IMPORTANT INFO RE SWINE FLU

meglome · 24-08-2009 07:19PM

Samson09 haven't some of the what you've just posted been debunked in previous posts?

24-08-2009 07:47PM

samson09 wrote: »

1.The proposed swine flu, squalene adjuvant, live virus vaccination is neither adequately or sufficiently tested, nor proven effective or safe; it is uninsurable and can stimulate the onset of a variety of debilitating auto-immune diseases, and is a serious assault on the immune system.

Is this referring to GBS?
You realise that is common to all auto immune reactions, including the the presence of a normal virus?
The same GBS that happens to about one in a million patients and it normally lasts about 5 days and leave no permanent damage?
But I suppose "debilitating auto-immune disease" sounds alot scarier.

And how exactly is it a "serious assault on the immune system" when it has the same effect on the immune system that the virus has but with none of the symptoms.
Almost seems your playing on the general lack of knowledge people have about vaccines.

It hasn't been adequately or sufficiently tested but you claim it has been shown that it is dangerous.
How does this make sense?

samson09 wrote: »

2. The swine flu vaccine contains dangerous & life-threatening fillers, including adjuvants such as squalene, animal tissues, which may include pig tissue, viral and bacterial proteins, and live viruses—all of which contain pig DNA.

And you know what else has pig DNA?
Bacon.

How is pig DNA dangerous exactly?

Oh and you have any scientific papers showing squalene is dangerous as well?

samson09 wrote: »

3. Live viruses have a history of lethal danger, disease, and are contagious. Secondary Spread of live viruses from those vaccinated with a live virus lasting up to three weeks is a well-known fact.

You mean live viruses like the swine flu virus?

It's pretty apparent you either don't know how vaccines work or do know how they work but are deliberately misrepresenting the facts

samson09 wrote: »

4. The swine flu appears to have been laboratory generated and designed to have its dangerous effects amplified by the use of all the available swine flu vaccines..........

Wow.
Really?

And how do you know this exactly?

Run_to_da_hills · 24-08-2009 08:18PM

The latest swine flu vaccine *contains a deadly brain toxin linked to autism, Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis" according to this press release.

"Mercury, a vaccine preservative, was withdrawn from childhood jabs five years ago after evidence linked it to brain damage" :eek:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ne-flu-vaccine

24-08-2009 08:27PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The latest swine flu vaccine *contains a deadly brain toxin linked to autism, Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis" according to this press release.

"Mercury, a vaccine preservative, was withdrawn from childhood jabs five years ago after evidence linked it to brain damage" :eek:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ne-flu-vaccine

All of this is pure intentional misrepresentation.

1. The preservative is not Mercury it's Thiomersal. A component of this is Ethyl-mercury which is not harmful at the levels present in vaccines.

2. It was not removed form vaccines because "evidence linked it to brain damage". No evidence ever linked it to any of those diseases.

3. It was removed because parents where buying into the bull**** that is being spread about vaccines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

And seriously the Daily Express?
Not exactly a bastion of truth and reason.

samson09 · 24-08-2009 09:03PM

meglome wrote: »

Samson09 haven't some of the just you've just posted been debunked in previous posts?

I dont think so, all I heard was opinion with nothing to back it.

I assume you're getting injected with squalene soon, how do you feel about that?

Imagine if someone walked up to you holding a syringe full of squalene.

Meglome: What's that?
Mad Doctor: SQUALENE! YOU'LL LOVE IT.
Meglome: Is it safe?
Mad Doctor: Yes, of course. Now stop your jibber jabber and take the damn shot (Mad Doctor is obviously first cousin of Mr.T)
Meglome: But doesnt it paralyse animals when they are injected with it?
Mad Doctor: Not at all. Dont worry.
Meglome: Wait a minute, that's the s**t that caused Gulf War syndrome, there was a court case and the American government had to shell out a wagonload of money and...
Mad Doctor: Now now meglome, trust me...I'm a doctor you know (points to badge that reads "Doctor")
Meglome: Is there a live virus in that....that yoke? (meglome is from the depths of Tipperary) Its been proven that I may actually become a walking incubator for the flu, studies have been done, I may pass the virus on to my friends and family.
Mad Doctor: Hmmmm, have you been on the INTERNET?
Meglome: Yeah, why?
Mad Doctor: You've been looking at those conspiracy theory sites haven't you?
Meglome: No, no...I would never do that. It was samson09.
Mad Doctor: Listen, just take the shot. I'll deal with that scoundrel later.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

meglome · 24-08-2009 10:09PM

samson09 wrote: »

I dont think so, all I heard was opinion with nothing to back it.

