IMPORTANT INFO RE SWINE FLU

samson09

meglome wrote: »

In a bad year 'standard' flu can kill up to 30,000 people in the UK. This swine flu is very disappointing so far, 'the man' needs to get his act together.

So why do we need vaccinations with an attenuated live H1N1 virus?

And why has the WHO ordered that all countries must vaccinaate their people in the event of a pandemic emergency (which will probably happen when the second wave of the virus hits us in auumn).

I dont see the problem being the H1N1virus (unless it mutates into something more lethal). The issue here is the vaccine. We are on the verge of gunpoint medicine.

WHO moves forward in secrecy to accomplish forced vaccination and population agenda

http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/who-moves-forward-in-secrecy-to-accomplish-population-agenda/

"
Under the International Health Regulations, WHO guidelines have a binding character on all of WHO’s 194 signatory countries in the event of a pandemic emergency of the kind anticipated this autumn when the second more lethal wave of the H1N1 virus — which is bioengineered to resemble the Spanish flu virus — emerges.
In short: WHO has the authority to force everyone in those 194 countries to take a vaccine this fall at gunpoint, impose quarantines and restrict travel".

cahill31

humanji wrote: »

There isn't. It's some governments erring on the side of caution.

Ok. Well since regular flu kills hundreds of thousands people worldwide every year and the swine flu has killed less than a thousand worldwide so far, how come there hasn't been massive vaccination campaigns and WHO pandemic alerts until this year?, for something that is far less deadly.

On another note, does everyone want to know how safe the WHO thinks the vaccine is?
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090713/en/index.html

humanji

cahill31 wrote: »

Ok. Well since regular flu kills hundreds of thousands people worldwide every year and the swine flu has killed less than a thousand worldwide so far, how come there hasn't been massive vaccination campaigns and WHO pandemic alerts until this year?, for something that is far less deadly.

On another note, does everyone want to know how safe the WHO thinks the vaccine is?
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090713/en/index.html

They've done enough already. They just have to be prepared in case they need to use it. There's been enough media scaremongering without the government adding to it.

Imagine for a moment that "The Man" wasn't out to get you. Imagine that the government had only your best interests and your safety at heart. Would you not like them to have some sort of vaccine available as back-up, should the worst happen? It's already beeg stated that if the vaccines were needed, there wouldn't be enough to go round at first, so does it not make sense to have some stockpiled instead of being left without any?

samson09

humanji wrote: »

They've done enough already. They just have to be prepared in case they need to use it. There's been enough media scaremongering without the government adding to it.

Imagine for a moment that "The Man" wasn't out to get you. Imagine that the government had only your best interests and your safety at heart. Would you not like them to have some sort of vaccine available as back-up, should the worst happen? It's already beeg stated that if the vaccines were needed, there wouldn't be enough to go round at first, so does it not make sense to have some stockpiled instead of being left without any?

No offense, but I think your missing the point. At the moment, the H1N1 virus has an extremely low mortality rate, vaccination is not necessary. When you say "should the worst happen", I'm assuming you mean that should the virus mutate and cause a subsequent rise in the mortality rate, then we would be better off having a stockpile of vaccines? In this type of scenario, the stockpile of vaccines would probably be useless as they would have been designed to protect people against the current genetic structure of the H1N1 virus.This is only my line of thought and I may be wrong, if anyone knows better please chip in!

humanji

The government isn't too popular at the moment. The virus is the current international crisis that can effect the Irish people (ok, there's the whole recession thing, but the government would be better off if we didn't focus on that). If the government do nothing, they'll seem negligent and look like they don't care about the Irish people.

If they buy a load of the vaccine, it'll look like they're being pro-active. They don't have to do anything with it, they can let it rot with the voting machines. The monetary cost is nothing to them, but making people think that they're competent is priceless.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

manco68

Well ,i will not be taking this vaccine thats for sure.http://www.newsmax.com/heath/vaccine_swine_flu/2009/07/07/232717.html

marco_polo

manco68 wrote: »

Well ,i will not be taking this vaccine thats for sure.http://www.newsmax.com/heath/vaccine_swine_flu/2009/07/07/232717.html

There are much safer ways to protect oneself from this flu virus, such as higher doses of vitamin D3, selective immune enhancement using supplements, and a good diet.

