Avian and swine flu vaccines cause sterility and death

page: 8
96
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Scary stuff. Read the news a minute ago and it was about the swine flu. (I live in Sweden) It said that about 400.000 swedes will get infected even if the vaccination is prepared. This is supposed to occur during autumn. worst case scenario would be 5 million infected.

I´m worried cos of this. And when i read all these bad things about the vaccine. It makes me even more worried. Are they really true? I mean are there evidence which shows sterility amongst those who have taken these shots? Even death cases? I´m writing this cos I don´t think anyone in my family is aware of this, and I don´t want to be forced to take a vaccine that sterilize me. And I definitely don´t want my family to take these shots. To be honest, I´m not even 16 yet.. This would all be bull# according to them if i told them what these shots cause.

Oh I also want to say that this site rocks!
I finally decided to be a member, and looking forward to all the new exciting news.

Thanks! / UT (sorry if something is badly written, hope you´ll understand my English hehe




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by UrgentTimes
Scary stuff. Read the news a minute ago and it was about the swine flu. (I live in Sweden) It said that about 400.000 swedes will get infected even if the vaccination is prepared. This is supposed to occur during autumn. worst case scenario would be 5 million infected.

I´m worried cos of this. And when i read all these bad things about the vaccine. It makes me even more worried. Are they really true? I mean are there evidence which shows sterility amongst those who have taken these shots? Even death cases? I´m writing this cos I don´t think anyone in my family is aware of this, and I don´t want to be forced to take a vaccine that sterilize me. And I definitely don´t want my family to take these shots. To be honest, I´m not even 16 yet.. This would all be bull# according to them if i told them what these shots cause.

Oh I also want to say that this site rocks!
I finally decided to be a member, and looking forward to all the new exciting news.

Thanks! / UT (sorry if something is badly written, hope you´ll understand my English hehe



Welcome to ATS, and your english is very good!!

Its a great dillema, fear mongering from both sides. But i keep having this thought in the back of my mind. Suppose its going to be a really dangerous flu, and suppose the vaccins are here to help the people. And what if a lot of people dont take them and cause the virus to spread more easily and mutate faster? I havent seen proof that the vaccin is that dangerous. The only thing i read are more link to links to links to sites that claim they now the truth. Indeed a big dilemma..



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by templar knight
Two facts to bring up about vaccination:
1. If you reach critical mass with vaccination, then you can eradicate a disease from the population. Start reneging on vacinations as an outrageous report on measles happened a short while ago (triggered from ONE biassed/badly written scare monger story) and suddenly we got an outbreak of measles.
2. I did a biochemistry degree 20 years ago and then the technology for vaccinations was to produce the "coat" of the cell (not the cell itself) so that antibodies would be raised. The coat was benign, but fooled the body enough to create anti bodies.
Yes there will always be specific reactions to anything where mass injections occur. (that will happen statistically)

++++++++++++++++++++

One other thing to bear in mind:
1. Ask your GP if he/she has had the injection. Then ask for a second opinion. Then ask for a third. These people are usually highly intelligent people, would they kill themselves, their family or their community?

This conspiracy is highly dangerous and without balanced facts from both sides, could cause a worse problem than the immunisation is trying to stop - as had happend with the measles outbreak.






I've stated in this thread how if the virus mutates, then the current vaccine is useless. My degree is in neurobiology, not virology so I ask soley for clarification.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   


An “informal” [e.g., illegal] clinical trial of the Avian Flu vaccine on about 200 Polish vagrants resulted in 11 immediate deaths and an additional set of 20 later deaths (approximately 15% of the test population). The doctors and nurses involved were charged with murder. (Fact. 2008)


Fictional like Harry Potter. No actual sources. (Further down I'll just put 'Reference response 1' in similar cases)



Approximately 3500 Chinese children died in an Avian Flu vaccine experiment. (Rumor, 2008)


Rumour indeed. If it was true, Chinese pharmaceuticals killing people? Nah, that almost never happens. (SARCASM)



3. The Philippine High Court convicted WHO (The World Health Organization) of involuntarily sterilizing over 3 million Philippina women through the use of vaccines. (Fact)


Fiction. Intensive searching of Philippine justice system and news organizations show no concrete proof of such a trial ever occurring. Only 'proof' is from naturopaths posting fear mongering lies to attract customers.



The WHO in 1985 documented that one of its’ primary goals for the use of a sterility vaccine disguised as a smallpox vaccine was to “eliminate 150 million excess Sub Saharan Africans”. (Fact, 1985-ongoing)


Reference response 1



The WHO 5-shot vaccine programs for tetanus in third world countries in South and Central America caused the involuntary sterilization of millions of women. (Fact, ongoing)


Once again, no sources!!



Monsanto’s MON 810 corn causes sterility according to studies published by the Austrian Government. (Fact, 2009)


I don't know what GMO foods have to do with vaccines, but this may be the only true part of Studenofhistory's post.



7. (cut because it is a long one)


Completely false, corn won't heighten your risk for contracting HIV/AIDS. Unprotected sexual contact, still a danger.



