising have been valid scientific questioning but rather scaremongering.
    There has been on scientific basis for the vaccines being dangerous presented.
    Just the insistence that pharmaceutical corporations are evil and some of the ingredients sound scary.

    And given the completely misleading and deceptive nature of the things uprising has posted don't you think you should be questioning him as well?


  • Options
    #113
    Captain Furball
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Captain Furball


    A third of nurses will refuse to have the swine flu jab in the uk


  • Options
    #114
    uprising
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭uprising


    Captain Furball wrote: »
    A third of nurses will refuse to have the swine flu jab in the uk

    And if they actually have/get any more info on it I doubt ANY will, I wonder how many government ministers will be getting it?, they'll probably get a placebo for the photo session, then the "public" will be given the real cocktail of sh1t.


  • Options
    #115
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Only a week ago we were being told that it was all some plot to force us to take the jab.

    Now we're being told that people are correct to exercise choice when it comes to the offer of taking it or not.

    Progress, of a sort.


  • Options
    #116
    worldrepublic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭worldrepublic


    The main point to emphasis at this point is that they are not going to point a gun at your head, so just refuse the vaccine. There will always be people who have a psychological need to believe everything the government tells them, and with that attitude, they will just be taking a personal risk to their health. These are the same people who can't wait to get chipped. If they really really insist on rolling up their sleeves for the devil's juice -what more can be said to convince them to do otherwise?
    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #117
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Conversly, there's those who psychologically need to believe the government are out to get them and will willingly put their health at risk because of it. Two sides of the same coin.


  • Options
    #118
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Captain Furball wrote: »
    A third of nurses will refuse to have the swine flu jab in the uk
    Out of curiosity, do you have a link? I'd of thought it'd be higher.


  • Options
    #119
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Google "nurses refuse jab". A number of media sources reported it...although I think it originated in the Daily Fail.

    ETA: I'm wrong...the Mail was reporting on a survey from Nursing Times.


  • Options
    #120
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    worldrepublic wrote: »
    The main point to emphasis at this point is that they are not going to point a gun at your head, so just refuse the vaccine. There will always be people who have a psychological need to believe everything the government tells them, and with that attitude, they will just be taking a personal risk to their health. These are the same people who can't wait to get chipped. If they really really insist on rolling up their sleeves for the devil's juice -what more can be said to convince them to do otherwise?
    :rolleyes:
    Yea just refuse the vaccine.
    **** the facts!

    It's evil and bad because it's scary and the government thinks it's a good idea!

    Sound rational advice there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    uprising wrote: »
    And if they actually have/get any more info on it I doubt ANY will, I wonder how many government ministers will be getting it?, they'll probably get a placebo for the photo session, then the "public" will be given the real cocktail of sh1t.

    So just making stuff up now?

    Does it not bother you that your information doesn't stand up to any scrutiny?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement