The real secret behind the H1N1 vaccine?

samson09

Apparently, in a nutshell, the vaccine is to be used to send people's immune systems into overdrive. You may end up with auto immune disorders, etc down the road, but hey you'll probably survive. However, according to this report by Ken Welch,
http://www.ken-welch.com/Commentary/Pandemic1.html , when the "real" virus is released later this year, people who have received the vaccine will experience a lethal reaction known as a cytokine storm which results when your immune system goes into overdrive fighting a viral infection. This is what will cause the deaths, not side effects from the vaccine.

Possibly a load of horse****, but maybe not. I suppose we'll find out soon enough, according to Ken the recreated virus of the 1918 Spanish flu, with added lethality, is due to be released into the population in December. If he didnt get his information from "reverse speech" I'd find him a lot more plausible. Has anyone ever heard of this guy before or know if any of his past predictions using reverse speech were actually correct?

Zillah

Reverse speech is known to be absolute nonsense, hence this man's insane accusations should similarly be regarded as nonsense.

samson09

Zillah wrote: »

Reverse speech is known to be absolute nonsense, hence this man's insane accusations should similarly be regarded as nonsense.

Who says its nonsense though?

Wikipedia?

Blazer

chrsit he's a nutjob...reverse speech ...Bush planning to blow up a nuke in Texas...lol...what planet are these people on because it's not one called Earth.

6th

Lads, its a discussion forum. Either do yourselves justice and make valid, intelligent arguement or dont dont.

thecommander

Is this phase 5 of the conspiracy theory?

Phase 1. Designed to kill only mexicans (turned out to be bull)
Phase 2. Designed to kill certain ethnic groups (turned out to be bull)
Phase 3. Designed to reduce population (turned out to be bull)
Phase 4. Designed to make people want to get poisonous vaccine (turned out to be bull)
Phase 5. Scrap all previous CTs, and claim a new one so you can't be called on older ones.

humanji

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the powers that be want to kill of the population then this "deadly vaccine" theory is one of the dumbest, most inefficient and ineffective way of doing it. Tampering with major water supplies will do the job quicker and more efficiently than asking people to volunteer to take a jab. It'll also involve less people and be easier to hide. There's just no need to unleash several viruses and several vaccines.

bonkey

I can't access that link from where I am right now, so excuse me if I'm asking anything answered in the article...

samson09 wrote: »

... when the "real" virus is released later this year, people who have received the vaccine will experience a lethal reaction known as a cytokine storm which results when your immune system goes into overdrive fighting a viral infection. This is what will cause the deaths, not side effects from the vaccine.

Possibly a load of horse****, but maybe not. I suppose we'll find out soon enough, according to Ken the recreated virus of the 1918 Spanish flu, with added lethality, is due to be released into the population in December.

Here's the thing...

The Spanish Flu strain killed through this cytokine storm effect.

It seems strange to be arguing that a more lethal version of this is going to be released...but which will somehow only effect those who have been immunised against a completely different strain of flu.

In effect, there seems to be the implication that this will be a strain of flu to which the Average Joe is naturally immune, or which will be non-fatal to said AJ. If we have "Vaccinated Joe", however....well, he's in trouble.

If the aim was to knock off a bunch of the population, then surely a souped-up version of the 1918 strain would suffice?

Adding in this whole "only fatal to people vaccinated against something else" aspect seems to add nothing but unncessary complexity and risk to the plan. If you can create a virus thats deadlier then the 1918 strain and could make it not target some section of the population...surely the simplest solution would be to create one that hit everyone except those who had some secret vaccine (i.e. those you wanted to keep safe)?

You'd still be left, of course, with the problem of how to prevent one of the most mutable virii known to man from mutating and ruining all your plans.

Overall, this doesn't seem to add up....

Undergod

Here's a thought...

The NWO know that hardcore conspiracy theorists won't get the vaccine. Perhaps they are engineering it so that those who get the vaccine are eliminated, leaving only the unvaccinated surviving!

