Think twice before giving that swine flu vaccine to your kids

by ferretwatch Tue Jun 12, 2018 00:44

A bit late, but here's another link discussing baxters live flu gaffe.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/200....aspx

by KM Sat Sep 13, 2014 00:39

Tonight, PBS's NOVA will air a strongly pro-vaccine special, called "Vaccines: Calling the Shots." If you care about science, it's something you should watch.

The program focuses on our faulty risk perceptions around vaccines, how many people are vastly more scared than they ought to be of a tiny risk (vaccination) while ignoring a huge one, the return of deadly diseases. The consequence could not be more grave: In a scene that is just hard to watch, the program shows a tiny infant suffering from whooping cough, its mother weeping, nurses running in constantly to sit the baby up (he cannot even raise himself) so that he does not choke. It's heartbreaking.

Without giving too much away, suffice it to say that "Vaccines" makes a powerful case for immunization. It lays out the overwhelming science demonstrating the safety of vaccines and also shows you how the immune system works and why conditions like autism likely have a genetic and early developmental explanation, rather than being caused by vaccine "injury."

Unfortunately, it also shows that again and again in history, after a disease (like smallpox) is beaten back by vaccinations and medical science, people who are no longer threatened by the real danger then start to worry about the inoculation itself.

Caption: Video Id: B8fW-r6cO3M Type: Youtube Video
"Vaccines—Calling the Shots"

by ferret Sat Aug 16, 2014 18:31

you missed this link first time around

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Still-Think-They-re-No....html

by Saved by ferrets Wed Feb 19, 2014 00:45

It seems "conspiracy theorists" like myself were a lot closer to reality than the gullible mainstream who were all busy ridiculing us. Surprising how often that happens these days!

I thought the figure for Harney spending on vaccines and stockpiling tamiflu was closer to 1billion in total.

We mustn't forget Donald Rumsfeld's link with the company making Tamiflu

by T Tue Feb 18, 2014 22:09

It looks like even the scientific establishment now smell a rat over the hysteria created over the so-called flu pandemic scares raised a few years ago and it looks like it was all just a ruse to make a lot of money.

From Natural News:

The World Health Organization (WHO) is the subject of a new investigation aimed at uncovering what really took place during the 2009 global influenza pandemic, which led to tens of millions of people being vaccinated for so-called "swine flu." A joint investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) has already uncovered major conflicts of interest at WHO, whereby vaccine companies profited heavily from the pandemic and the mass hysteria that it generated.

The investigation is focused specifically on the emergency advisory committee that was assigned to make official recommendations to WHO about how to plan for the pandemic, which was fraught with controversy from the start. Comprising this advisory panel were individuals highly connected to pharmaceutical companies, say BMJ and BIJ, many of whom had a vested financial interest in promoting antiviral drugs and influenza vaccines, which have been linked to causing narcolepsy and other disorders.........

.."Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing," reads a report on the joint investigation. "These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as 'conspiracy theories.'"

The ultimate goal, of course, was to convince as many governments around the world as possible to purchase large stockpiles of antiviral drugs like oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza), and vaccines like Pandemrix, to generate massive profits. Some of these drugs had never even been proven to work, let alone proven safe, and yet they were widely distributed as the emergency "cure" for H1N1.

A report back in 2009 from the Irish Examiner estimated that the Irish government wasted €90 million on these vaccines and then we also have the very sad case where up to 16 teenagers in Ireland who received flu vaccines have developed Narcolepsy -the sleep disorder where the suffers keep collapsing asleep at all sorts of times of the day and destroying their lives. See for example: http://www.thejournal.ie/mother-says-shes-totally-convi...2011/ and http://www.lynchsolicitors.ie/news/narcolepsy-and-the-s...cine/

The examiner article is at: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/swine-flu-v....html

You can read a full report of the joint investigation by BMJ and BIJ into WHO corruption during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic by visiting:
http://engineeringevil.com/2014/02/10/who-and-the-pande...d-up/

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Fri Sep 23, 2011 23:43

Glaxo are no stranger to controversy. Wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

'Glaxo To Pay $750M For Manufacturing Fraud.'
GlaxoSmithKline last year agreed to pay a whopping $750 million fine to settle charges over numerous production problems - contaminated meds, mislabeled packaging and incorrect dosages.

http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/10/glaxo-to-pay-750m-for-...raud/

by Ferret Thu Sep 22, 2011 22:01

RTE prime time program tonight (22/09/2011) says several times during the course of the program that hyped swine flu vaccine saved "hundreds of lives"

Bah! nonsense. Blatant lie. Swine flu was widely considered to be milder than normal seasonal flu.

Apparently "Pandermix" from glaxo smith kline is causing narcolepsy in children

Glaxo is wriggling and deflecting like crazy.

by SavedByFerrets Thu Jan 21, 2010 15:16

The WHO changed the definition of what was considered a pandemic, before it declared a pandemic. Otherwise it could not have done so due to the very low death rate even when compared to normal seasonal flu. This new declaration drove the whole flu panic along.

There are currently several ongoing investigations about several aspects of this whole swine flu debacle.

This video from an ex doctor gives a very good overview of some of those anomalies:
I found it worth watching and it made some very thought provoking points.

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

It will be interesting to see how all this pans out. Were we all conned yet again by big business interests?

by Marie O Connor Fri Nov 13, 2009 20:34

The new swine flu vaccines have been authorised in Europe under
‘exceptional circumstances’ and their effects, especially on children,
born and unborn, are unknown. The vaccines, as constituted, are
largely untested. The European Medicines Agency authorised them on the
basis of ‘mock-ups’, earlier versions of the vaccine that contained a
different flu strain.

Ireland has bought two of them: Celvapan, made by Baxter, and
Pandemrix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. Celvapan is grown in
mammal cells, while Pandremix is cultured in hens’ eggs and bovine
bile. It contains toxic substances, such as formaldehyde and
thiomersal––50 per cent ethyl mercury––in minute amounts. Most
controversial is the presence of an adjuvant or booster, called
squalene.

Some family doctors here are less than happy. They feel they were not
given sufficient time to study the possible side effects. Despite
this, they may find themselves liable for adverse reactions. German
doctors have refused to be bullied into giving the vaccines to all and
sundry. Doctors there cited the dangers of squalene and mercury as
reasons for their opposition. The German Medical Association said
Pandemrix should not be given to young children or pregnant women,
because it contains squalene. Switzerland has refused to authorise
Pandemrix for pregnant women, children under 18 and adults over 60,
due to lack of data for these age groups.

In Britain, the Health Protection Agency has said the vaccine is ‘of
unknown safety’. The vaccine has been linked to a potentially lethal
nerve disease: Guillain-Barré syndrome attacks the lining of the
nerves, and can cause partial paralysis. While it mostly affects the
hands and feet, it can affect breathing and, in serious cases,
sufferers may need to be ventilated.

A similar swine flu vaccine used in the US in 1976 was withdrawn after
eight weeks, when the link with Guillain-Barré emerged. By then, 500
people had developed the syndrome; 25 people died, more than the number
killed by the virus. Subsequent research showed an eight-fold
increase in Guillain-Barré believed to be linked to the vaccine.

The virus in today’s vaccine is a slightly different strain, however,
but concern remains over Guillain-Barré. The Food and Drug
Administration has refused to license squalene for use in swine flu
vaccines in the United States. Squalene is a type of oil that has been
associated with serious disorders of the immune system, such as
rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and lupus. Gulf War veterans
who suffer from such diseases were given the anthrax vaccine, which
reportedly contained squalene.

The European Medicines Agency has licensed these vaccines on skimpy
data supplied by the vaccine manufactureres themselves. Baxter’s
submission to the agency, for example, was based on just two studies
of a mock-up vaccine. Both studies are relatively worthless in
scientific terms, as both were too small to be statistically
significant. Human studies are lacking. The pharmacology data on
Celvapan, for example, came solely from mice, while in Pandremix,
toxicity was studied only in New Zealand white rabbits.

The Government has given swine flu vaccine manufactureres unlimited
indemnity, however, while HSE has sought to cover itself by saying
adverse events directly caused by the vaccine cannot be predicted in
advance.

If data on the safety of these vaccines is in short supply, so is data
on their efficacy. The efficacy of Pandremix, for example, was tested
only in mice, ferrets and pigs prior to its initial authorisation.

The benefits of these vaccines can only be assessed during a pandemic,
we are told, following the insertion of the final strain of the virus
into the vaccine. In the case of Celvapan, the European Medicines
Agency has cautiously expressed the hope that the vaccine will
provide ‘some’ protection against infection and ‘possibly against
development of severe disease’.

People with serious underlying health problems, those over 18 and
under 60, may feel they should vaccinate. But for the rest of us,
given that this is essentially a mild virus that simply needs a few
days in bed, the vaccines’ clearly underresearched risks may well outweigh their
equally unproven benefits. As for children, even the European Medicines Agency
stopped short of recommending Pandremix and Celvapan for the
under-18s. And pregnant women should bear in mind that the toxicity
of Pandremix to babies in the womb is unknown, since it was studied
only in rats. Like nursing mothers, pregnant women should think
carefully before they vaccinate.

Ramping up the dangers of pig flu may be necessary to persuade people
to take up a vaccine whose safety is unproven. But only time will
tell whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

--
Marie O'Connor
Author: 'EMERGENCY: Irish hospitals in chaos'

by SavedByFerrets Wed Nov 04, 2009 16:11

Shannon Brownlee, award-winning medical journalist and senior research fellow at the New America Foundation questions vaccine efficacy on "Democracy now".

Quote:
"The effectiveness of the vaccine is what we’re questioning. And it looks like when you give young, healthy people flu vaccine, they’re able to mount a very good immune response, and they can then resist getting the flu. But when you give vaccine to people who are elderly, who have, say, diabetes or have cancer, are taking chemotherapy—there are any number of people who have compromised immune systems—they may not be mounting a very good immune response. So they get the vaccine, but it isn’t really protecting them.

And that’s where the question arises, is how effective is flu vaccine? Because in seasonal flu, we’re trying to aim our efforts at giving it to the people who are most vulnerable from dying from flu, and they may not be able to mount enough of an immune response to be able to resist flu, even when they get vaccine. So are we wasting a lot of money and a lot of effort in trying to get the vulnerable to get vaccinated, when it may not be doing them any good at all or may do very, very marginal good?"

Link to transcript: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/2/shannon_brownlee_...atter

by Dr Moreau Tue Oct 20, 2009 16:04

Actually the vaccione the German military are getting is made by Baxter! Make of that what you will.

Meanwhile in todays Irish Times Dr Muiris Houston writes about this very topic.

Immunisation remains the best choice despite German vaccine controversy

THE CONTROVERSY around swine flu vaccine safety in Germany is unsurprising, given the “newness” of both the Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus and the necessarily rushed nature of vaccine production. However, no new scientific evidence has been produced to back up these concerns and the controversy appears to centre around the purchase of different vaccines to be given to Government employees and the general public...

The controversy in Germany may have more to do with the optics of political decision-making surrounding vaccine purchase than any real scientific issues. For those with underlying medical conditions that render swine flu infection more dangerous, the risk–benefit ratio appears to strongly favour immunisation.

by Dr Montgomery Tue Oct 20, 2009 07:10

In the past few days a big row appears to have broken out in Germany regarding the fact that two different types of swine-flu vaccine are to be used there apparently: one for the ruling elite at the top-table, and a different type for all the riff-raff in the cheap seats.

I don't know what arrangements our own ruling elite here in the Republic of Ireland have put in place?

Will Health Minister Harney be given the same type of swine-flu vaccine as Six Pack Barney? - - or will there be two different types in use here as well I wonder?

Excerpt from Der Spiegel at http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,6560....html : "But with news breaking over the weekend that top government officials in Berlin will be injected with an alternative vaccine -- one widely seen as safer -- a debate about an alleged two-class medical system has erupted."

by Dr Moreau Mon Oct 19, 2009 16:14

Professor Gerson Weiss who is chair of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health at UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School urges pregnant women to take the H1N1 vaccine .

All pregnant women should be vaccinated," urges Dr. Gerson Weiss. "Pregnant women are immunocompromised, in a sense, because they have to have in themselves the ability not to reject the baby. So that's a window that the virus clearly is taking advantage of."

Pregnant women in the U.S. infected with the novel H1N1 influenza A virus have died at a rate six times higher than the general population.

"This is a very serious potential problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention anticipates that the death rate can be as high as 10 percent among pregnant women who get H1N1," Weiss says. "The vaccine will not be 100 percent protective, but it will certainly, for many people, mean the difference between life and death."

by Catlady Wed Oct 14, 2009 01:25

Personally, I'd rather go to prison than have this vaccine. The idea of it being one choice of the other is ridiculous (and i very much doubt it will ever come to that!)

But the original article called for people to think twice - shouldn't this always be advisable when injecting ANYTHING into ourselves (and more especially to kids)??? I think so! Think twice, make your choice, live with the consequences. I certainly plan to live with mine!

by Mr Man Tue Oct 13, 2009 22:55

"As a kid I had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox and numerous other conditions."

Great for you! However, that doesn't really help the millions of other people who died/got serious debilitating conditions from them before vaccination.

"What is all this medical intervention doing to our systems' capacity to fight off or integrate disease-causing organisms?"

A lot. I think you are confusing domestic cleaning products with medicine.

"Since then I have come across theories that a child's system actually uses these type of illnesses to push against and strengthen itself."

Wow really? Man if only they could take viruses, inactivate the pathogenic content and deliver it to our kids so they could mount an immune response to it themselves so that in future they are immune to it! Wouldn't that be awesome!

Seriously though, this is basic secondary school level biology.

by John Tue Oct 13, 2009 14:26

"While increasing the quality of your diet can increase your resistance to Flu and decrease symptoms post-infection, it is a long way from immunity."

Yep, like I said no miracle cures.

On the subject of immunity. What is all this medical intervention doing to our systems' capacity to fight off or integrate disease-causing organisms?
As a kid I had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox and numerous other conditions. I came through them and I always had a clear sense of feeling better, healthier and somehow more integrated afterwards than I did beforehand and I haven't had to go to a doctor now for an infection in over ten years though I do go for other therapies like acupuncture and herbal treatments.

Since then I have come across theories that a child's system actually uses these type of illnesses to push against and strengthen itself. Based on my own experience this makes sense and it seems to me that in seeking to avoid all risk modern medicine is depriving our bodies of opportunities to adapt to their environment.

I won't be taking a vaccine and I won't be worrying about catching the bloody swine flu.

by Mr Man Mon Oct 12, 2009 23:23

"they will pay GP's 10 euro for every jab given. You can be sure GP's will be pushing it like mad."

Why would GPs be pushing it if they are losing money time-wise by giving it? Relative to time they have to spend on every person to give a shot, they are actually losing money relative to what they would make for that amount of time normally.

