Turn on thread page Beta

Disturbing information about the swine flu vaccine watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    tl:dr =

    Vaccine may turn your body's immune system against vital components of your system, and a chemical in the vaccine has been linked with "Gulf War Syndrome".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Luckily, my immune system is perfect.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    TBH i don't like any form of medication, vacination or whatever. Side effects usually make you feel worse. I prefer to let my body cure itself. Although i rarely get ill...not been ill since i was young.

    There have been many conspiracy theories about this. I heard they have micro chips in this vacination which is going to control us all. :woo:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    surely the scientists coming up with this will have been aware of the issue with the sq--- thingy ( sorry cba to go back a page to find what its called)?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't subscribe to outlandish conspiracy theories such as microchips in vaccinations. I do think that there is evidence to suggest that vaccines are less than safe however.

    To the person who said to quit 'stirring' and that vaccines have been proved/found safe: Wake up. Questioning and researching things is how humanity makes progress. Sudan 1 had been found safe, I guess the researchers who later found it was cancerous and removed it from every food product should have 'quit stirring' and blindly accepted that it was safe. The mentality of some people on here is beyond me.


    Check this short video out: http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance...paganda_webcam

    It's about the 1976 swine flu vaccine and the severe side effects some people suffered. Vaccines are not 100% safe. My whole point is to make people aware of this, so they can form a better opinion on whether or not they should receive one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I thought that gulf war syndrome was just a myth?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Gulf war syndrome is very real. From Wikipedia:

    Anthrax vaccine

    During Operation Desert Storm, 41% of U.S. combat soldiers and 57-75% of UK combat soldiers were vaccinated against anthrax.[16] The early 1990s version of the anthrax vaccine was a source of several serious side effects including GWI symptoms. Like all vaccines, it often caused local skin reactions, some lasting for weeks or months.[17] While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the vaccine, it never went through large scale clinical trials, unlike almost all other vaccines in the United States.[18]

    One study found that deployed Persian Gulf War Syndrome patients are significantly more likely to have antibodies to the experimental vaccine adjuvant squalene (95 percent) than asymptomatic Gulf War veterans (0 percent; p<.001), [19] which raises the possibility that squalene was used experimentally (squalene is not approved for use as an adjuvant in the United States[20]) in the Anthrax vaccine given to soldiers prior to deployment in the Persian Gulf War to better induce immunity.

    The potential implication that the Anthrax vaccine given to soldiers immediately prior to the Gulf War was correlated with Persian Gulf War Syndrome prompted the Department of Defense to task the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB) to review Asa, Cao, & Garry's methods. The AFEB found several shortcomings that called into question the validity of the results; namely questionable positive controls, the unproven specificity of the ASA assay, and the potential that the researchers were not blind in their knowledge of patient illness/wellness. [21]

    A study published in 2009 found no relationship between squalene antibodies and symptoms. The researchers conclude "We found no association between squalene antibody status and chronic multisymptom illness. The etiology of Gulf War syndrome remains unknown, but should not include squalene antibody status."[22]

    Research into the vaccine used after 1997 suggests that specific vaccine lots used in immunization during the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program program initiated in 1997 likely contain squalene because " the incidence of [anti-squalene antibodies] in personnel in the blinded study receiving these lots was 47% (8/17) compared to an incidence of 0% (0/8; P < 0.025) of the AVIP participants receiving other lots of vaccine."[23]

    Even after the war, troops that had never been deployed overseas, after receiving the anthrax vaccine, developed symptoms similar to those of Persian Gulf War Syndrome. The Pentagon failed to report to Congress 20,000 cases where soldiers were hospitalized after receiving the vaccine between 1998 and 2000.[24]

    Despite repeated assurances that the vaccine was safe and necessary, a U.S. Federal Judge ruled that there was good cause to believe it was harmful, and he ordered the Pentagon to stop administering it in October 2004.[25] The ban was lifted in February 2008 after the FDA re-examined and approved the drug again. Anthrax vaccine is the only substance suspected in Persian Gulf War syndrome to which forced exposure has since been banned to protect troops from it.[26]