People! The NWO love conspiracy theorists!

samson09

bonkey wrote: »

I can't access that link from where I am right now, so excuse me if I'm asking anything answered in the article...



Here's the thing...

The Spanish Flu strain killed through this cytokine storm effect.

It seems strange to be arguing that a more lethal version of this is going to be released...but which will somehow only effect those who have been immunised against a completely different strain of flu.

In effect, there seems to be the implication that this will be a strain of flu to which the Average Joe is naturally immune, or which will be non-fatal to said AJ. If we have "Vaccinated Joe", however....well, he's in trouble.

If the aim was to knock off a bunch of the population, then surely a souped-up version of the 1918 strain would suffice?

Adding in this whole "only fatal to people vaccinated against something else" aspect seems to add nothing but unncessary complexity and risk to the plan. If you can create a virus thats deadlier then the 1918 strain and could make it not target some section of the population...surely the simplest solution would be to create one that hit everyone except those who had some secret vaccine (i.e. those you wanted to keep safe)?

You'd still be left, of course, with the problem of how to prevent one of the most mutable virii known to man from mutating and ruining all your plans.

Overall, this doesn't seem to add up....

I agree, it doesn't seem to add up at all. You'd think that they'd just release the "killer" virus, give a vaccine to those who were important on the qt and save themselves a lot of hassle. But none of this swine flu debacle makes any sense i.e. the massive push for vaccination for a virus that kills less people than seasonal flu and mainly in peole with underlying health conditions.

The only other explanations I can think of are:

(1) The Spanish flu of 1918 had a mortality rate of between 10-20% and killed approx. 3% of the worldwide population. By vaccinating people with adjuvants that send the immune system into overdrive, they know that this will cause a more severe immune response which will lead to more aggressive cytokine storms and therefore an increased mortality rate if the "killer" virus is released. A 3% decrease in population isn't enough, "they" want more.

(2) Certain sources indicate that the majority of deaths during the outbreak of the Spanish flu occured in people who, at the time, received vaccinations against typhoid. Apparently Greece did not vaccinate it's citizens and was not hit by the flu at all. So perhaps previous vaccination is necessary if deaths are to occur.


Something is defintely not right tho. IMO, at the very least it's a money making racket. But who really knows what's going on?

samson09

samson09 wrote: »

(2) Certain sources indicate that the majority of deaths during the outbreak of the Spanish flu occured in people who, at the time, received vaccinations against typhoid. Apparently Greece did not vaccinate it's citizens and was not hit by the flu at all. So perhaps previous vaccination is necessary if deaths are to occur.

Sources that don't believe in the germ theory.
Not the most reliable.

And how would a cytokine storm happen much later than the vaccine?
Seems that the symtoms would be apparent fairly soon after.

Also there doesn't seem to be a case of a vaccine causing one.
Makes sense since there's much much less viral material in the vaccine than in actually getting the virus.


In my opinion it looks like this guy just found this scary sounding term and is now throwing it around like technobabble in Star Trek.

douglashyde

I got the vaccine last week?

douglashyde

douglashyde wrote: »

I got the vaccine last week?

You dead?
In a coma?

Diogenes

If he didnt get his information from "reverse speech" I'd find him a lot more plausible. Has anyone ever heard of this guy before or know if any of his past predictions using reverse speech were actually correct?

So if I have this clear, you like the theory, but you just dislike the manner in which the theory was derived. It's like saying you appreciation the teaching of the later day saints but just wish there was more proof than Joesph Smith "reading" gold plates he claims an archangel showed him.

In this instance you should not detract the source of the claim from the credibility of the claim.

Samson9 wrote:

Who says its nonsense though?

Wikipedia?

