Turn on thread page Beta

Disturbing information about the swine flu vaccine watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Prankster Pixie)
    I would rather have the facility to question and to decide for myself, than not.
    And where do you get your information from? What grade of sources do you use? 1As only? Metas only? 'Quality' journals? Bandolier or Cochrane? Something else?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TommyWannabe)
    The government obviously want to poison people rather than let them have swine flu. That's perfectly sane.
    No one said anything about purposely poisoning people. Accidents can and do happen frequently in medicine.

    The fact the vaccine is being rushed through with no REAL testing is very worrying in my eyes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    From: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...t-Exposed.aspx
    Do you think linking to "The World’s Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter" with an interest in hawking 'natural' swine 'flu remedies is going to interest us? Come back with a decent study from a reputable international, peer-reviewed journal and I might take you seriously.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    No one said anything about purposely poisoning people. Accidents can and do happen frequently in medicine.

    The fact the vaccine is being rushed through with no REAL testing is very worrying in my eyes.
    It's been around ages.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    No one said anything about purposely poisoning people. Accidents can and do happen frequently in medicine.

    The fact the vaccine is being rushed through with no REAL testing is very worrying in my eyes.
    We've got fifty years of evidence of the efficacy and safety of the 'flu vaccine, how much more REAL testing would you like?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    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...
    this is why i love you renal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Do you think linking to "The World’s Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter" with an interest in hawking 'natural' swine 'flu remedies is going to interest us? Come back with a decent study from a reputable international, peer-reviewed journal and I might take you seriously.
    http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/156/6/2057

    http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/10/6/565.pdf

    You might find these more credible?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    dumb people + unreliable internet content = conspiracy theories
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    No one said anything about purposely poisoning people. Accidents can and do happen frequently in medicine.

    The fact the vaccine is being rushed through with no REAL testing is very worrying in my eyes.

    ah man what the hell were they injecting me with when i've been recieving the flu vaccine all these years then?!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TommyWannabe)
    It's been around ages.
    No, it has not.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Smtn)
    dumb people + unreliable internet content = conspiracy theories

    dumb people + natural health newsletters = people considering themselves qualified doctors
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There will be valid trials of this vaccine, specifically because of the huge numbers of people it will be administered to if swine flu becomes a real problem.

    And you have to remember the side effects will definately be taken into account when dealing out this vaccine.

    If swine flu has mutated sufficiently to be extremely dangerous and resistant to tamiflu (already it is showing signs of this) then frankly, it's probably going to be a far safer option to take the vaccine, regardless of the side effects.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Where else is one meant to find an opinion (other than studies like the ones I just posted) which is not currently held by mainstream science?

    Just because I've posted articles from natural health websites, does not render it untrue. I do accept that the majority of people will view it with suspicion because of it's source. But unless the mainstream scientific community embraces it, less credible (to most people) websites are the only real places the information resides.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont really get it:no:
    But it seems a coincidence that its called Squalene, kind of like a pig squealing=O.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    No, it has not.
    10 years not long enough?
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    Where else is one meant to find an opinion (other than studies like the ones I just posted) which is not currently held by mainstream science?

    Just because I've posted articles from natural health websites, does not render it untrue. I do accept that the majority of people will view it with suspicion because of it's source. But unless the mainstream scientific community embraces it, less credible (to most people) websites are the only real places the information resides.

    Im sure research has been done in 'mainstream science' on these things, and have found little or no evidence, or havn't had that much of an impact
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    It's worth considering that the Spanish Influenza of 1918, which killed between 50 and 100 million people behaved in a similar way to Swine Flu. There was the initial outbreak where few people died, but then the flu subsequentlt returned in the winter and caused the catastrophically high death rates.
    there were certain factors which means the spanish flu of 1918 is somewhat different to today's flu pandemic.

    the spanish flu pandemic was a h1n1 swine flu virus, mixed with human h1n1 (the current flu is swine h1n1, mixed with human and avian flu).

    HOWEVER, in 1918 we were mid-war. In civilian/peace times when people develop flu, people with the most mild symptoms may still go out; but those with very severe symptoms, or stronger variations will stay in. In 1918, the people who had the most mild flu symptoms stayed on the front lines, and those with the most severe symptoms were hearded onto trains (or other transport facilities) to the medical units. this meant that the strongest variations of the flu were being spread at a dramatic rate.

    the second thing to note about the 1918 flu is that it caused an over-reaction of the immune system. that is, it caused something called a cytokine storm. this causes the immune system to enter a type of feedback loop in immune responses. it's like the immune system is hyper-stimulated and goes into overdrive. it was this overdrive which was responsible for the patterning of deaths (killing those with the strongest immune systems). this was indicated by the way in which the lungs were filled with mucous, and the particular type of bleeding from the respiratory tract which infected people experienced.

    the third thing to note is the incidence of co-morbidity. many people who caught the spanish flu also developed pnuemonia as a consequence. at that point in time anti-biotics had not been developed, and so pnumonia was untreatable. This isn't to mention all the other infections doing the rounds then: VD/syphilis, typhoid, yellow fever, diphtheria, cholera etc. all of which were exacerbated by the war (several of which were untreatable).

    So as could be argued, we are living in a very different time, due to being in relative peace-times (sort of), the lack of mass transportation of millions of people (especially the ill), better medical treatments, and less risk of co-morbidity. That isn't to say a particularly strong variant of flu couldn't emerge out of swine flu... it could... but we're a long way from 1918.


    Pixie.


    to find out more:

    spanish flu pandemic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic
    cytokine storms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm
    bbc dramatisation about the spanish flu in manchester: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...gotten_Fallen/
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    No, it has not.
    Fifty ******* years!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. The CURRENT vaccinations in production are NEW in their composition. It is a new mixture of chemicals and therefore a NEW vaccine.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/156/6/2057

    http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/10/6/565.pdf

    You might find these more credible?
    Credible yes, but the weight of evidence countering them is pretty overwhelming, as all the decent metas show - http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...876/frame.html
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.