"Some practical suggestions for swine flu and other remedies"

While increasing the quality of your diet can increase your resistance to Flu and decrease symptoms post-infection, it is a long way from immunity.

by Raymond Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:38

Our Department of Health is -- or has been at least it seems -- planning to activate provisions in the 1947 Health Act to enforce mandatory "swine flu" vaccinations.

Related link: http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&...ng=en

Later this month maybe?

by Jabba Sat Oct 03, 2009 16:10

Thursday 6 o'clock news prime time piece on the vaccine
estimated 3000 more people sick THIS WEEK ALONE, 24 in hospital, 4 dead in total so far (this is low for flu in such numbers) These were people with underlying conditions

One of the doctors in the report advocated not contacting your GP unless you were still sick after 3 days as it was very mild as flu's go.

The vaccine will be available from next week

HSE are seemingly quite happy to pay out lots of money on this rather pointless vaccine without a murmur. Apart from the cost of the vaccine, they will pay GP's 10 euro for every jab given. You can be sure GP's will be pushing it like mad.

Since they are suddenly so gung ho for vaccination all of a sudden, any chance they will do a "two for one" with the cervical cancer vaccine for young girls. Thats a little more serious after all.

by John Wed Sep 30, 2009 00:18

Some practical suggestions for swine flu and other remedies:

Elderberries ( Sambucus nigra); long used as a remedy for colds and flu. Known to have anti-viral properties
http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/e/elder-04.html

Sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) berries; 12 times more vitamin C than oranges. Many other qualities claimed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-buckthorn

Garlic (Allium sativum); Well known cooking herb, also strong anti-viral, anti-bacterial and anti-fungal properties.

All the above have a long history as folk remedies. They are all safe to take internally at moderate doses and all grow in Ireland. There are various commercial products that use these plants as ingredients but they can all be harvested and processed by anyone with a modicum of botanical knowledge and a kitchen.
There's no miracle cures but a knowledge of your local herbage can go a long way towards keeping a person healthy at low cost, a surprising proportion of what most people would regard as weeds can be used in maintaining a healthy body.
It's worth exploring and it's a lot lot more simple and cheaper than big business would have us believe.

Elder Tree

Sea Buckthorn

Garlic

by SavedByFerrets Mon Sep 28, 2009 15:41

"Mecca pilgrims must have flu jab
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8255612.stm
The Saudi government says all pilgrims need a certificate of vaccination before they can apply for a visa. "

This other item you posted was also interesting. (im reposting your link it in case anyone missed it.)

Who says capitalism, big pharma and organised religion don't mix!

No better blackmail into having a rushed dodgy unnecessary expensive corporate shot than missing your date with Allah!

by Dr Moreau Mon Sep 28, 2009 15:03

At least some people are (or were) benefiting from the anti flu measures:

Prisoners at Her Majesty's Prison The Verne, Portland, Dorset, England had their swine flu gel withdrawn after officers discovered they were drinking it and getting drunk. Instead of rubbing the gel into their hands, prisoners had been wrapping their lips around the dispenser outlets and consuming it only hours after the dispensers were installed. The liquid soap-gel contains alcohol.

According to various reports from the UK press, a prisoner became aggressive after consuming the gel and eventually got into a fist-fight with a fellow inmate. However, the BBC reported on 25th September that reports of a fight are incorrect.

Further on regarding the increase in infections the report states:

The Health Protection Agency, UK, reports that the number of people becoming infected with H1N1 swine flu is continuing to increase, especially among school-aged children. Rates are below the normal winter seasonal baseline thresholds in England, Wales and Scotland, but are above newly defined provisional threshold levels in Northern Ireland. Over the last week the estimated number of new infections stands at 9,000; up from an estimated 5,000 during the previous week.

Finally it cites the approval of The European Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use for one vaccine:

The European Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CMPH) has issued a positive opinion and recommends approval for GlaxoSmithKline's candidate pandemic (H1N1 swine flu) adjuvanted vaccine PandemrixTM. The indication for the vaccine is for protection against pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza. The regulators agree that PandemrixTM can be used in adults, pregnant women and children over six months old.

by Tom Fri Sep 25, 2009 21:39

If a government can provide an indemnity for a swine flu vaccine, then it should have no problem providing an indemnity for "off-label" use of a medication such as Low Dose Naltrexone (LDN). Naltrexone was fully approved for safety approx 30 years. It now has new uses in a low dose form, but because it is out of patent, it is a low cost / low profit medication, and therefore no funding is available to cover the trials that are considered necessary to meet current requirements.
In reality it shouldn't need trials, because there is a volume of clinical evidence from medical professionals, and patient evidence from at least 100,000 users.

A Government Indemnity would be a very simple, practical, low cost solution. The Health Service could save a fortune on it's drug budget, and the funds saved could be used to meet other pressing needs within the Health Service.

For more information please take 5 minutes to listen to Dr Chris Steele from UTV's "This Morning" programme. Go to www.ldnnow.com and follow the link.

by SavedByFerrets Thu Sep 24, 2009 18:18

and good to have another input to the thread from a different perspective. Sorry for slow response.

Pollution and animal vivisection are two other angles to big pharma.

Also the "defer to the god modern for profit medicine / pharmacy" angle too. We shouldn't be so willing to trust these guys. Their results are merely statistical correlations from trials conducted by the vested interests themselves on thousands of people and presented in the best possible light they can. In some cases these trials are biased because of funding considerations or because certain interesting results are "lost" from the final reports. They have a lot of money riding on these products. It costs millions to bring a drug to market but the potential profits are huge. We all remember that scene from "fight club" on the plane where he explained his job as a risk assessor for a large

automibile firm to the woman sitting beside him. It's a bit like that. If the costs of a recall outweigh the cost of any compensation payouts then there is not likely to be a recall.

sometimes the statistics of their success are not as great as they try to make out.It's just that the general public don't understand statistics and humans in general are very bad at assessing certain kinds of risk.
Even when drug companies present transparent and unbiased trial statistics, certain well known (and exploited by advertisers) "bugs" in the human brain mean that we are really bad at assessing things like statistical risk and making relative judgements.

There are a few interesting documentaries on TED about the kind of thing I am talking about here:
http://www.ted.com/speakers/dan_ariely.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happine....html

for example, if you give a medicine to 1000,000 people, a 3% nasty side effect affects 30,000 people.

Some interesting light has been thrown recently on the way big pharma are going about committing "biopiracy" all around the world these days.

This is when big pharma send their operatives into a place where there is a known traditional cure for something. They bring away some samples of the plants in question then isolate the active ingredient then patent it. Then we never realise that all they are doing is using a plant remedy. The subsequent patent may cause problems for traditional use of the plant once successfully filed. The situation surrounding the neem tree in india is an example of what I am talking about.

The pioneering activism of vandana shiva is well worth checking out in this regard. you can start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva

by John Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:12

Followed yr links Pete.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=boosti...power
"(And "just" scientific news.....no class warfare.)"

This paragraph caught my attention.
"The thought of birth defects caused by rubella, rows of iron lungs housing children crippled by polio, or the horrific sound of a baby struggling with whooping cough can still evoke dread among people who have seen firsthand the damage inflicted by these and other vaccine-preventable diseases. Fortunately, those scourges are virtually unknown to modern generations that have had access to vaccines all their lives."

I would call that fear-inducing. I didn't read the rest of the article because I would have had to subscribe so perhaps I am wrong about it.

I found the adverts along with the article rather revealing too.

Couldn't get my head round the second article. Too hypothetical for me. Perhaps I have the wrong type of brain.