8. (Long one, didn't even want to cut and paste)


Oh snap! Another fake. It actually does cut the risk of cervical cancer, was that statement typed in the Bizarro world? (You know, where Superman is evil and Macs have majority over PCs)



9. (Same reason as the above two)


They said they got rid of it? Really it could go either way. But I would say fake since there isn't any PROOF of a mix-up.



A WHO investigation into the Baxter contaminated vaccine issue resulted in NO findings and in NO disciplinary actions. An Austrian investigation into the same events yielded the same results. (Fact, 2009)


Didn't happen since there wasn't any proof of a mix-up.



Baxter has been rewarded with a lead role in developing, producing and disseminating the Swine Flu vaccine for the upcoming pandemic. (Fact, 2009)


Actually, they haven't been given the lead role but they have received orders for the swine flu vaccine because they managed to develop a vaccine first.



Swine Flu was first identified to the public as a serious problem in April/May 2009 when 168 persons in Mexico were confirmed by CDC and WHO to have died from the Swine Flu. This number was later revised downward to only 16 deaths. (Fact, 2009)


This occurred but the initial death toll was attributed to people dying with flu-like symptoms which are common with many illnesses. This is a fact accepted by Mexican healthcare workers, media, and just word-of-mouth.



It normally takes a minimum of 12 to 18 months to create a vaccine after a specific virus has been identified. (Fact)


Old method of growing vaccines within chicken eggs would take 12 to 18 months. Newer methods of growing vaccines within little dishes takes much less time.

Continued in next post.

Note to the Admin, I kept it short right? At least, a

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Dnevnoi]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Dnevnoi]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Continued from my previous post...



The US Government has spent more than a billion dollars to develop and to make available the Swine flu vaccine for a disease which poses no significant health threat. (Fact, 2009)


US is only spending this in the event that H1N1 picks up some new tricks that would let it spread much faster.



The “Seed Culture” for the Swine Flu virus was provided to vaccine companies in May, 2009. Baxter International Inc. announced in June, 2009 that they would have their vaccine ready in July, 2009 . (Fact, 2009)


Actually no.



16. A WHO container of Swine Flu virus from Mexico City exploded on a passenger train in Luzon, Switzerland. All of the current Swiss cases of Swine Flu are from the area where the explosion took place. It is illegal to ship pathogenic viruses in this way. (Fact, 2009)


No witnesses to a train explosion in Luzon, Switzerland. Ergo, it is a non-existent event. Plus, people do go to Mexico, even the Swiss.



A significant number of virologists and other scientists are on record stating that the Swine Flu was created in a laboratory and could not evolve naturally. (Fact, 2009)


There are camps on both sides of the issue around its origins. Really, its too hard to tell.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Dnevnoi
 


You appear cynical of the dangers posed by the vaccine/flu issue.

Good.

Please tell me then, why we are planning to use this vaccine against a virus that the WHO predicts will mutate into a more virrulent form?

If it mutates, then the current vaccine is worthless. The common cold is still prevelant in the world because specific vaccines cannot be made against the ever-changing mutations.

So what makes this vaccine more potent/magical against a mutation they haven't even seen yet?

Currently, this flu virus has a far smaller mortality level than other more "standard" viruses. Why the panic? My family and I suffered from this bug ourselves. We were sick, then got better.
What is the big deal about the need for this vaccine? Why the need to innoculate everyone? Why raise the level to a 6?

No one has yet been able to answer my questions.

I have a bachelors in biological science. (minored in physics)
My masters is in developmental neurobiology.
Granted, I have no degree in virology but I do know SOME things.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
There's no way they would be able to enforce mandatory vaccinations. They would get owned. Unless they somehow require proof to get a ID or something.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Data set TWO?!

True or false time, just duplicate a tab to have the second data set and you can reference to it. I'll even search each 'fact' for you.

1. Countries buying 'unsafe' Swine Flu vaccine.
Verdict: Lack of evidence and I'm Canadian, my country hasn't even bought it yet but we do have a check with their name on it.

2. Obama planning mandatory vaccinations for Bird Flu.
Verdict: Lack of evidence. Vaccination plan wouldn't work because of Fundamental Christian beliefs conflicting. Republicans yeah?

3. US compiling locations of citizens.
Verdict: Money is probably going to the aging satellites which will cause GPS outages in 2010 at the earliest. Also, merger between Yellow Pages and Google could essentially do the same thing but you know, cheaper.

4. Children suspected of being vectors of disease.
Verdict: Lack of evidence but, you've been around a toddler right? They'll put almost anything in their mouths.

5. WHO to run countries in event of pandemic.
Verdict: Lack of evidence. FEMA will manage US. Canada will manage.. Canada. Other countries, more likely to have WHO on an advisory duty rather than governmental role.