Who says it's real? Can you refer me to the science behind it? The logic? The rationality? It's basically someone listening to something backwards and deciding the noise resembles something. The claim has no merit in any way shape or form, demanding it is disproven before it is proven, is like deciding that the biblical creation happen and demanding I disprove the supposed exist of Adam and Eve.

samson09

Diogenes wrote: »

So if I have this clear, you like the theory, but you just dislike the manner in which the theory was derived. It's like saying you appreciation the teaching of the later day saints but just wish there was more proof than Joesph Smith "reading" gold plates he claims an archangel showed him.

In this instance you should not detract the source of the claim from the credibility of the claim.



Who says it's real? Can you refer me to the science behind it? The logic? The rationality? It's basically someone listening to something backwards and deciding the noise resembles something. The claim has no merit in any way shape or form, demanding it is disproven before it is proven, is like deciding that the biblical creation happen and demanding I disprove the supposed exist of Adam and Eve.

I'm just saying I'm not familiar with reverse speech and I usually like to find out more about a topic before I form an opinion on it.

I'm not demanding anything either, I'm just asking questions. Obviously you think it's B.S. and that's fine, but seriously man, chill out, you'll give yourself a heart attack.

PirateShampoo

Undergod wrote: »

Here's a thought...

The NWO know that hardcore conspiracy theorists won't get the vaccine. Perhaps they are engineering it so that those who get the vaccine are eliminated, leaving only the unvaccinated surviving!

People! The NWO love conspiracy theorists!

Or maybe its the other way around, maybe the Government wants to get rid of all the nut jobs and started the whole (Vaccine causes X) stuff in the first place knowing all the crazies wont get the jab.

I for one look forward to our Utopia without all the crazy.

Zillah

samson09 wrote: »

Who says its nonsense though?

Wikipedia?

Did you even try googling?
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/demon-haunted_sentence_a_skeptical_analysis_of_reverse_speech1/

Basically it has absolutely no evidence whatsoever and the guy who started it all is trying to farm this nonsense for exorbitant amounts of money. Pareidolia easily explains how a person can get confused and think they find hidden messages, it is no more scientific than reading tea leaves or seeing faces in the clouds.

douglashyde

King Mob wrote: »

You dead?
In a coma?

I have the sudden urge to party.

Black Uhlan

Diogenes wrote: »

In this instance you should not detract the source of the claim from the credibility of the claim.

And there you have the point of disinfo. Credible info mixed with easily disprovable bull**** so the credible info can be tarnished with the nonsense so someone can come along and say the above.

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

And there you have the point of disinfo. Credible info mixed with easily disprovable bull**** so the credible info can be tarnished with the nonsense so someone can come along and say the above.

Lets take that notion, though, and say that this source is disinfo.

If a given piece of information originates from this source - that it has no other independant origins - then what basis would we have to call it credible?

I'd readily accept that saying "A's claim is false, because its also repeated by B who is not credible" is a poor argument if one accepts the notion of disinfo.

On the other hand, saying that "A's claim is credible, even though A is a source of disinfo and the claim has never originated elsewhere" would seem a bit of a stretch, no?

A lot of people repeat the claim, sure, but if their repitition is only based on A having said it....why is it credible if A is untrustworthy?

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

Lets take that notion,

OK, but I am going to have to read that about twenty times to try and get my head around it. My fault, not yours.

bonkey

Maybe I can put it a different way...

Lets say we have a claim that comes from one source and one source only.
On the basis of other claims from that person, some people say "this person is not reliable". Other people say "this person could be spreading disinfo".

Does it really make a difference if you're in the "not reliable" or the "disinfo" camps? I would feel that in both, you need to find another source before you can get anywhere.

If you find a second source, then which of those two camps you fall into could well influence how you evaluate things...but with this untrustworthy/disinfo person as your only source...how would it make a difference?

Black Uhlan

quote=bonkey;62953373]Lets take that notion, [/quote] OK, but I am going to have to read that about twenty times to try and get my head around it. My fault, not yours.
---

bonkey wrote: »

Lets take that notion, though, and say that this source is disinfo.

If a given piece of information originates from this source - that it has no other independant origins - then what basis would we have to call it credible?