A lot of what passes for science these days seems well dodgy to me and gets used to beat us "unscientific" types (without access to education, expensive equipment and funding who have to rely on our own intelligence and instincts) over the head. How can results not be skewed depending on the agenda of the funders?
So perhaps there is a form of class warfare in there after all..

by John Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:43

Yes Pete that's right, A TB jab and a Tetanus one. Why do you think I am ungrateful?
Are we supposed to accept everything that the pharma industry hands us good and bad without question?
What is wrong with looking a bit more deeply into things and making informed decisions?
Not to ask these questions and to discourage others from doing so is coming close to the attitude of the clergy you refer to, with god in the form of the Pharma industry.

When you call me ungrateful you are making a personal comment about someone you know next to nothing about . What's with all the anger?

by Pete. Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:07

"Nasty Brutish and Short....... thanks to Nature".I've never fully believed that one."

I bet you have two spots on your upper arm which were put there by Western Civilisation to save your life.

You are ungrateful.
.

by John Wed Sep 23, 2009 23:26

I think you mean "If" not "when".
If I was sick and needing help this is how I hope I would behave; I would learn as much as I could about the condition from a wide range of sources including conventional and natural medicine. I would speak to other sufferers, I would seek support from wherever I could find it, I would pray to any deity that would listen and I would make a decision as to how to proceed that might or might not include some form of pharmaceutical treatment though as you obviously gathered from my post I have little trust in or love for the industry. One thing I would not do, though perhaps in extremis I might be tempted, is hand over sovereignty over my own body.
Too often, rather than being encouraged to trust our own ability to heal ourselves and know what is best for ourselves we are scared into accepting treatments that may not be in our best interests.

"Don't like to live in the modern world"
I didn't say anything about not liking to live in the modern world though certainly there are aspects of modern life I find extremely disturbing. I think we have to take the best of what we have learned and move on with it. In the process this means we have to question our assumptions. Such as those about the Pharmaceutical industry. If that makes me a Luddite then I'm proud to be one.

"Nasty Brutish and Short....... thanks to Nature".
I've never fully believed that one. It's a statement that often gets used by apologists for the more unhealthy aspects of modern life. I'm sure at times life was like that, just like nowadays but I'm also sure at times it was as stimulating, joyous and pleasurable as modern life can be too.

"thanks to Nature."
Yes indeed, We owe Nature so much because everything we need for life comes from our relationship with Nature. What do you think about the fact that many of the pharma compounds we now use were originally isolated from plants: Aspirin from willow bark, Digoxin for the heart from Foxglove to name a couple of the most famous ones? It was human ingenuity and curiousity discovered how to use those herbs but it was Nature provided the materials.
We should say Thankyou

Clearly my post upset you.
I'm guessing it's because you work in the industry and feel attacked or threatened by what I said. I'm sorry about that but I'd be interested to know what you think about the rest of what I said.
Do you think that there may be problems with emissions from factories or are you convinced that everything is fine?
Do you not see the inherent problems when health-care falls into the realm of profit?
If you can hold a discussion without insulting me I'd be glad to hear what you have to say on the subject.

by Cork Pharma Worker. Wed Sep 23, 2009 08:09

"I stay well away from pharmaceuticals (lucky to have no serious health problems that necessitate them) "

When you DO HAVE those problems you will fall on your knees and beg "Big Pharma" to save your life.

If you Luddites don't like to live in the MODERN world why don't you go back to the jungles where "Nature Rules".

And where human life is "Nasty Brutish and Short."......thanks to Nature.
.

by John Tue Sep 22, 2009 22:58

Saved by Ferrets, fair play for initiating such an informative and important thread. I've also learnt a few things from the way you manage to stick to your guns and the point despite varied attempts to derail you. I'd have lost my temper and probably the thread long ago.
I'd like to add two ingredients to the mix.
Has anyone considered the negative health effects of the manufacture of pharmaceuticals? In Cork harbour we have a very large concentration of these factories, presumably releasing various chemicals into the environment and hence into our bodies.
There was a health study proposed for the area back in the early 90s I think but it never went ahead. More recently there was an Echo article about the cancer rate in Cobh being unusually high. There may be other factors causing this (Haulbowline being one) but I think it is an issue that merits further discussion.
Pharmaceutical products may be of benefit to some or many people but if we take into account the factors covered elsewhere in this thread and also the effects of the waste products of their manufacture there may be no net gain in health at all, quite the opposite in fact.
My gut instincts, that have served me pretty well so far, are that the above is true. I stay well away from pharmaceuticals (lucky to have no serious health problems that necessitate them) and am currently studying plant medicine.
It seems to me, talking about manufacturing chemical compounds for healing that plants are the most efficient factories on the planet. (Ever see a breakdown of the compounds to be found in a Yarrow plant)? They cause no pollution, are self-perpetuating and immensely adaptable, they can be grown in anyone's back yard or harvested from the wild and despite the best efforts of some interests to the contrary are hard to monopolise and make money from. if we're talking about scientific research for the good of people, that's the direction to look in.

by Pete. Tue Sep 22, 2009 08:22

The latest development in immunology represent some of the most exciting developments in all the sciences at the present.
It is entirely good news as far as I can see.

The October 2009 (current) issue of Scientific American Magazine outlines the very latest developments on this front, written by the top experts.
This link gives a summary and other interesting links:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=boosti...power

(They usually publish the entire article,for non-subscribers, after a few months.)

also interesting:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flu-math

(And "just" scientific news.....no class warfare.)
.

by SavedByFerrets Mon Sep 21, 2009 16:08

how to discredit somebody you don't agree with without actually having to do any work:

(a)find some lunatics
(b)write a short supercilious comment such as "plus ca change / I rest my case
(c)try to vaguely suggest the person is exactly the same as the lunatics without actually saying so. Let the association smear do its work without you having to do any

typical ad hominem fallacious attack.

as you say yourself, "plus ca change"

people like yourself might like this link:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ConversationalChaff

If you can show that what occured because of baxters careleness and what they actually acknowledged happened actually didn't then you have a case. Otherwise let people see how careless these corporations can be about people's health and safety in the pursuit of profit and let them assess their own risk profile accordingly and make their own decision whether to risk this vaccine or not for the sake of a bout of mild flu.

You'll never hear about this kind of big pharma major fuckup on rte news but I'm sure they will be promoting the vaccine.

by Pete. Mon Sep 21, 2009 13:36

When Jenner invented vaccination it was regarded as the work of the devil in some quarters..

See:
http://www.anglik.net/jenner.htm

Quote:
"The immediate reaction to Jenner's work was ridicule.Critics,especially the clergy,claimed it was repulsive and ungodly to inoculate someone with material from a diseased animal.A satirical cartoon of 1802 showed people who had been vaccinated sprouting cow's heads."

Plus ce change plus ce la meme chose.
.

by CHUD Mon Sep 21, 2009 04:57

Hey guys sorry to butt in on your argument here but just wanted to know if you had any info about the WHO's guidelines regarding pandemic influenza outbreak. These allegedly call for forced vaccination in 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.

I'm not afraid that this will be the case I'm more afraid that people will be stupid enough to blindly do as their told, and jump off the (potential proverbial) cliff because:
a) The WHO say its not a cliff
b) Everyone else is doing it.
If there is a large enough resistance to it they would not have to resources to enforce it. If there is only a minority (which i would still be in) objecting to forced vaccination they would have no trouble at all forcing us to take it.

But after reading about what happened to these test ferrets, there is no way in hell i am trusting Baxter with my life.