Thanks for that Doctor. Would a bit of an old pray help as well? :rolleyes:

meglome

manco68 wrote: »

Well ,i will not be taking this vaccine thats for sure.http://www.newsmax.com/heath/vaccine_swine_flu/2009/07/07/232717.html

Well I feel sorry for you and your family. This flu jab does seem to be some side effects but that needs to be weighed up against dying. The virus is killing healthy people and it looks like there's going to be a pandemic so anyone who thinks it's sinister for the WHO to want to vaccinate people is just talking rubbish, it'd be the most obviously safe thing for them to do.

Diogenes

samson09 wrote: »

In short: WHO has the authority to force everyone in those 194 countries to take a vaccine this fall at gunpoint, impose quarantines and restrict travel".

I don't suppose that you can point me to the part of the UN charter where it mentions this. Only I was reading an interview with the head of WHO today and apparently it was only after the Avian Flu in Hong Kong half a decade ago, that they got the power to demand medical information from WHO member countries.

samson09

meglome wrote: »

Well I feel sorry for you and your family. This flu jab does seem to be some side effects but that needs to be weighed up against dying. The virus is killing healthy people and it looks like there's going to be a pandemic so anyone who thinks it's sinister for the WHO to want to vaccinate people is just talking rubbish, it'd be the most obviously safe thing for them to do.

What are these known side effects you talk about? Testing has barely started. The virus has a relatively low mortality rate, there is no need for vaccination. Most people even get better without the need for anti virals.

samson09

Diogenes wrote: »

I don't suppose that you can point me to the part of the UN charter where it mentions this. Only I was reading an interview with the head of WHO today and apparently it was only after the Avian Flu in Hong Kong half a decade ago, that they got the power to demand medical information from WHO member countries.

If you want the source for my info, it can be found here

http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/who-moves-forward-in-secrecy-to-accomplish-population-agenda/

Here is some more information I found on another forum...


"Health Act section 32:
“The Minister may by order declare that-”

“it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all adult persons should submit themselves to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against such infectious disease”

“The Minister may by order declare that—”

“it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all children should be submitted to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against that infectious disease”.

The title of Section 38 is “Detention and isolation of person who is probable source of infection” and it states the following, “force may, if necessary, be used for the purpose of carrying out any provision of this subsection.” Part 2 of Section 38 redefines the word person into patient: “(2) Where an order is made under this section in relation to a person (in this subsection referred to as the patient), the following provisions shall have effect[….]”. Being classified as a “patient” brings in all other laws on what the state can do to a person. The following line in Section 38 legally allows the government to detain people in government facilities not just hospitals: “the order to allow for the patient’s isolation in a hospital or other place convenient“. Now you see that anything can be made legal. When a certain percentage of people die from these rushed vaccines don’t expect governments to be sued as there is ‘reasonable doubt’ that it was the ‘pandemic’ that killed those people and world’s governments acting together did nothing ‘illegal’. The last thing you or your family want is to be injected by the state so it might be wise to raise this issue with influential members of your community so when the time comes you can stand together and say “no”."

samson09

No human testing required for the H1N1 vaccine in the UK

"The new Facebook Advocacy Group for the UK has linked up with their US counterparts, and is preparing to write to UK Health Minister Ara Darzi about their concerns over the H1N1 vaccines. Rumor has it that Darzi, who just quit, is privy to the investigations going on with WHO and H1N1 vaccines.
http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2009/07/uk-health-minister-lord-darzi-quits.html
Darzi announced he was stepping down as it emerged that the first doses of H1N1 swine flu virus could be given regulatory approval in less than a week by the UK department of health.
It has also emerged that Sanofi Aventis in the UK plan to do no testing on the H1N1 vaccine they intend to distribute, reinforcing concerns that government health bodies have abandoned their traditional role of protecting the general public against unsafe and unproven vaccines by conducting adequate scientific trials, and are instead promoting the interests of the pharmaceutical industry".

http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/sanofi-aventis-to-do-no-testing-on-the-h1n1-vaccine-to-be-distributed-in-the-uk-uk-health-minister-steps-down-unexpectedly-australians-to-be-given-unproven-drug-after-rushed-trials/

marco_polo

samson09 wrote: »

If you want the source for my info, it can be found here

http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/who-moves-forward-in-secrecy-to-accomplish-population-agenda/

Here is some more information I found on another forum...