Well credibility is just stage 1, and what is believable to one is not neccessarily believable to another. The following stages would consist of further analysis and research in a process of verification, if the information or the source of the information has suspected misinformation or disinformation then it should fall under even higher scrutiny. It is an absolute requirement in my opinion that any disinformation practitioners need to mix truths, half-truths, and lies to survive effectively. The real answer to your question though is there is no basis.

bonkey wrote: »

I'd readily accept that saying "A's claim is false, because its also repeated by B who is not credible" is a poor argument if one accepts the notion of disinfo.

On the other hand, saying that "A's claim is credible, even though A is a source of disinfo and the claim has never originated elsewhere" would seem a bit of a stretch, no?

A lot of people repeat the claim, sure, but if their repitition is only based on A having said it....why is it credible if A is untrustworthy?

Perhaps the have the discernment to seperate fact from fantasy, assuming the original claim was a combination of both, going back to the need of percentage of truth.

(hope i understod the q's correctly)

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

Maybe I can put it a different way...

Lets say we have a claim that comes from one source and one source only.
On the basis of other claims from that person, some people say "this person is not reliable". Other people say "this person could be spreading disinfo".

Does it really make a difference if you're in the "not reliable" or the "disinfo" camps? I would feel that in both, you need to find another source before you can get anywhere.

If you find a second source, then which of those two camps you fall into could well influence how you evaluate things...but with this untrustworthy/disinfo person as your only source...how would it make a difference?

Are you saying that misinformation and disinformation are essentially the same thing?

DERICKOO

SWINE FLU PREVENTION ADVICE

Medical Advice snipped by bonkey.

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Are you saying that misinformation and disinformation are essentially the same thing?

Aside from motive, I would argue that they are....but it wasn't really my point.

The point I was trying to drive at is answered by your response above:

The following stages would consist of further analysis and research in a process of verification, if the information or the source of the information has suspected misinformation or disinformation then it should fall under even higher scrutiny.

In other words, you seem to agree that if we have an untrustworthy source, making a claim that is found to be believable (or possible, or worthy of further investigation...), then the next steps are to seek to verify the claim....to seek out a "second source" which supports the claim.

Where I think the contention would come in is hinted at in this comment of yours:

Well credibility is just stage 1, and what is believable to one is not neccessarily believable to another.

I wouldn't consider "credible" to be stage 1 at all.

For me, stage 1 is accepting that something could be true...that its not impossible. Then comes the various things your mentioned...the process of verification and so forth. Depending on where I got with that, I could end up considering the claim as credible...that its not just something thats "not impossible", but rather that its something where there's good reason to believe its true.

Taking this back to the original issue...I would certainly not rule out the possibility that a vaccination had unintentional side-effects such as making someone more suseceptible to an unrelated condition. I would not, however, consider a claim that this was the case to be credible merely on the grounds that its not impossible.

If the source the claim came from was of high quality, that alone might give initial credibility. If the source the claim from was of questionable quality (signs of mis- or dis-information), then I certainly wouldn't consider the claim credible....but still wouldn't say its impossible.

So maybe it just boils down to differences in language usage.

Captain Furball

sky news
Bonkey uses uv light to cure cancer

cnn news
uv light is thought to make you fat and grow a tail.

Both are telling the truth.
missinfo or disinfo?

samson09

None of this has anything to do with the original post!

Captain Furball

Samsong welcome to the internet.

Zillah

samson09 wrote: »

None of this has anything to do with the original post!

Mine did! It was in fact a direct response to you.

bonkey

samson09 wrote: »

None of this has anything to do with the original post!

In post 10, you offered a link between typhoid vaccination and the effects of hte 1918 Spanish flu pandemic as an explanation for the reasoning in the OP.

The current discussion has directly stemmed from that, although its admittedly on a bit of a tangent.