P.s. I'd post a link but I can't seem to find any reliable news sources on this story (that as has previously been stated though not going a long way to credit the information does not automaticly make it untrue {though maybe [I hope ]it is})

by SavedByFerrets Fri Sep 18, 2009 15:22

glad we agree on some things D.M.
I woulds imagine your hi-tech drugs would become cheaper more quickly without patent lobbying and microtweaking.
I would imagine the search for a proper cure for your ailment (assuming of course if in your case that is actually a possibility ) might progress faster if there were no profit incentive to try to drag it out. Just the incentive to find cures to help improve people's lives.

There would also be less point in media scares for relatively harmless (as seasonal flu's go that is!) conditions such as this particular strain of swine flu if they weren't quite so profitable. More emphasis might be put on prevention / management activities too. I've been moaning about the cavalier attitude to global travel screening for years now. But such processes hinder airline profits. Again we come back to that word..profit. It nearly always seems to be acting against our long term interests as human beings doesn't it?

The sooner we start to foster this kind of thinking in the next generation of kids the better instead of having them grow up as if capitalism, the cult of the individual, and non community thinking is the only way to go. From that point of view, the habit of defending the current system is perhaps a bad one to cultivate.
It's here now and we should use it if we have to, but as sentient beings, we really should be demanding something less short sighted.

get well soon! :-).

by Dr Moreau Fri Sep 18, 2009 14:34

"Personally I am more in favour of "open source" type pharmaceutical research, not profit driven and patent oriented but driven by the medical needs of people, especially in the third world. For profit medicine is just not right IMHO. Hospitals and medicine should not be left to capitalists to run. It's a real mistake"

I can agree with you on that but we will need to constantly fight for public funding of medical research and we're talking about a lot of resources here. We cant even get proper funding for day to day medical care as it is.

A lot of people, including myself, depend on high-tech drugs. It would be prefferable (and cheaper!) if they were developed and manufactured on a not for profit basis.

by SavedByFerrets Fri Sep 18, 2009 14:18

I've emphasised baxters, but to be honest, they are all at it.

What do people think about the way that pharmaceutical companies make tiny changes to working drugs purely to renew patents and keep prices high on badly needed drugs?

what do people think about the way pharmaceutical R&D concentrates on making lots of lucrative "me too" drugs like viagra / cialis / etc etc to treat westerners hard ons rather than investing in developing cheaper more effective drugs for the myriad of simple cureable ailments that kill millions every year in the third world?

what do people think about the whole lucrative paxil / seroxat / anti depressant fiascos?

How much does our own HSE spend on patented drugs like these each year ( and not generics ) while cutting hospital beds?

what do people think about the way drug companies acted to stop the use of generic aids drugs in south africa where generic versions were saving many lives from aids?

what do people think about how the US pressured india (who were producing many generics for hiv etc) into showing more "respect" for US patents in return for sharing nuclear tech?

remember how the whole "helicobacter pylori" angle on stomach ulcers research was supressed by big pharma until their lucrative patents on antacid treatments ran out. It's an interesting story. People had been taking antacid medicines for ten years for a condition that could be cleared up in a couple of weeks with the right antibiotics.
apparently supressing an illness indefinitely but not curing it is far more profitable than curing it you see. You see this pattern a lot.

The whole edifice of big pharma is corrupt and driven totally by profit.

Personally I am more in favour of "open source" type pharmaceutical research, not profit driven and patent oriented but driven by the medical needs of people, especially in the third world. For profit medicine is just not right IMHO. Hospitals and medicine should not be left to capitalists to run. It's a real mistake

Capitalism:
---------------
"The absurd notion that the most evil of men
doing the most abominable things
can do the most good "
for the most people

by Damien Thu Sep 17, 2009 19:43

Do you mean the 100,000s of deaths each year FROM pharmaceutical drugs?

"You seem to be opposed to all pharmacutical drugs ( I base that on your comments) but you do not take into account the consequences of getting rid of such remedies"

Firstly -"remedies". Prescription drugs are not remedies. They maintain the disease, while treating the symptoms and keeping the patient onthe drugs for as long as possible. Its known in the industry as 'disease maintenance'. There would neber be any use or profit for a pharmaceutical company to 'cure' a disease. Diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's etc etc all require patients to take medications for the rest of their lives. I challenge to you to find one cure that Pharmaceutical companies have come up with. One cure...

"The immediate consequences would be millions of deaths in a relatively short period of time. The medium term consequences would be tens if not hundreds of millions of deaths."

Horseshit and you know it. I challenge you to find me these erroneous figures. There HAVE been millions of deaths from prescription drugs. However to say that millions of people would die without them is ludicrous.

"Hundreds of millions of people would have their quality of life adversely affected."

Hundreds of millions of people are that diseased they need to be drugged for the remainder of their natural lives? Blood Pressure-take this, Cholesterol-take this, Arthritis- take this, Depression-take that.. Etc Etc. Medicinal herbs, spices, oils and enzymes have been proven to not only work as good as, but more often than not, to work better than dangerous pharmaceutical drugs. FACT, which I can back up. I had a friend who was ill with a stomach infection; the doctor wanted to put him on Prozac FFS!
Case Closed.

by Dr Moreau Thu Sep 17, 2009 14:26

Of course Dr Moreau is not my real name. I doubt if the author of the article really has a passport in the name of savedbyferrets.

You seem to be opposed to all pharmacutical drugs ( I base that on your comments) but you do not take into account the consequences of getting rid of such remedies.

The immediate consequences would be millions of deaths in a relatively short period of time. The medium term consequences would be tens if not hundreds of millions of deaths.

Hundreds of millions of people would have their quality of life adversely affected.

Does that not mean anything to you?

Yes there are evil capitalists making money out of these drugs but that does not mean that all drugs are poison.

by Damien Thu Sep 17, 2009 14:17

Dr Moreau I think you need to go back to your fantasy island.
The whole system is rotten and no one can change it, without doing away with it.

"Yes there are people who move from the FDA to business just as it happens here. Look at how prople moved from industry into the EPA. But that does not mean that we should damn everything the FDA or EPA does. ."

Really, you mean to tell me the EPA is corrupt as well? You mean to tell me people from Chemical and Biotech companies switch jobs between Monsanto, Syngenta and the EPA?

"We should fight for legal changes to make sure that"

Ahh right. Get you now. ~Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put G.W. in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor. The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft~.(http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2003/11/30/fda_...s.htm)

As regards approval processes for drugs you're obviously not familiar with the practice of cherry-picking drug trials, covering up complications in the testing process (see Vioxx), ghost Writing journals, fabricating journals (see Merck), so I'll debate no more until you can make an informed non-ignorant opinion.

As regards the death toll of Vioxx, then it would be wise for you to learn about the death toll from HRT, Phenfluoramine, the Seroxat scandal (again, harmful effects covered up from the testing process). These are just a few.

WHY DO PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS INJURE AND KILL?

http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/injure.html

Oh! And don't get me started on Thalidomide!

by Evil Capitalist. Thu Sep 17, 2009 13:26

"It is better for the nurses to take a few days off at home to recover. Enforced vaccination is always an extreme option."

A "health worker" who works among 'flu victims and who refuses to get vaccinated against the flu is NOT a health-worker.

He/She is a potential health destroyer, by acting as a vector for the disease.

Many of the articles above have nothing to do with health anyway.

They have everything to do with an ideological hatred of "Evil Capitalists".

by Dr Moreau Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:05

"While elemental mercury has been associated with adverse health effects at high exposures, the levels released by dental amalgam fillings are not high enough to cause harm in patients," the FDA said, citing an agency review of roughly 200 scientific studies.

Perhaps you would cite the studies which show otherwise.