"Health Act section 32:
“The Minister may by order declare that-”

“it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all adult persons should submit themselves to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against such infectious disease”

“The Minister may by order declare that—”

“it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all children should be submitted to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against that infectious disease”.

The title of Section 38 is “Detention and isolation of person who is probable source of infection” and it states the following, “force may, if necessary, be used for the purpose of carrying out any provision of this subsection.” Part 2 of Section 38 redefines the word person into patient: “(2) Where an order is made under this section in relation to a person (in this subsection referred to as the patient), the following provisions shall have effect[….]”. Being classified as a “patient” brings in all other laws on what the state can do to a person. The following line in Section 38 legally allows the government to detain people in government facilities not just hospitals: “the order to allow for the patient’s isolation in a hospital or other place convenient“. Now you see that anything can be made legal. When a certain percentage of people die from these rushed vaccines don’t expect governments to be sued as there is ‘reasonable doubt’ that it was the ‘pandemic’ that killed those people and world’s governments acting together did nothing ‘illegal’. The last thing you or your family want is to be injected by the state so it might be wise to raise this issue with influential members of your community so when the time comes you can stand together and say “no”."

How does a snippet of what is (I presume) British Legislation relate to the WHO 'forcing everyone in those 194 countries to take a vaccine this fall at gunpoint'?

samson09

marco_polo wrote: »

How does a snippet of what is (I presume) British Legislation relate to the WHO 'forcing everyone in those 194 countries to take a vaccine this fall at gunpoint'?

Its Irish legisation relating to Ireland, where I happen to live at the moment. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1947/en/act/pub/0028/sec0032.html

The other link relates to the WHO and mandatory vaccinations. I should have made it clearer, sorry.

Diogenes

samson09 wrote: »

If you want the source for my info, it can be found here

http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/who-moves-forward-in-secrecy-to-accomplish-population-agenda/

I'm sorry but that blog doesn't link to any part of the UN or WHO charter which gives them the right to use violence to force people to take a vaccine against her will.

Here is some more information I found on another forum...


"Health Act section 32:
“The Minister may by order declare that-”

“it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all adult persons should submit themselves to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against such infectious disease”

“The Minister may by order declare that—”

“it is necessary, for the purpose of preventing the spread of a particular infectious disease, that all children should be submitted to a specified measure in relation to their protection or immunisation against that infectious disease”.

The title of Section 38 is “Detention and isolation of person who is probable source of infection” and it states the following, “force may, if necessary, be used for the purpose of carrying out any provision of this subsection.” Part 2 of Section 38 redefines the word person into patient: “(2) Where an order is made under this section in relation to a person (in this subsection referred to as the patient), the following provisions shall have effect[….]”. Being classified as a “patient” brings in all other laws on what the state can do to a person. The following line in Section 38 legally allows the government to detain people in government facilities not just hospitals: “the order to allow for the patient’s isolation in a hospital or other place convenient“. Now you see that anything can be made legal. When a certain percentage of people die from these rushed vaccines don’t expect governments to be sued as there is ‘reasonable doubt’ that it was the ‘pandemic’ that killed those people and world’s governments acting together did nothing ‘illegal’. The last thing you or your family want is to be injected by the state so it might be wise to raise this issue with influential members of your community so when the time comes you can stand together and say “no”."

Section 38 of what piece of legislation? Is it Irish?

samson09

Diogenes wrote: »

I'm sorry but that blog doesn't link to any part of the UN or WHO charter which gives them the right to use violence to force people to take a vaccine against her will.





Section 38 of what piece of legislation? Is it Irish?

I'll have a scout around for it, have you tried looking it up yourself (not to prove me wrong but maybe do it just out of interest?)