That said...in post 10, you more-or-less took the stance that none of this makes any sense, so I'd ask where that leaves us to go with the discussion if not on a tangent to see if we can find sense.

tallaght01

In fairness, we shouldn't need anyone to be particularly credible for a discussion like this (though I accept bonkey was dealing with the general rather than the specific).

BUt the claims here that can be verified are A) that vaccines send immune systems into overdrive.The immune response to swine fu vaccination has been studied extensively, and is published in the journals.

That superinfection with another influenza will lead to a cytokine storm reaction. There's plenty of follow up data on people who've been immunised with swine flu vaccines in adults. The 3 month paeds follow up study is just about to be released. No one in any of the groups have suffered cytokine storm reactions. In fact the evidence for cytokine storm is that a primary viral infectin induces it, rather than a secondary infection.

But you don't have to take my word for it. It's all out there and published. That's my point.


People who are going to make a mini career out of discrediting vaccination programmes should start by learning HOW to interpret evidence. There are lots of books on how to read papers critically, and how to question data. libraries run little sessions on how to search for information.

THAT is the biggest problem the forum here faces. In almost every thread the pattern is the same. Some randomer appears in a youtube video. He will be "an expert on swine flu" (despite the fact it's never any of us who have actually been working with swine flu since it reared it's head, and really have more experience of it than anyone else), or they'll boast that they're a "PhD" or whatever.
They'll then say they've reviewed "peer reviewed papers" and they go on to tell the viewers about their interpretation of the data. It will be deperately flawed and incomplete. Then it gets posted here. It's not the fault of people here that they accept what's being said, as it can be very convincing.

But it is so important to regard everything you read as being false until you can verify it.
Once a month I haul every single junior doctor in my department into our lecture hall. I get the statisticians along too. We take a peer-reviewed paper that makes certain claims, and we analyse it to death. We look at every claim, every number, every inference, and we tear it to shreds. I do that in my everyday life when dealing with data, and I wish people would do it more often.

It's not easy for a non scientist. But it's easy to look up p-values or confidence intervals, or risk ratios etc. All simple terms that are so important.

I know it's a bit of a ramble. But literally your biggest problem on the forum is people just accepting what they are told. But there is no need for worrying about someone's credibility when you educate yourself enough to analyse what is being fed to you.

When you do this, your whole way of looking at information will change.

6th

Captain Furball wrote: »

Samsong welcome to the internet.

This contributes nothing and your smart arsed posts wont be welcome here much longer.

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

That superinfection with another influenza will lead to a cytokine storm reaction. There's plenty of follow up data on people who've been immunised with swine flu vaccines in adults. The 3 month paeds follow up study is just about to be released. No one in any of the groups have suffered cytokine storm reactions. In fact the evidence for cytokine storm is that a primary viral infectin induces it, rather than a secondary infection.

What if certain characteristics of the second virus naturally increase the production of cytokines, in a way that is much greater than the primary infection?

Also, of the evidence for cytokine storms you mention (and also the 3 month paeds study), did these studies look at changes in cytokine levels in people who

(a) had not been vaccinated but previously had an infection
(b) had been vaccinated after having a previous infection
(c) were vaccinated with a vaccine containing adjuvants
(d) were vaccinated without the use of adjuvants
(e) were vaccinated with a vaccine specifically containing a squalene adjuvant such as ASO3 or MF-59.

The reason I ask is as follows:

The evidence may be based primarily on people who haven't received vaccinations containing powerful immune boosting adjuvants such as ASO3 or MF-59 (or any vaccinations at all). For this group of people, it may be that their bodies natural response to infection is to produce more cytokines to a primary infection (for whatever reason that may be).

However, alteration of the natural immune response after vaccination with the squalene based adjuvants may result in more cytokines being produced with a secondary viral infection as the immune response has been artificially tampered with and heightened. The possibility of this happening, along with a virus of increased lethality, is what Ken Welch seems to be suggesting.

Is there any possibility, even a remote one, that this could occur?

samson09

Zillah wrote: »

Mine did! It was in fact a direct response to you.