But that's exactly what you're doing, is it not? It's been pointed out to you several times that you don't seem to understand how vaccines work and how they are made but you choose to ignore it.

samson09 wrote: »

I assume you're getting injected with squalene soon, how do you feel about that?

I'm not being injected with anything, I don't even take aspirin. That said I'm not stupid enough to ignore medical advise if I was really sick, especially if my life was in danger.

samson09 · 24-08-2009 11:07PM

meglome wrote: »

But that's exactly what you're doing, is it not? It's been pointed out to you several times that you don't seem to understand how vaccines work and how they are made but you choose to ignore it.

I'm not being injected with anything, I don't even take aspirin. That said I'm not stupid enough to ignore medical advise if I was really sick, especially if my life was in danger.

You obviously haven't listened to a word I've said or bothered to go through any of the information I have posted. There's evidence there if you bother to read it. Anyway, its not too difficult to understand how vaccines work, at least the way we are told they are supposed to. Any secondary school student could figure it out. The point is that these vaccines are no "Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain", they do not do exactly what they say on the tin. Have a look into Gulf War Syndrome and the anthrax vaccine.

Seriously tho, glad to hear you're not having the vaccines. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

Read through what I've posted with an open mind.

Dont forget what Hitler said:

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think”

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”

24-08-2009 11:22PM

samson09 wrote: »

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”

And as we all know people who are promoting natural medicine or against actual medicine cannot possibly lie.

meglome · 25-08-2009 03:53AM

King Mob wrote: »

And as we all know people who are promoting natural medicine or against actual medicine cannot possibly lie.

You know this is one of the things I'm amazed about in here. Some sites, many of which are selling something, make claims. Lots of CT's believe these claims even though they are contradicted by the medical evidence. The scientists who use careful testing to reach their conclusions are 'in on it' but some random punters on the internet are to be believed. It boggles my mind to be honest.

tallaght01 · 25-08-2009 01:52PM

samson09 wrote: »

Not sure if I've posted this already

Anyway, some good reading here and definitely a must read for anyone who may still be questioning the safety of the vaccine.

BTW, the conspiracy here is that we are being led to believe that this vaccine is safe when (IMO) it clearly isn't.

A HARD LOOK AT MANDATORY LIVE VIRUS VACCINATIONS:
WHAT’S REALITY AND WHAT TO DO

http://treeoflife.nu/allpdfdoc/vaccine.action.letter.pdf

11 POINT SUMMARY:

1. The proposed swine flu, squalene adjuvant, live virus vaccination is neither adequately or sufficiently tested, nor proven effective or safe; it is uninsurable and can stimulate the onset of a variety of debilitating auto-immune diseases, and is a serious assault on the immune system.

2. The swine flu vaccine contains dangerous & life-threatening fillers, including adjuvants such as squalene, animal tissues, which may include pig tissue, viral and bacterial proteins, and live viruses—all of which contain pig DNA.

3. Live viruses have a history of lethal danger, disease, and are contagious. Secondary Spread of live viruses from those vaccinated with a live virus lasting up to three weeks is a well-known fact.

4. The swine flu appears to have been laboratory generated and designed to have its dangerous effects amplified by the use of all the available swine flu vaccines..........

READ IT!

I'm sorry to labour the point again. But I've just had a look through some of the European Medicines Agency stuff on this new vaccine, and there's no mention of squalene in the ingredients.

No auto-immune diseases are caused by vaccines. Well, Guillain Barre syndrome MIGHT be autoimmune. No one knows. But ironically, the vast majority of cases are actually caused by viral infections, as opposed to vaccines.

Live bacteria containing pig DNA?????????? There are no bacteria in the swine flu vaccine! There are certainly viral proteins in there, as that's how vaccines work.

I'll leave people to judge point 4 themselves :P

Again, the point is not for me to get involved in the debate. The reason I'm posting is to encourage people who might read this to seek advice from their own doctor about any vaccination issues that concern them.

Every vaccine comes with an ingredients leaflet, that has been approved by at least 2 regulatory bodies. Your GP/immunisation nurse will show you the list if you ask them, and they'll explain what the ingredients are there for. There are minimal ingredients in the new Baxter vaccine from what I can see.

Your GP will also provide you with details of the safety checks tat have been performed.

You may not feel that the vaccine is right for you or your kids. But this information should be obtained from a healthcare professional.

Declaration of conflict of interest: I'm heavily involved in testing the swine flu vaccine on kids. Though I'm not paid by the drug company. I get paid whether the vaccine does well or flops.

tallaght01 · 25-08-2009 02:01PM

King Mob wrote: »

All of this is pure intentional misrepresentation.