The link for the legislation is posted above (I think this is right, got the info from another forum and find reading legislation "tricky" to say the least but who doesn't lol )

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

I'll have a scout around for it, have you tried looking it up yourself (not to prove me wrong but maybe do it just out of interest?)

The link for the legislation is posted above (I think this is right, got the info from another forum and find reading legislation "tricky" to say the least but who doesn't lol )

Hang on now.

you said:

Under the International Health Regulations, WHO guidelines have a binding character on all of WHO’s 194 signatory countries in the event of a pandemic emergency of the kind anticipated this autumn when the second more lethal wave of the H1N1 virus — which is bioengineered to resemble the Spanish flu virus — emerges.
In short: WHO has the authority to force everyone in those 194 countries to take a vaccine this fall at gunpoint, impose quarantines and restrict travel".

But you can't actually point out where these regulations are?

Do you just blindly believe everything you read on Naturalnews?

marco_polo

samson09 wrote: »

Its Irish legisation relating to Ireland, where I happen to live at the moment. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1947/en/act/pub/0028/sec0032.html

The other link relates to the WHO and mandatory vaccinations. I should have made it clearer, sorry.

And presumably the WHO made us put this in our statute books? Despite not existing in 1947?

samson09

We signed an agreement with the Who, thats why its applicable to us. So did 190 odd other counries.

marco_polo

Ok, so you weren't at all trying to imply that the Irish legislation drafted in 1947 was related to the WHO CT then, despite being referenced in the same post and seperated by the divider: "Here is some more information I found on another forum..."?

samson09

marco_polo wrote: »

Ok, so you weren't at all trying to imply that the Irish legislation drafted in 1947 was related to the WHO CT then, despite being referenced in the same post and seperated by the divider: "Here is some more information I found on another forum..."?

I was just trying to show people what is contained in our own legislation.

Diogenes

samson09 wrote: »

We signed an agreement with the Who, thats why its applicable to us. So did 190 odd other counries.

Who signed it? When? How is it binding? Can you show us where it was written?

samson09

Diogenes wrote: »

Who signed it? When? How is it binding? Can you show us where it was written?

Enough of the spoonfeeding already! Instead of asking question after question, why dont you go off and find the evidence to prove that my statement is incorrect. Seriously, I've better things to be doing than trying to convince people like you.

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

Enough of the spoonfeeding already! Instead of asking question after question, why dont you go off and find the evidence to prove that my statement is incorrect. Seriously, I've better things to be doing than trying to convince people like you.

But you made the claim.
Surely you can back it up right?
Unless your claim is completely baseless, but that's impossible right?

rameire

Disclaimer



Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information/material contained on the web site, the State and Attorney General, its servants or agents assume no responsibility for and give no guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up to date nature of the information provided on the web site and do not accept any liability whatsoever arising from any errors or omissions.

Users are warned that the publication of legislation on this web site does not indicate that any particular provision in a statute or statutory instrument was, or is currently, in force.
The Office of the Attorney General cannot offer assistance on any technical or content related issue other than the brief help document on this web site.

Diogenes

samson09 wrote: »

Enough of the spoonfeeding already! Instead of asking question after question, why dont you go off and find the evidence to prove that my statement is incorrect.

You made the claim the onus is on you to support it. Thats the way grown ups behave. You shouldn't go around making wild claims and then say "Well prove me wrong so". I cannot for example; accuse you of being a paedophile, and then insist that you give me proof that you're not a paedophile. How exactly would you go about doing this? Similarly, how exactly do I go about proving your statement is incorrect? Read every piece of legislation, and writing about the WHO, to see if they mention this?


Remember thats a very specific claim you've made.

you wrote:

In short: WHO has the authority to force everyone in those 194 countries to take a vaccine this fall at gunpoint, impose quarantines and restrict travel".

Now surely such a massive piece of legislation should be easy to find?

Again I only ask because of the interview I read with Margaret Chan this morning.

A year earlier, Chan had been a surprise candidate in a surprise election (the previous incumbent died halfway through his term), but she won with a clear majority to become the first Chinese national to run a major UN agency. A rule change in 2005 (the WHO no longer has to beg states for information about threats to global health, but can just demand it) also makes her the most powerful public health official in history.