On Vioxx it certainly increased the rate of heartattacks amongst thoose already suffering from heart disease. But that does not mean that all FDA approved drugs are poison. The problem here is what do you do?

Should there be no approval process for drugs? That would mean all drugs would be on the market untested.

Should all "non-natural high-tech drugs be banned? That would mean that millions more would die every year and millions more woild have their liveshortened or their quality of life disimproved drastically. (Including myself, I have a vested interest here.)

Yes there are people who move from the FDA to business just as it happens here. Look at how prople moved from industry into the EPA. But that does not mean that we should damn everything the FDA or EPA does. We should fight for legal changes to make sure that.

Another story of interest:

Mecca pilgrims must have flu jab
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8255612.stm

It is feared viruses will spread quickly in the huge crowds at the Hajj
British Muslims will need a seasonal flu vaccination before travelling to Saudi Arabia for this year's Hajj pilgrimage, because of swine flu fears.

The Saudi government says all pilgrims need a certificate of vaccination before they can apply for a visa.

The World Health Organisation and the Saudis also say that those in high-risk groups, including pregnant women and the elderly should not travel at all.

by Damien Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18

You don't see the FDA as crooks? You're not familiar then with their refusal to limit Mercury, even giving mercury the go-ahead for pregnant mothers? What about their Bisphenol-A scandal, which they refused to clamp down on? What about the Vioxx scandal, which they let kill 100,000+ brfore they got their finger out? Or how about the revolving door system in which several key FDA staff members own shares in and work for the companies they are supposed to regulate!!
Wake up!

by Dr Moreau Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:33

Even I have to agree with my ferretic friend here. It is better for the nurses to take a few days off at home to recover. Enforced vaccination is always an extreme option. Actually the most extreme option. It certainly does not seem to be appropriate in this case.

On the Baxters thing, I agree they well be crooks. But that does not mean that the WHO or/and FDA are crooks. I don't see enough evidence to convince me that the proposed vaccines are dangerous.

I'm not questioning the honesty of savedbyferrets but the sources s/he used in the main article here brings his/her judgement into question and undermines the credibility of the entire article

by SavedByFerrets Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:25

Please explain how a nurse choosing not taking a rushed to market vaccine and choosing instead to go home to bed until they fully recover if they catch flu endangering patients?? It's what lots of nurses have been doing for years.

by Bitten-By-Ferrets. Thu Sep 17, 2009 09:00

"That taking a profit driven, indemnity immune vaccine hurriedly prepared by baxters to capitalise.."

If medics have political issues with Capitalism or with Big Pharma that is THEIR problem.

If medics allow such political opinions to endanger patients then that is SOCIETY's problem.

Such medics should be kept far away from patients.

by SavedByFerrets Thu Sep 17, 2009 08:51

agreed in principle. Its just how best to go about reaching that "fully protected" state that we are discussing here.
Some folks consider in their personal risk assessment as medical professionals, that taking a profit driven, indemnity immune vaccine hurriedly prepared by baxters to capitalise on the flu panic is not something they feel confident is the ideal course of action for their own protection and may in fact cause unforseen problems.
They may prefer to catch the flu normally, monitor their symptoms whilst taking a few days off then returning to work when they are no longer infectious and "fully protected" by their own anti-bodies. Just as they do with any normal flu.
Nurses catch flu and take steps to avoid its transmission to their patients all the time. And they are positioned better than most to understand the particular risks of this strain to people with certain underlying conditions. You shouldn't underestimate them.

by Bitten-By-Ferrets. Thu Sep 17, 2009 08:13

"The government's chief commissar for immunisations, Professor David Salisbury, has said that nurses have a "duty" to be immunised against swine flu. A poll by nursingtimes.net showed that 30% of respondents would refuse to have it. If the government is surprised at the number of nurses who will not have the immunisation, just wait to see what happens when they offer it to doctors. On the facts available to date, I will not be having it. Nor will my family. I will not be the only doctor taking this view."

I would expect the medical profession to fully protect themselves from disease before they go near patients who may have those diseases.

And before they go near patients who do NOT yet have those diseases.

Otherwise they should be KICKED OUT of their profession.
.

by SavedByFerrets Thu Sep 17, 2009 06:29

thanks for the info and link notmum.

the fact that he chooses to write anonymously tells you something about the state of free speech in the rat race of the corporate sponsored scientific community these days. And It's also becoming more evident even on our university campuses as they become ever more influenced and infiltrated by business.

moreaun:
the main point of the article is about baxters, an alarming incident which occurred with their handling of vaccines and whether they are safe to trust with a rushed to market for profit vaccine in the face of huge media hype over what has turned out to be a pretty mild case of flu for the majority of people who catch it. I don't need scientific evidence to state that an incident occurred which baxters themselves have acknowledged occurred. what are you on about. I would like to stimulate DISCUSSION of the topic here not a one on one macho adversarial argument with you which precludes that. Please stop trying to derail the thread but do post any relevant links to scientific info by all means.

Could some other posters besides dr moreaun (or his socks) please give their views on either side of the fence and any useful links they may have so that people can inform themselves and decide for themselves.
once again I'll post these 2

informative but quite accessible:
http://birdflubook.com/a.php?id=85

canadian news report about baxters fuckup
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/200...ealth

as pointed out (exhaustively!!) by dr moreaun, this next site also contains some wacky daft conspiracy articles. please ignore it if this is troubling to you.
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=1099
however there are also a few interesting nuggets of information to be found there in amongst the chaff too. The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" may apply. Personally I give people more credit for intelligence than he does and assume they can tell the difference. If in doubt, I suggest you judiciously cross reference. IMHO it' still merits a peek.

There are plenty of equally dodgy paid corporate / vested interest misinformation sites on the web so be very careful there too!! The misinformation tends to be slicker,muddier and harder to seperate on those. The clues usually lie in who funds them. Paid "astroturfing" (fake grass root support) also abound these days in the internet forums on highly profitable things like the activities of big pharma, GM and the nuclear / oil exploration industry, or israel's behaviour in gaza. Beware of such behaviour. Discussions with such people are not about learning, they are often just about beating down and dividing / confusing a weak disorganised opposition with slick rhetoric, for money. You can even see it here on indy on occasion, often on the shell threads.

And Good luck! it's really an information jungle out there.

by nonmum Thu Sep 17, 2009 00:01

A British doctor writes (anonymously) in the Guardian =

The government's chief commissar for immunisations, Professor David Salisbury, has said that nurses have a "duty" to be immunised against swine flu. A poll by nursingtimes.net showed that 30% of respondents would refuse to have it. If the government is surprised at the number of nurses who will not have the immunisation, just wait to see what happens when they offer it to doctors. On the facts available to date, I will not be having it. Nor will my family. I will not be the only doctor taking this view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/sep/08/dr-c...e-flu

Studies show this doctor is not alone:
A survey of GPs published on Healthcare Republic, the website of GP magazine, found that up to 60% of GPs may decline vaccination. Although the numbers who responded were small – 216 GPs – they are in line with a much bigger survey of nurses published a week ago by Nursing Times, which found that a third of 1,500 nurses would refuse vaccination.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/24/doctors-r...ccine

by Dr Moreau Wed Sep 16, 2009 19:09

I'm no supporter of Baxters. But I see no medical evidence in your article.

If it comes to choosing between the World Health Organisation and an article which draws its basis from an article on a conspiracy site then I will choose the WHO.