1. The preservative is not Mercury it's Thiomersal. A component of this is Ethyl-mercury which is not harmful at the levels present in vaccines.

2. It was not removed form vaccines because "evidence linked it to brain damage". No evidence ever linked it to any of those diseases.

3. It was removed because parents where buying into the bull**** that is being spread about vaccines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

And seriously the Daily Express?
Not exactly a bastion of truth and reason.

It was removed because it wasn't needed anymore. New technology comes and things change. But Thimerosol has never ever een shown to be harmful, despite lots of individual studies looking at the issue.

I doubt it's in the new vaccine. But if it is it wouldn't be stopping me having it.

uprising · 25-08-2009 02:55PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm sorry to labour the point again. But I've just had a look through some of the European Medicines Agency stuff on this new vaccine, and there's no mention of squalene in the ingredients.

No auto-immune diseases are caused by vaccines. Well, Guillain Barre syndrome MIGHT be autoimmune. No one knows. But ironically, the vast majority of cases are actually caused by viral infections, as opposed to vaccines.

Live bacteria containing pig DNA?????????? There are no bacteria in the swine flu vaccine! There are certainly viral proteins in there, as that's how vaccines work.

I'll leave people to judge point 4 themselves :P

Yea EMEA, best place to check if a medicine is safe or not, they are the experts to look to alright........EXCEPT.

Earlier this month PharmaTimes World News reported how Pasqualino Rossi, one of Aifa's most senior representatives at the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), had been arrested along with another Aifa official and five drugs company lobbyists in connection with the scandal.

A preliminary report by a Government-appointed panel has suggested there is no evidence that any harm has been done to the public, however. The names of the drugs have not been revealed, despite demands from consumer groups for the government to do so.

Italy's La Repubblica newspaper earlier this month named the drug giants Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline, as two companies with links to some of the arrestees. Daniele Rosa, a spokesman for Bayer's Italian division said: "The investigation does not concern the behaviour of the company, but alleged behaviour that could be traced back to some collaborators whose behaviour the company has no knowledge of." Massimo Escani, a spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline in Italy, denied that any associates of the company were involved in the scandal. "The claims are completely untrue," he said.
http://www.eatg.org/eatg/Global-HIV-News/EU-Policy/Drug-licences-for-cash-scandal-unfolds-in-Italy

The Celvapan EMEA licensure supports fast track approval of a pandemic vaccine containing the A/H1N1 virus strain. Baxter will submit the A/H1N1 vaccine for approval upon completion of initial manufacturing runs.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baxter claiming the drug maker substituted an ingredient in its blood thinner heparin with a cheaper, more dangerous one in order to reap more profits, according to the Madison-St. Clair The Record. Twenty-eight people are named in the lawsuit, most of whom are spouses of individuals who died after receiving injections of the tainted heparin. The lawsuit was filed in St. Clair County Court in Illinois.
http://www.heparin-legal.com/news/2009/03/04/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-baxter-over-tainted-heparin-scandal/

25-08-2009 03:02PM

uprising wrote: »

tallaght01 wrote: »

It was removed because it wasn't needed anymore. New technology comes and things change. But Thimerosol has never ever een shown to be harmful, despite lots of individual studies looking at the issue.
I doubt it's in the new vaccine. But if it is it wouldn't be stopping me having it.

You say your testing it on children, yet you haven't got it yourself yet, and you DOUBT it's in the new vaccine.

OHH now I'm convinced.

I think you bolded the wrong bit there.

uprising · 25-08-2009 03:03PM

tallaght01 wrote: »

It was removed because it wasn't needed anymore. New technology comes and things change. But Thimerosol has never ever een shown to be harmful, despite lots of individual studies looking at the issue.

I doubt it's in the new vaccine. But if it is it wouldn't be stopping me having it.

You say your testing it on children, yet you haven't got it yourself yet, and you DOUBT it's in the new vaccine.

OHH now I'm convinced.

uprising · 25-08-2009 03:14PM

King Mob wrote: »

I think you bolded the wrong bit there.

What difference does it make to you?, maybe I should have BOLDED it all, but with your selective viewing technique, it wouldn't have made any difference.
And honestly you and meglome here ranting and raving it's safe yet neither of you will be getting the shot, if it's so safe take meglomes hand and both of you skip down and get the magic cure for the BIG BAD DISEASE, just squeeze each others hands and close your eyes tightly.