Source

See I find it a little strange that you think that the World Health Organisation can usurp the democratically elected governments of 190 countries, when less than 5 years ago it had to say "please" to get access to vital medical records.

Seriously, I've better things to be doing than trying to convince people like you.

Why would you want to convince people who disagree with you? Best preach to the choir.

Oh fun fact about Jane Burgermeister she's been fired :eek:

Austrian journalist Jane Bürgermeister, who recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several high ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism, has been fired from her job. “On Monday, I was unexpectedly fired from my job as European Correspondent of the Renewable Energy World website,” Bürgermeister writes on her blog.

She was a journalist for a energy website. Gosh she's practically Woodward and Bernstein rolled into one!

samson09

Diogenes wrote: »

You made the claim the onus is on you to support it. Thats the way grown ups behave. You shouldn't go around making wild claims and then say "Well prove me wrong so". I cannot for example; accuse you of being a paedophile, and then insist that you give me proof that you're not a paedophile. How exactly would you go about doing this? Similarly, how exactly do I go about proving your statement is incorrect? Read every piece of legislation, and writing about the WHO, to see if they mention this?


Remember thats a very specific claim you've made.



Now surely such a massive piece of legislation should be easy to find?

Again I only ask because of the interview I read with Margaret Chan this morning.



Source

See I find it a little strange that you think that the World Health Organisation can usurp the democratically elected governments of 190 countries, when less than 5 years ago it had to say "please" to get access to vital medical records.



Why would you want to convince people who disagree with you? Best preach to the choir.

Oh fun fact about Jane Burgermeister she's been fired :eek:



She was a journalist for a energy website. Gosh she's practically Woodward and Bernstein rolled into one!

Ok, I'll find the reference before you throw the rattler out of the cot.Just give me time. To be honest I just didnt have the time earlier and reading up on acts/statutes/charter of the UN etc is a pain in the a**e. And yes, I do think the WHO will potentially be able declare that vaccinations are mandatory but only if a pandemic emergency is confirmed. If the WHO made the minutes of their meeting available for public viewing I would easily be able to prove this. Do you not find it strange that they are behaving in such a secret fashion?

As for Jane, I don't see what point you are trying to make, other than to possibly discredit her, tut tut.

marco_polo

samson09 wrote: »

Ok, I'll find the reference before you throw the rattler out of the cot.Just give me time. To be honest I just didnt have the time earlier and reading up on acts/statutes/charter of the UN etc is a pain in the a**e. And yes, I do think the WHO will potentially be able declare that vaccinations are mandatory but only if a pandemic emergency is confirmed. If the WHO made the minutes of their meeting available for public viewing I would easily be able to prove this. Do you not find it strange that they are behaving in such a secret fashion?

As for Jane, I don't see what point you are trying to make, other than to possibly discredit her, tut tut.

How unsurprisingly convienent for you.

Diogenes

samson09 wrote: »

Ok, I'll find the reference before you throw the rattler out of the cot.Just give me time. To be honest I just didnt have the time earlier and reading up on acts/statutes/charter of the UN etc is a pain in the a**e.

Awwww..... Perhaps you should think about sourcing your claims before you make them.

And yes, I do think the WHO will potentially be able declare that vaccinations are mandatory but only if a pandemic emergency is confirmed. If the WHO made the minutes of their meeting available for public viewing I would easily be able to prove this. Do you not find it strange that they are behaving in such a secret fashion?

Um no. The meetings involve public health statistics about individual countries, one only needs to look at the manner China handles any information to be surprised that WHO don't publish statistics considering that as you mentioned you're dealing with 190 countries and their health Ministers, these include countries like Sth Africa who's health Minister claims that AIDS is something that can be cured by Vitamins.

As for Jane, I don't see what point you are trying to make, other than to possibly discredit her, tut tut.

Yeah because a journalist getting fired because the website they write for fires them for making ****, doesn't possibly discredit them, it does discredit them. Or do you think Stephen Glass was fired in a potential attempt to discredit him, or because y'know, he was making **** up.

As you've pointed out you're making claims you can't support, thats the reason she was fired.

6th

Lads I've read a few comments in the last few posts that make me want to ban people. Grow up.