Super, a rhetorical question about the use of google!

Thanks anyway.

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

What if certain characteristics of the second virus naturally increase the production of cytokines, in a way that is much greater than the primary infection?

Also, of the evidence for cytokine storms you mention (and also the 3 month paeds study), did these studies look at changes in cytokine levels in people who

(a) had not been vaccinated but previously had an infection
(b) had been vaccinated after having a previous infection
(c) were vaccinated with a vaccine containing adjuvants
(d) were vaccinated without the use of adjuvants
(e) were vaccinated with a vaccine specifically containing a squalene adjuvant such as ASO3 or MF-59.

The reason I ask is as follows:

The evidence may be based primarily on people who haven't received vaccinations containing powerful immune boosting adjuvants such as ASO3 or MF-59 (or any vaccinations at all). For this group of people, it may be that their bodies natural response to infection is to produce more cytokines to a primary infection (for whatever reason that may be).

However, alteration of the natural immune response after vaccination with the squalene based adjuvants may result in more cytokines being produced with a secondary viral infection as the immune response has been artificially tampered with and heightened. The possibility of this happening, along with a virus of increased lethality, is what Ken Welch seems to be suggesting.

Is there any possibility, even a remote one, that this could occur?

i know the answers to these questions. But the point is that the info is out there to be critically appraised. There are remote possibilities of all kinds of things happen. But we can't live life worrying about them. There are very good reasons why we don't think they will. But it's all about educating yourself.

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

i know the answers to these questions. But the point is that the info is out there to be critically appraised. There are remote possibilities of all kinds of things happen. But we can't live life worrying about them. There are very good reasons why we don't think they will. But it's all about educating yourself.

You make a claim, you back it up. I've been lead to believe that's the way things roll around here?

Knowing the possibilities doesn't necessarily equate to living a life where you are constantly worrying and looking over your shoulder. If people choose to worry and fret it's their choice, but not everyone takes this approach.

bonkey

samson09 wrote: »

You make a claim, you back it up. I've been lead to believe that's the way things roll around here?

If you want to play that game, why not first back up your original claim to which tallaght01 was responding?

ETA:
It would be disingenuous argue that you're only "speculating" that something might be possible, given the specificity of the comments you'be made. You present a very clear picture of what you think the "path" to this kill-off might be....so shouldn't you back it up?

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

You make a claim, you back it up. I've been lead to believe that's the way things roll around here?

Knowing the possibilities doesn't necessarily equate to living a life where you are constantly worrying and looking over your shoulder. If people choose to worry and fret it's their choice, but not everyone takes this approach.

I'm happy to get into the evidence when it comes to matters of public health importance, because I have a duty to protect the public from dodgy information, which I take very seriously. I sped a lt of time talking to the public and GPs about thimerosal etc and the other misinformation out there.

But when it comes to matters of people giving the public killer vaccines as part of a mass extermination plan, then I'm not really interested. And I don't try to change the minds of people on the forum, as they almost never believe me. No offence intended. But it's for theories like the OP that I was talking about judging the evidence for yourself.

I only post on the forum to counter the stuff about the vaccine safety, which the public might believe. But I'm happy the vast vast majority do not believe this is a plan to exterminate people.

samson09

bonkey wrote: »

If you want to play that game, why not first back up your original claim to which tallaght01 was responding?

ETA:
It would be disingenuous argue that you're only "speculating" that something might be possible, given the specificity of the comments you'be made. You present a very clear picture of what you think the "path" to this kill-off might be....so shouldn't you back it up?

And which claim would that happen to be? If I remember correctly, I presented the article as an alternative theory, a conspiracy theory, as this is the conspiracy theories forum is it not? I even stated that it was possibly a load of horse****. Everything I've said is hypothetical and I've never claimed any of it to be fact, as far as I know. tallaght09, on the other hand, seems to have all the facts but has chosen not to share them with us.