6th · 25-08-2009 03:32PM

uprising wrote: »

What difference does it make to you?, maybe I should have BOLDED it all, but with your selective viewing technique, it wouldn't have made any difference.
And honestly you and meglome here ranting and raving it's safe yet neither of you will be getting the shot, if it's so safe take meglomes hand and both of you skip down and get the magic cure for the BIG BAD DISEASE, just squeeze each others hands and close your eyes tightly.

Thats it, more overly expressive comments directed at the posters a opposed to the posts. Take 2 days off to think about it.

tallaght01 · 25-08-2009 03:34PM

uprising wrote: »

You say your testing it on children, yet you haven't got it yourself yet, and you DOUBT it's in the new vaccine.

OHH now I'm convinced.

I'll get it when it's available.

It's not in the vaccine I'm testing. But I'm not in Europe. The one being tested here has no adjuvants in it at all.

But the Baxter one is the one the Irish are buying. I haven't seen thimerosol on any of the ingredients list from the European Medicines Agency, so I doubt it's in it. I don't think it's relevant anyway. The autism rates haven't fallen since we stopped using it.

But I'm not trying to convince you. I'm asking the people who might stumble across this forum to get proper medical advice before making these decisions.

deereidy · 25-08-2009 04:13PM

maybe this is just a stupid question and I'm totally naive..but why would you want to kill your own people?

Run_to_da_hills · 25-08-2009 06:44PM

50% of GPs are refusing the Jab over testing fears. This says a lot as these guys actually know their stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html

Nehaxak · 25-08-2009 06:54PM

deereidy wrote: »

maybe this is just a stupid question and I'm totally naive..but why would you want to kill your own people?

Cheaper than health care I guess. I guess it's why alternatives to smoking or those alternatives that help you to quit are so expensive in this country because it's cheaper for people just to die from smoking than it is to give them cheaper alternatives to help them quit.

Absolutely simple question - if the population have doubts over some ingredients that aren't absolutely required to be in a vaccine in the first place, like a preservative or anything to do with mercury for example - then why not just put their minds at ease and remove it rather than shouting at them and calling them stupid ?

Seems simple enough to me, remove that which is not required to be there in the first place, thereby removing the cause of peoples concerns, therein providing the ability for the vaccines in question to be distributed and used more widely without such public worries.

25-08-2009 07:02PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

50% of GPs are refusing the Jab over testing fears. This says a lot as these guys actually know their stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html

Did you even bother to read any of the response to the other similar article you posted?

But if these GPs are not taking the vaccine because of actual evidence rather than the irrational fear and scaremongering that everyone else is buying, how come they don't share it?

Run_to_da_hills · 25-08-2009 07:39PM

King Mob wrote: »

Did you even bother to read any of the response to the other similar article you posted?

But if these GPs are not taking the vaccine because of actual evidence rather than the irrational fear and scaremongering that everyone else is buying, how come they don't share it?

THe report isprobably not official, and made on a survey, It could probably go against them if they publicly disclosed names. I will certainly take the advice from my GP, and I hnow for sure that he is very concerned about the jab. It wouldn't surprise me if doctors could eventually loose their licences if they refused to carry it out the jab under orders.

25-08-2009 07:46PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

THe report isprobably not official, and made on a survey, It could probably go against them if they publicly disclosed names. I will certainly take the advice from my GP, and I hnow for sure that he is very concerned about the jab.

So it wouldn't matter then this advice might be based on irrational fear and misinformation rather than scientific evidence?

And what about the 50 percent of the doctors who say they will get the jab?
How do you know these doctors are wrong and the doctors that you agree with are right?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It wouldn't surprise me if doctors could eventually loose their licences if they refused to carry it out the jab under orders.

And is there any basis at all for this?

Under orders from who?
What laws allow any official body to do that?

Black Uhlan · 25-08-2009 08:02PM

Hi everyone. I came across this site while I was researching swine flu. This is my first post, I just thought I could actually give a unique perspective so go easy...

The reason I was looking it up is because my young daughter apparently has caught swine flu and in all probability I have "suffered" it recently as well. To be honest it just felt like a really bad dose, no worse than anything before, but I didn't visit a doctor and I was okay after a week so in my experience it is nothing to get too bothered about. Without all the media hype I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

I should explain the reason I have come to this conclusion is that my local doc diagnosed my daughter with swine flu on the basis of nothing but the fact that she had a high temperature!!! So that is where they get their figures from I guess. A word to the wise to any parents out there don't give your children Tamiflu, it gave her diahrea and terrible nightmares.

Run_to_da_hills · 25-08-2009 08:09PM

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Hi everyone. I came across this site while I was researching swine flu. This is my first post, I just thought I could actually give a unique perspective so go easy...

