Turn on thread page Beta

Disturbing information about the swine flu vaccine watch

    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    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.

    but aren't you on about squalene?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    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.
    Not quite, it's a new mix of influenza strains - like every influenza vaccine every year.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It does seem fairly comprehensive in my opinion. The weight of evidence (talking about injected squalene) to support it's effect in rats, and the link between Gulf war syndrome sufferers (the majority having antibodies for squalene) compared to non sufferers (zero having antibodies for squalene.)

    It is not something I would want injected, based on my research.

    Obviously we are all different, and reach different conclusions, based on many factors. I did think it was worth posting this though, because I doubt many people would have heard anything I've posted about squalene before.

    We all have to make up our own minds I guess...
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Renal)
    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?
    for the drugs i have been prescribed things like "a primer of drug action"
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Primer-Drug-.../dp/1429206799
    i qualified as a drugs worker and sexual health worker several years ago, so my knowledge is already fairly good for psychoactive drugs and a few medical conditions (for a lay person). and i have spent alot of time conversing with medical practitioners in the staff room.

    pubmed, or other journals.

    i have read quite alot by doctor redwine on endometriosis and other reputable surgeons/authors.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I sure won't turn it down.
    I've had other flu vaccines when they came out, and I trust the doctors more than paranoid internet people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    OP is an idiot.
    If swine flu breaks out like they fear, how many people will die? about 0.1% of people who get it or something like that.
    how many people would die or become ill from the vaccine? probably around 0.0001%.
    stop being an idiot and spouting rubbish you know nothing about and dont understand (no, reading scare mongering posts on websites is not understanding). do you honestly think that if there is a mass inoculation the government would go ahead wiith it if they thought it would do more harm than good? :rolleyes:
    to be honest i hope that if there is a mass inoculation, anybody that refuses it will be given swine flu. along with aids.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    theres always risks with everything you do nowadays:sigh:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Higgy90)
    OP is an idiot.
    If swine flu breaks out like they fear, how many people will die? about 0.1% of people who get it or something like that.
    how many people would die or become ill from the vaccine? probably around 0.0001%.
    stop being an idiot and spouting rubbish you know nothing about and dont understand (no, reading scare mongering posts on websites is not understanding). do you honestly think that if there is a mass inoculation the government would go ahead wiith it if they thought it would do more harm than good? :rolleyes:
    to be honest i hope that if there is a mass inoculation, anybody that refuses it will be given swine flu. along with aids.
    :rofl:
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Miss Prankster Pixie)
    for the drugs i have been prescribed things like "a primer of drug action"
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Primer-Drug-.../dp/1429206799
    i qualified as a drugs worker and sexual health worker several years ago, so my knowledge is already fairly good for psychoactive drugs and a few medical conditions (for a lay person). and i have spent alot of time conversing with medical practitioners in the staff room.

    pubmed, or other journals.

    i have read quite alot by doctor redwine on endometriosis and other reputable surgeons/authors.
    but pubmed isn't a scientific journal
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Prankster Pixie)
    for the drugs i have been prescribed things like "a primer of drug action"
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Primer-Drug-.../dp/1429206799
    i qualified as a drugs worker and sexual health worker several years ago, so my knowledge is already fairly good for psychoactive drugs and a few medical conditions (for a lay person). and i have spent alot of time conversing with medical practitioners in the staff room.

    pubmed, or other journals.

    i have read quite alot by doctor redwine on endometriosis and other reputable surgeons/authors.
    lol @ this whole post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OOH how i hate the internet...

    Vaccines are important... very important.

    The pros DO outweigh the cons.

    Pros.
    - You are less likely to contract the illness (in question) if exposed
    - If you do contract the illness it is likely that it will be MUCH milder
    - Some deadly diseases could be COMPLETELY erradicated from the natural world... one already has... "Small Pox"... for those that don't know this WAS a very deadly disease...

    Wikipedia states (with 3 citations)

    "During the 20th century, it is estimated that smallpox was responsible for 300–500 million deaths."

    now that means each year of the 20th century up until 1979 when it was erradicated (due to VACCINATION). it was killing AT LEAST 3,797,468 people a year worldwide.

    oh and they have apparantly NEARLY erradicated polio too...

    Cons:
    - A minor risk of infection (from remember a weakened strain of the virus)
    - There is a HUGE list of possible side effects (although most are stuff like nausea for a few hours... there is the high probablity that you might die... oops sorry EDIT: i meant incalcuably small chance... or as some mathmaticians would call it... statistically insignificant)
    - The TB jab hurts... but come to think of it... i think it would hurt less than coughing up my lungs... so hmm nevermind.