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm happy to get into the evidence when it comes to matters of public health importance, because I have a duty to protect the public from dodgy information, which I take very seriously. I sped a lt of time talking to the public and GPs about thimerosal etc and the other misinformation out there.

But when it comes to matters of people giving the public killer vaccines as part of a mass extermination plan, then I'm not really interested. And I don't try to change the minds of people on the forum, as they almost never believe me. No offence intended. But it's for theories like the OP that I was talking about judging the evidence for yourself.

I only post on the forum to counter the stuff about the vaccine safety, which the public might believe. But I'm happy the vast vast majority do not believe this is a plan to exterminate people.

If you don't want to back up your statements with facts then don't make claims. I think it's in the charter, you should read that sometime.

bonkey

samson09 wrote: »

If you don't want to back up your statements with facts then don't make claims. I think it's in the charter, you should read that sometime.

That same charter tells you that if you have a problem with a post, report it.

You're not a mod. Don't try to tell people what to do here.

Zillah

samson09 wrote: »

Super, a rhetorical question about the use of google!

Thanks anyway.

Seriously? That's the angle you're going to take? My post was composed of three parts; the rhetorical question, a relevant link and a summary of what the link shows...and you focus on nothing but the first bit? It's like you're wearing blinders or something.

bonkey

Lets not get personal here.

macshadow

An interesting video and very credible source http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/lmoret2.htm

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

i know the answers to these questions. But the point is that the info is out there to be critically appraised. There are remote possibilities of all kinds of things happen. But we can't live life worrying about them. There are very good reasons why we don't think they will. But it's all about educating yourself.

This woman certainly knows how to educate herself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQwaHxlHJuE

Diogenes

She's married to



Don Imus. She's already brung the crazy.


Yes I'm aware this derogatory and personal, but if Samson is going to link to a unqualified woman and her video, and suggest her opinion is important then it deserves a terse answer.

tallaght01

Plus it HAS been tested in kids!!!!!

I was on one of the teams who tested it LOL.

samson09

Diogenes wrote: »

She's married to

Don Imus. She's already brung the crazy.


Yes I'm aware this derogatory and personal, but if Samson is going to link to a unqualified woman and her video, and suggest her opinion is important then it deserves a terse answer.

It's not her "opinion" though is it, she's reading the actual package insert from the vaccine :rolleyes:

samson09

tallaght01 wrote: »

Plus it HAS been tested in kids!!!!!

I was on one of the teams who tested it LOL.

And regarding the children involved in the trials you were part of:

(1) What was the age range?
(2) Was it using the adjuvanated form of the vaccine? I don't think they are using Pandemrix in Australia, are they tallaght01?

Also, you don't mention any trials on pregnant women. Where are the results from those trials?

tallaght01

samson09 wrote: »

And regarding the children involved in the trials you were part of:

(1) What was the age range?
(2) Was it using the adjuvanated form of the vaccine? I don't think they are using Pandemrix in Australia, are they tallaght01?

Also, you don't mention any trials on pregnant women. Where are the results from those trials?

I tested H1N1 vaccines in kids aged 3-18. I've tested them with thimerosal in them. That's conveniently become a non-issue now, though.

Adjuvants make no difference. They've been used for donkeys years. The FDA have the adjuvanted H1N1 data if that's what they're using in the US. Irish medicines board for the ones they're using in Ireland. Sadly it wasn't submitted to my mailbox. I was also under the impression that the americans weren't using adjuvanted swine flu vaccines, but I'm happy to be proven wrong on that.

Show me one study where any recent adjuvanted vaccines have shown to cause significant dangerous side effects.


Just one.

You need to start reading papers, samson, if you're going to make a career out of being an anti-vaccine campaigner.

EDIT: pregnant women trials have been going on for the last few months, with no problems. The results haven't been published yet, but the FDA have them, and there's been no problems with it. Pregnant women have been getting the normal flu vaccine for years, and we've vaccinated lots f pregnant women here in Oz without any significant adverse events.