The reason I was looking it up is because my young daughter apparently has caught swine flu and in all probability I have "suffered" it recently as well. To be honest it just felt like a really bad dose, no worse than anything before, but I didn't visit a doctor and I was okay after a week so in my experience it is nothing to get too bothered about. Without all the media hype I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

I should explain the reason I have come to this conclusion is that my local doc diagnosed my daughter with swine flu on the basis of nothing but the fact that she had a high temperature!!! So that is where they get their figures from I guess. A word to the wise to any parents out there don't give your children Tamiflu, it gave her diarrhea and terrible nightmares.

I agree, most cases of Swine flu are no more than that of a common cold, I probably got myself last week when I was a bit wheezy and it just passed away. All this media hype is just nonsense. The only fatalities in this country were those that had additional medical conditions. Hope your child makes a full recovery and will never go near that unnecessary potent stuff again.

25-08-2009 08:12PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I agree, most cases of Swine flu are no more than that of a common cold,

Well except for the people who died.
But they don't count.

Great medical advice RtdH.

bonkey · 25-08-2009 09:21PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

50% of GPs are refusing the Jab over testing fears.

Thats not what the article you linked to says.

It says that there were two seperate polls. One, consisting of 15 GPs, 49% said they would opt out and 9% were unsure.

The other, consisting of 216, showed 29 percent opting out, 29 percent unsure, and 41% definitely opting in.

Leaving aside the mathematical impossibility of getting a sub-group of 49% from a sample-size of 15 people, it should be clear that the sample-size of 216 is going to reveal more reliable results.

So, we're down to 29% saying they won't have the jab.

Of that 29% who said they were opting out, 71% said that it was because of testing concerns. That would be a net of 21%.

So, one in five GPs said it was over testing concerns...not half. Conversely, double that amount were definitely opting in. From the remainder, we cannot determine their stance regarding testing.

This says a lot as these guys actually know their stuff.

What we can state from the polls is that 2 of 3 GPs who expressed an identifiable position regarding testing do not have a problem with the testing.

If these guys "actually know their stuff", then perhaps you can explain why its worth listening to only one in three of them?

bonkey · 25-08-2009 09:28PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The only fatalities in this country were those that had additional medical conditions.

Nice selective use of numbers there.

The only fatalities in this country.

Of course, of the total fatalities, roughly one in three had no additional medical conditions.

Also please note, that roughly one in a thousand identified cases has resulted in death. If you're arguing that anything like a high temperature is being classified as swine flu, then what you're saying is that the identified cases are artificially high and should be a lot lower.

The attributed deaths, however, are all lab-confirmed cases, so those are not just someone who died and they decided "oh, it was swine flu".

So...if the number of identified cases was lower, this would mean that the mortality rate of people who actually catch swine flu is a lot worse than one in a thousand.

If half of the reported cases are "false alarms", then the mortality rate jumps to one in five hundred. If three quarters are false alarms, then it becomes one in two hundred and fifty cases.

In essence, what you're saying is that this whole thing is a load of hype, because swine flu is actually a lot deadlier than the current figures show.

Mathematically, the argument doesn't hold up.

eyejuice · 26-08-2009 07:30AM

anyone interested might want to look at these articles

"Antibodies to Squalene in Recipients of Anthrax Vaccine" (Exp. Mol. Pathol. 73,19-27 (2002)).
ARTICLE(s)
http://www.autoimmune.com/GWSTest.html
http://www.autoimmune.com/GWSGen.html
ABSTRACT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

another article from the university of lousiana
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

good ol' science. makes fools of most of us. Intravenous squalene does cause gulf war syndrome (probably).

if the swine flu vaccine contains squalene then it would likely trigger and autoimmune response similar to gulf war syndrome.

we can test people with the assay for the anti-squalene antibodies that are responsible for the autoimmune disorder. Until those tests come out negative i would not assume that the H1N1 vaccine is safe.

oh and here's even more articles on squalene in vaccines and GWS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=link&linkname=pubmed_pubmed&uid=12127050&ordinalpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

oh wait a lot of those say that squalene is safe...
screw this. I'm going to bed.

bonkey · 26-08-2009 09:17AM

eyejuice wrote: »

good ol' science. makes fools of most of us.

Science can make a fool of anyone. It can also be wrong, at times, or merely wrongly interpreted.

In the interests of balance...here is an article which offers a counterpoint to the stuff eyejuice linked to. It has links to the various studies that it references, for anyone wishing to go to that level of detail.

IMPORTANT INFO RE SWINE FLU

Comments