6. Terrorism attacks coinciding with exercises.
Verdict: Lack of evidence. Opportunity knocks huh?

7. FEMA exercises.
Verdict: Yeah we know. They aren't anything insidious. FEMA does a Tier I exercise yearly. Plus we're involved in some way, and Australia too, clearly an NWO thing. Vote Kangaroo Jack 2012!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


When you make a vaccine to one virus, you can work your way from there instead of starting over again. If the virus' RNA structure changes, then you can alter the vaccine's structure in a similar way. As of the current moment, there are some countries that have the A(H1N1) virus but they are finding that in certain countries the current H1N1 vaccine can work whereas in others such as Brazil (where both are out and about) will need to develop a vaccine for both the older strain and the new strain.

But of course it is foolish to sit in your trenches and wait for a mutation to occur because in the event a mutation does not occur and we are stuck with a whole bunch of H1N1 and not some advanced form. We'd still have no vaccine. It is akin to making seasonal flu vaccines, we keep making these tried and true vaccines because seasonal flu comes around every season. So as long as it exists they'll make a vaccine, since H1N1 has not disappeared they will continue to make it.

As for my apparently cynical approach, I have hot keys and search engines.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by h1satsu
 


I saw those data sets reposted on craigslist. People are just posting it everywhere like the "post this to ten boards and you'll get a wish" spam junkmail things.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by UrgentTimes
 


I searched everything, I kind of regret it because now my fingers hurt. Bottom line though is that it is in all sense of the term, bull#. Except for those two points, but they were actually plausible from the beginning.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Dnevnoi
 

what's to say that the "future" mutation will react appropriately to the old vaccine? It seems to me thaat there is alot of "assumption" on the future mutation.

As for the timeline for creating new vaccines, I spent 4 years working for big pharma (Abbott Labs) and even 6 months is highly optimistic. And would any timeline contain testing? Effacacy of any drug/vaccine takes time.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I just said that making a vaccine for the current virus is smart because it can help with the NEXT virus to pop up. It is not definite that the future mutation will or will not be affected by the current vaccine. That's the problem with the future, you never really know. Its not like the virus has Twitter to tell everybody to change to the new mutation. This isn't the Andromeda Strain we're dealing with.

As for big pharma, a success is optimistic for Abbott. You can make vaccinations quickly and en masse without drafting every available chicken coop. As for clinical tests, they're called ferrets. And their lungs are apparently ideal for respiratory illnesses since they are like our own.

Time is tricky... Unless you're Den-O (Good times with the nephew)



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Dnevnoi
 



That leads me back to my original point. There is a big push for this vaccine when it mutates to a more virulent form.

Why the big push if it can't be proven that it will be effecatious at all?

My cynical "meter" is pegging over that.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Because H1N1 will still be around and thus will still present itself as a threat. A new strain could pop up at any moment, and it has. Kind of. But once that new strain, A(H1N1) is the name at the moment perhaps it has changed, has gone across a continent then a vaccine will be needed. If you have a solution to one of two problems, you pursue the solution to one problem until a solution is plausible for the remaining problem.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Dnevnoi
 

In a sense I agree. It would be foolish to do nothing. Perhaps the hype over this particular flu and the needless panic has soured me to the heavy-handed approach.
My biggest fear is that the prevention is going to be worse that the disease, simply because there hasn't been time to approach this calmly and rationally.
Also the danger exists if people "think" they are innoculated and the mutant strain appears, negating any positive approach to containment of this bug.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
True that is a problem of false hope. But if the vaccine stops people from getting H1N1 then it will surely cut the mortality rate down and the containment of the newer strain can become more of an issue. Of course one of the worst things would be for people to refuse the vaccine and get H1N1 as well as the newer strain.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Dnevnoi
 

You're speaking to someone who had the H1N1 flu.

From what I've read concerning the mortality rate, it is much lower than the more conventional flu.

I just believe they are putting too much faith into this new vaccine. As it is sure to mutate, there is no assurance that anything will stop it. That being said, the need for the vaccine becomes much lower. Which flies in the face of the urgency to innoculate everyone.

My wife is an RN. We practice handwashing at home. Keep clean and have not received any flu vaccine for years. We also have not had the flu in years. Until H1N1. As far as I'm concerned, We don't need the vaccine, nor does the millions that have suffered through this bug.

Another reason to stop the hype over this vaccine, and find out why this bug is more important than any other yearly bug that has already proven to be more deadly.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dnevnoi
True that is a problem of false hope. But if the vaccine stops people from getting H1N1 then it will surely cut the mortality rate down and the containment of the newer strain can become more of an issue. Of course one of the worst things would be for people to refuse the vaccine and get H1N1 as well as the newer strain.


how dare you be the voice of reason??? i kinda like reading posts from people who are scared $*tless


let's look at this as a form of natural selection. there is a potentially deadly disease and a potential cure/preventive measure. however some individuals are stubbornly refusing to take the cure arguing it's evil. some will succumb to the disease thus reducing the gene pool of those naturally scared of anything science related


in all seriousness though - would you rather be alive yet sterile or dead? i know what my choice would be!



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Don't know if this link have been posted already, but I feel its very important information






new topics
top topics
 
96
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join