Yahoo News Just Admitted Swine Flu Virus In Vaccines!

-sigh-
I really should start cutting and pasting, it appears that these swine flu issues are going to stay.

First, the OP does make sense. There is an inherent risk in taking the vaccine.

Here is a pdf about the rules for drugs

psych.fullerton.edu...

Even if you just glance at it, take note of the YEARS it takes to test, animal, human trials. The governments are fast-tracking this without propper testing.

But say they "magically" did all this testing. How is this vaccine going to protect you from the future mutation? They don't even know how it will mutate but they assume that the vaccine, developed from the mild version, will protect you.
Stupid assumption, when they can't even find a vaccine to treat the common cold due to mutations in that virus.

So take the shot. Have a beer afterwards. Enjoy.

I am not an alarmist, just a neurobiologist who worked for Abbott Labs for years.
Am I getting the vaccine? No.
Is my wife, an RN, getting the vaccine? No.
Is my 6 year old getting the vaccine? No.

We contracted the H1N1 virus earlier this summer. It was one rough, miserable week. That being said, we are as immune as anyone who takes this "vaccine". Although they say that we need the vaccine still, in case the virus mutates. But they don't have the vaccine for the mutated version. . . . . do you see where I'm going with this? Don't be an alarmist. Just use common sense.

This is a very bad idea.
For those that think this is bunk, please refute the science. Please tell me how I am wrong. Would love to have an intelligent arguement for WHY we need this vaccine, and why they are pushing it so badly.

Good job OP bringing this to the attention of people that still need to be educated, and still fall for the knee-jerk reaction about taking the vaccine.

edit, just wanted to add the actual FDA directives for vaccine testing/approval
www.fda.gov...

Just in case there were any doubters out there that would say vaccines aren't drugs and argue the point.

Mike


[edit on 26-7-2009 by mikerussellus]

This has been a very interesting read:

www.vaclib.org...

ear Members and Friends -

Great interview of a former pharma employee who is now retired...speaking out after realizing the ramifications of FORCED vaccination. Wish a few more would speak up instead of seeing their security in a retirement check as this guy apparently does....

Ingri

JON RAPPOPORT
www.nomorefakenews.com...

Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.

Q: Why not?

A: I want to preserve my privacy.

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

There is alot more written in the article too long to post.

My question is this ; How can they develop a vaccine for a virus which "may develop into a more deadly mutation?"