I'll even choose the US FDA. I still haven't seen any response to the scientific arguments.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the new swine flu vaccine Tuesday, a long-anticipated step as the government works to get vaccinations under way next month. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the vaccine's approval to Congress - and said she hopes to get the first limited supplies distributed early in October.
http://www.physorg.com/news172246294.html

The vaccines, which have been in clinical studies in the U.S. since June, are made by four different firms.

"The H1N1 vaccines approved today undergo the same rigorous FDA manufacturing oversight, product quality testing and lot release procedures that apply to seasonal influenza vaccines," Jesse Goodman, acting chief scientist at the FDA, said.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-scienc...09-15

by SavedByFerrets Wed Sep 16, 2009 18:40

ok, if you prefer, completely disregard the link to wiseup and just look at the canadian tv link

now can we get back to talking about the pros and cons(!) of taking baxters vaccine
their chequered corporate record in the area
and the hype surrounding swine flu
and the vast waste of resources we don't have buying massive amounts of expensive baxter product
for what is just a mild flu in most cases
etc etc
thanks

by Dr Moreau Wed Sep 16, 2009 18:08

Questions And Disagreement Is Not Trolling.

You should appreciate that. If you reccomend an article from a website then you should expect criticism if other odd things appear on that site. Surely that also brings into doubt the credibility of the article you reccmend?

If you say that you never heard of the Soverign Independent before then I will saccept that. But you must not have looked at the first link you gave to wiseup too carefully because just under the article title you find: Sovereign Independent - Sept/Oct issue, page 12 . Easy to miss I guess.

I'm not saying that you support the New World Order or any of the other Conspiracy Theories (apart from Fluoridation) of wiseup or the Sovereign Independent. But you used them as sources for your article so you have built on foundations of sand.

To point out the above is not to troll.

by SavedByFerrets Wed Sep 16, 2009 17:48

"Why mention Rumsfeld at all? It has no relevance to whether or not the vaccine is safe."

I mention rumsfeld just in passing because
(a) He has profited from Tamilflu
(b) Tamilflu has been purchased in large quantities on the back of media flu scares
(c) People are being urged to take expensive tamilflu despite possible nasty side effects for what is essentially in most cases just a mild flu
(d) Rumsfeld has been involved in large scale media scares before which have profited him and his friends and caused much death and suffering on false premises
thought it was an interesting link that some folk might not have been aware of thats all

"Your article has a very odd source and I note that you have not addressed any of the points raised in my links to WHO and other medical statements. You use the broad brush attack methods which is similar to those who attack Obamas medical insurance plans. All front but no substance."

I did not address your links to WHO because they were a somewhat positive contribution to the discussion. I addressed your trolling because it was not.
anyway, there you go again, trying to indirectly associate me with people I have nothing in common with. Do you mean to imply that because I linked to wise up, I would probably vote against medicare because I was afraid of death panels?? Thats just smearing and ad hominem crap

"This is hardly suprising when your source is an article which first appeared in The Sovereign Independent - Sept/Oct issue. A paper which warns of the New World Order which was started up in 1942., how the EU is poisoning us with fluoridated water."

Are you now implying that I probably believe in a new world order run by lizards? Sorry to disappoint. (Although I am rather nervous about a large unaccountable consolidation of power in europe as are many people right now.)
and perhaps you are implying that I believe the fluoridation of the water is damaging our brains and reducing our IQ? Nah, it's TV / soaps that are mostly doing that

well on that particular topic, actually I DO think using fluoride in the water and also in your toothpaste is unnecessary duplication and also that a fluoride paste used to wash the teeth directly (rather than compulsory internal ingestion of low levels of toxic fluoride every time you have a drink) is a better more democratic way to protect your teeth. If we must mass medicate the population through the water supply then might I suggest aspirin?

you should read up on the origins of fluoridation of water supply. It's interesting. Nice profitable business too for the suppliers.

But in any case this is all irrelevant to my criticism of Baxters handling of vaccines.

Sigh!! I repeat. Yes there are some silly articles on wise up journal and many I would happily raise my eyebrows in stereo with you at, but I am not endorsing any of those so stop wilfully implying that I am ok?. I am just endorsing the short pieces of information provided at the links I gave about Baxters bird flu fuck up, which is well known, common knowledge and not a conspiracy theory. THEY DID FUCK UP AS WAS DESCRIBED. THEY DID SEND BIRD FLU STRAINS OUT MIXED WITH NORMAL FLU. THEY DID ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
I provided an alternative link to canadian news. (here it is again in case you "missed it" (wilfully no doubt!)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/200...ealth
Needless to say the whole affair was not widely reported in the MSM. big surprise there.

"The paper also carries the following gem: “Some might scoff at a future EU dictator in the same way that the Germans scoffed at a Nazi Germany in the 1920s.”
Now I'm against Lisbon but thats barking"

Yes of course it is. And it's also completely irrelevant to our discussion. Are you saying that if a website or newspaper publishes mostly rubbishy articles therefore everything it publishes must be wrong? If you are then Thats a completely fallacious argument. If you are not then you are acknowledging that there's no reason at all why there could not be a good article or a correct fact or set of facts published there.
Such as the ones about baxters vaccination fuckups (which are corroborated elsewhere and acknowledged by baxters themselves!! )

"The paper is published by "Truth" Coalition Ireland . This group aims to: to thwart the geopolitical agenda known as the New World Order ."

FFS..I never even mentioned "the soverign independent" so why are you going on about it so much. It's just another straw man. Why not talk about baxters instead. Thats what I was talking about in my post, not the validity of the "the soverign independent" which I never even mentioned.

Yes there are things on the wise up site that are complete crap. However the aims of that site are irrelevant to the genuine facts I presented about baxters. Along with some conspiraloon articles there, there are also some correct facts mentioned on that website too. Baxters fuckup is one of them.

"The Sovereign Independent was distributed today at the NAMA demo by members of Youth Defence."

for the LAST TIME I don't give a fuck. You are just getting annoying now. I dislike youth defence and do not agree with them on many matters. However I am still glad they were demonstrating against nama. Which just goes to prove, not everything is ALL wrong. Not wise up journal. Not even youth defence (although they do try hard!)

Your methods of trying to tar me and the limited things I was saying about baxters by association because of the vagaries of a site I plucked 2 links from, or a newspaper I never even heard of until you mentioned it(!) , (or for that matter, with youth defence,) are becoming tiresome and bordering on trolling. Furthermore, you are wilfully derailing what was intended to be a productive discussion on the irish vaccination arrangements and the chequered record of baxters. For this reason I do not wish to engage with you further on this thread unless you take a more constructive direction and stop with the trolling and strawmen.

by Dr Moreau Wed Sep 16, 2009 15:55

Why mention Rumsfeld at all? It has no relevance to whether or not the vaccine is safe.

Your article has a very odd source and I note that you have not addressed any of the points raised in my links to WHO and other medical statements. You use the broad brush attack methods which is similar to those who attack Obamas medical insurance plans. All front but no substance.

This is hardly suprising when your source is an article which first appeared in The Sovereign Independent - Sept/Oct issue. A paper which warns of the New World Order which was started up in 1942., how the EU is poisoning us with fluoridated water.

The paper also carries the following gem: “Some might scoff at a future EU dictator in the same way that the Germans scoffed at a Nazi Germany in the 1920s.”

Now I'm against Lisbon but thats barking.

The paper is published by "Truth" Coalition Ireland . This group aims to: to thwart the geopolitical agenda known as the New World Order .