    On December 15, 2005, the Food and Drug Administration, released a Final Order finding that anthrax vaccine is safe and effective.[27][28][29] Women who receive the vaccine get pregnant and deliver children at the same rates as unvaccinated women.[30] Anthrax vaccination has no effect on pregnancy and birth rates or adverse birth outcomes.[31] however the anthrax vaccine currently used is not the same vaccine that was issued during the First Gulf War.[32]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Wa...nthrax_vaccine
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    this is the same as the 1918 epidemic. more people died of the vaccine than the flu virus itself. That needle is not coming a mile close to me, **** that!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm.
    Will wait for test results and more thorough research by qualified researchers before I jump to any conclusions. If the risk is significantly small, and the virus appears to gain strength during the flu season, I'd rather take the risk of the vaccine than take the risk of being put into a critical/fatal position by refusing the vaccine.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Would this squalene be the same squalene that's in every flu vaccine given in the last two decades or so?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prokaryotic_crap)
    this is the same as the 1918 epidemic. more people died of the vaccine than the flu virus itself. That needle is not coming a mile close to me, **** that!
    Wow! Are you suggesting that the 'flu vaccine was killing people twenty years before it was invented? It must be nasty ****...

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Renal)
    Would this squalene be the same squalene that's in every flu vaccine given in the last two decades or so?

    reiterating the issue that people on teh interwebz who can read wikipedia, think they're more qualified than a biomedical scientist!
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Prokaryotic_crap)
    this is the same as the 1918 epidemic. more people died of the vaccine than the flu virus itself. That needle is not coming a mile close to me, **** that!

    it's 2009 last time I checked, not 1918! We have things like antibiotics now, medicine has actually advanced a fair amount!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    It's about the 1976 swine flu vaccine and the severe side effects some people suffered. Vaccines are not 100% safe. My whole point is to make people aware of this, so they can form a better opinion on whether or not they should receive one.
    While a noble idea we can see time and time again that the vast majority of people are poor at identifying relative risk - and that's scientifically proven - the media are poor at disseminating accurate information and the scientific community is poor at communicating complex risk calculations in a manner that can be realistically understood by the general public.

    So, I don't think Joe Bloggs is going to be in a position to make an informed choice based on information off the interweb anytime soon...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fubsadoo)
    Yeah, I didn't get MMR until I was 14 because people were stirring things up.

    Since that whole **** up we've had measles outbreaks and a lot more sick children than we would have had otherwise. Which is why you should be very very careful and fairly confident when you start saying vaccines are dangerous.

    People much better informed about this than you have already thought about this and decided it is safe.
    So quit stirring things.
    I agree with your point about MMR, but it is equally dangerous to assume that the men in white coats must always be right because they've been to medical school for 7 years. Science has made many mistakes (which seems to be its prefered method of advancement), one relevant one being thalidomide which caused many pregnant women to give birth to often very malformed children.

    Of course, I don't understand medicine to any great degree, and so do have to trust the men in white coats -- however, if there were convincing evidence that something was awry, it would be wrong to dismiss it, even though in many cases you may well be mistaken.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Forced vaccinations - I ain't gonna take any shots.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    I agree with your point about MMR, but it is equally dangerous to assume that the men in white coats must always be right because they've been to medical school for 7 years. Science has made many mistakes (which seems to be its prefered method of advancement), one relevant one being thalidomide which caused many pregnant women to give birth to often very malformed children.

    Thalidomide is being used for some type of haemotology conditions now, and is undergoing many research, some are even hailing it a future 'wonder drug'!!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    Well Squalene injected directly into the blood stream, stimulates an immune response AGAINST Squalene.
    I thought Squalene was fairly commonly used in vaccines these days and as these are subcut or IM then where's the problems? I can't think of any IV vaccines, but I'm sure they're perfectly safe if they do exist.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cup of Inspiration)
    it's 2009 last time I checked, not 1918! We have things like antibiotics now, medicine has actually advanced a fair amount!
    I'm not on anybodys team here but antibiotics don't work against viruses.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cup of Inspiration)
    Thalidomide is being used for some type of haemotology conditions now, and is undergoing many research, some are even hailing it a future 'wonder drug'!!
    Indeed. That doesn't mean that it hasn't caused many then unexpected defects for many people though, which was my point.

    US officials are trying to reduce the possibility of the drug being misused by pregnant mothers by saying those who use it must be taking contraceptives.
    But Dr Claus Newman, a specialist in birth defects based at Queen Mary's hospital in Roehampton says: "Even with all the precautions we can set up there will continue to be risks of more congenitally malformed babies being born."
    Doctors are divided on whether thalidomide should be consigned to history or used to treat specific conditions.
    Some describe it as "a necessary evil".



    Anyway, there seems to be nothing like a "wonder drug" in existence. Most of us still die of some cruel disease.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.