The Sovereign Independent was distributed today at the NAMA demo by members of Youth Defence.

by SavedByFerrets Wed Sep 16, 2009 14:40

"Its also important to read the views of doctors, scientists and the Health watchdogs"

I presume the subtext goes something like "as well as stuff from cranks like me
I'll remind you that my follow up comment linked to
http://birdflubook.com/a.php?id=85
This was free, informative and accessible information about flu.
the author is also a doctor.
I recommended people read his free online book to help them become more informed on the topic .

the point of this article itself was merely to stimulate a discussion , get people thinking and encourage them to do a little research on baxter etc before blindly taking the shot
The article was not intended to be a scientific paper on flu.!
Neither was the article telling everybody to follow the authors personal decision not to take it. In fact it listed those groups who should seriously consider taking it because they might otherwise be at equally or more risk from the actual flu due to certain health conditions.

". There were also those who opposed the introduction of penicillin through blind fear and lack of information."

I am not one of those and I have no objections to penicillin except that people need to know whether they are allergic before taking it.
And it's not really the same thing as injecting a weak live virus strain into yourself. Even weak Viruses can mutate and cause outbreaks.
The polio outbreak in nigeria is one example of this. Also there have been known problems with some of the adjuvants used in vaccines.
There is no doubt that this vaccine has been rushed to market to capitalise upon the panic generated by the media. When complex tasks are rushed, there are more likely to be "bugs". Thats ok if it's software for a computer but not so ok if it increases the chances of your perfectly healthy child becoming seriously ill.

"Every medical advance has been opposed by the primitivists. The Catholic Church originally oppoesed the use of anesthetics foe women during childbirth as women were supposed to suffer pain for tempting Adam."

Yeah, and they burned people at the stake for being witches too. What has that got to do with my post? And in any case, I'm an atheist.I hate those guys too!! :-)

"Yes, there are crooked pharmecutical companies but the fact that Rumsfeld is involved with one of them does not mean its products are unsafe."
Never said that. Just said that that knowledge that he was involved did not inspire me. Does it inspire you?

" If you had Diabetes would you stop taking Insulin because Bertie Ahearn had shares in the company which made it?
actually I probably would!! I'd rather die than let that little anoraked bastard profit further from me. :-)

by SavedByFerrets Wed Sep 16, 2009 13:58

the canadian news

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/200...ealth

yes there are some odd articles on that site but that does not preclude some of the articles on the site being true.

this information about baxter is well known and they admitted it.

BTW Baxter were also responsible for that tainted blood product scandal too and I didn't even mention that at all.

If anything, I was going easy on them in fact!!

by NWO Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:11

The article reccomends wiseupjournal and gives it as its source but I was rather alarmed when I went there to find some odd arrticles. This journal dpesnt believe in Global Warming. They claim that "Bill Gates has submitted a patent to control the weather".

They also claim that using the contraceptive pill causes cancer.

They claim that members of Obamas cabinet want to forcibly sterilise women and also to force women to have abortions.

They also publish DAily Mail stories that Gypsies are alloed to skip hospital queues and that the police are illegally stopping white people so that they can stop coloureds!

Wise up indeed begfore you take anything seriously which comes from wiseupjournal.

by Dr Moreau Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:09

Its also important to read the views of doctors, scientists and the Health watchdogs. There were also those who opposed the introduction of penicillin through blind fear and lack of information.

Every medical advance has been opposed by the primitivists. The Catholic Church originally oppoesed the use of anesthetics foe women during childbirth as women were supposed to suffer pain for tempting Adam.

Yes, there are crooked pharmecutical companies but the fact that Rumsfeld is involved with one of them does not mean its products are unsafe. If you had Diabetes would you stop taking Insulin because Bertie Ahearn had shares in the company which made it?

Flu vaccine trials 'promising'
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0910/....html

Early clinical trial results show swine flu vaccines now being rushed through development produce a strong immune response, suggesting they should work well, the head of Europe's drugs watchdog said today.

Governments in Europe have started to take delivery of shots against pandemic H1N1 swine flu but are awaiting a licence from European authorities before they can start mass vaccinations.

"It seems to be quite promising," Thomas Lonngren, executive director of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), told a news briefing.

"The immune response to all these vaccines is a very high response, whatever type of vaccine it is, whether it is adjuvanted or non-adjuvanted," he added.

Adjuvants are immune-stimulating compounds added to vaccines to boost their effectiveness.

Brian Mullen of the Department of Health said the indemnity was entered into in the context of planning for an avian flu pandemic. But we now have a milder H1N1 pandemic and he said the Department of Health and the World Health Organisation were confident adverse reactions would be minimal.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1....html

Of course we should not dismiss the use of natural cures either. John McKenna has written an interesting and informative article regarding this.

Let's not forget the use of natural cures
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/0901/12....html

“For thousands of years it has been well known that food substances, especially plants like mint, turmeric, garlic, onion, lemon and ginger are highly effective as medicines,” writes Dr Stephen Fulder in The Ginger Book: The Ultimate Home Remedy .

Dr Fulder’s recipe for “Ginger Tea for Fevers and Colds” couldn’t be simpler: “Grate a small piece of fresh ginger of about one gram (about the size of half a sugar cube) into a glass. Add lemon juice from about half a lemon, fill with hot water and add a little honey to sweeten.” This encourages sweating and brings out low grade fevers and colds, writes Dr Fulder.

In China a root of a plant may contain useful substances to combat the virus.

Potential New Swine Flu Drugs From 'Dung Of The Devil' Plant
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/163495.php

Scientists in China have discovered that roots of a plant used a century ago during the great Spanish influenza pandemic contains substances with powerful effects in laboratory experiments in killing the H1N1 swine flu virus that now threatens the world. The plant has a pleasant onion-like taste when cooked, but when raw it has sap so foul-smelling that some call it the "Dung of the Devil" plant. Their report is scheduled for the Sept. 25 issue of ACS' Journal of Natural Products, a monthly publication.

Finally the World Health Organisation gives its opinion on the safety of the vaccine.

WHO Seeks To Reassure Public About Swine Flu Vaccine Safety
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/160106.php

Following media reports raising concern about the safety of vaccines for the swine flu pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a statement yesterday reassuring the public about the regulatory procedures for the licensing and approval of pandemic vaccines, which they said are rigorous and do not threaten safety or quality.

Dated 6 August, and issued from Geneva, where the WHO has its headquarters, the world agency said that vaccines are one of the most important medical devices for minimizing illness and deaths during a pandemic, but to be effective they have to be available quickly and in very large quantities.

by SavedByFerrets Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:12

For those of you interested in a description of the 1918 flu epidemic, the machinations of the drug companies and who would like a little more detail on how these flu viruses operate, here is a very interesting online book link.

http://birdflubook.com/a.php?id=85

enjoy!

by Pete. Tue Sep 15, 2009 16:27

Re: "Personally I won't be taking this vaccine."

This strain is new.
The fear is that it will mutate into an altogether more lethal strain.
Its future behaviour is unknown.

THAT is what the scare is all about.

Sooner or later a lethal strain will certainly evolve.
It is overdue.
Hopefully...... not this time.

And hopefully.... not like in 1918.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

Quote:
"The pandemic lasted from March 1918 to June 1920,spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. It is estimated that anywhere from 50 to 100 million people were killed worldwide.
An estimated 500 million people, one third of the world's population (approximately 1.6 billion at the time), became infected."

by Starstruck Tue Sep 15, 2009 14:13

Well written piece,the whole hysteria over swine flu (sporadic though it has been) has been a useful tool to trump government economic blunders of late.
I certainly wont be taking any such vaccine,particularly given the hostorical failures of such rushed corporate medecines
such as in the 1976 swine flu "outbreak" in the US

Good CBS report on that shambles here - - the vaccine was more lethal than the flu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7oL7wdQqKQ