    To sum up: Whatever they add to vaccines it is CLEARLY doing the job. Personally I don't care if you have your vaccines or not I'm just pointing out that the positive side of vaccinations FAR out way the negative. SMALL POX HAS BEEN ERRADICATED... even IF vaccines killed 1 million people a year, that is still nearly 3 million less than small pox killed per year last century! How can you argue against that?


    EDIT:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    It does seem fairly comprehensive in my opinion. The weight of evidence (talking about injected squalene) to support it's effect in rats, and the link between Gulf war syndrome sufferers (the majority having antibodies for squalene) compared to non sufferers (zero having antibodies for squalene.)

    It is not something I would want injected, based on my research.

    Obviously we are all different, and reach different conclusions, based on many factors. I did think it was worth posting this though, because I doubt many people would have heard anything I've posted about squalene before.

    We all have to make up our own minds I guess...
    can i please ask... when they injected Squalene into rats... was it JUST squalene in solutions (in varying percentages), or was it a typical vaccination (bearing in mind that some other chemicals present with the vaccination might have inhibited the harmful reaction squalene could have on it's own)?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    It does seem fairly comprehensive in my opinion. The weight of evidence (talking about injected squalene) to support it's effect in rats, and the link between Gulf war syndrome sufferers (the majority having antibodies for squalene) compared to non sufferers (zero having antibodies for squalene.)

    It is not something I would want injected, based on my research.

    Obviously we are all different, and reach different conclusions, based on many factors. I did think it was worth posting this though, because I doubt many people would have heard anything I've posted about squalene before.

    We all have to make up our own minds I guess...
    Sorry to keep on but your original point was
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    Well Squalene injected directly into the blood stream, stimulates an immune response AGAINST Squalene. It actually causes your body to view ALL Squalene as a foreign invader. Your immune system builds a resistance to Squalene which is a vital lipid which plays an important role in the body.
    Please give me an example of a vaccine that IS administered into the blood stream?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im young and healthy. I dont need to take it. Id rather have swine flu for a week than go through the risk.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Champagne Supernova)
    I've edited your original post, and just gave the link, rather than the whole article. Please keep it that way! :p:
    Oooo look at you you shiny minimod you :p:

    To keep on topic, I'm not getting the vaccine. Aparently (according to my boss and locums) we get the vaccine pretty much as soon as its available, but I'm not having it as the flu isn't really that bad. My locums were even saying that the side effects of tamiflu are worse then the flu itself. So if you get it, treat it like normal flu, unless you have underlying medical conditions that is

    The stuff mentioned in the first post looks all true, but I'd say that there are simular risks in all other vaccines and medications too. Healthcare professionals should know when its safe and when its not to give the vaccine (well I hope so anyway )
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Loz17)
    but I'm not having it as the flu isn't really that bad. My locums were even saying that the side effects of tamiflu are worse then the flu itself. So if you get it, treat it like normal flu, unless you have underlying medical conditions that is
    You know, of course, that flu spreads in waves each more dangerous than the last? You remember, of course, that all 'flu pandemics have been preceded by the spread of a milder illness?


    (Original post by Mr Edward Ucation)
    Im young and healthy. I dont need to take it. Id rather have swine flu for a week than go through the risk.
    If you actually read the thread you'll see why young and healthy people are potentially at risk...
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Loz17)
    Oooo look at you you shiny minimod you :p:

    To keep on topic, I'm not getting the vaccine. Aparently (according to my boss and locums) we get the vaccine pretty much as soon as its available, but I'm not having it as the flu isn't really that bad. My locums were even saying that the side effects of tamiflu are worse then the flu itself. So if you get it, treat it like normal flu, unless you have underlying medical conditions that is

    The stuff mentioned in the first post looks all true, but I'd say that there are simular risks in all other vaccines and medications too. Healthcare professionals should know when its safe and when its not to give the vaccine (well I hope so anyway )

    so let me get this straight, im assuming you work in healthcare, you're not having the vaccine, and putting your patients at risk? because you think having the flu isn't that bad?! Vaccines aren't always about 'you' but also protecting the herd, and..Personally i'd rather not take the risk that the new wave will be 'like normal flu'
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Prankster Pixie)
    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/
    That's very interesting thankyou, although I must point out that 1918 wasn't 'mid-war' as this was the year the war ended.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    It's only a couple of months until the vaccine is ready apparently. The UK has ordered 2 doses to be manufactured per person. Seems fairly strange to me, considering it's only slightly worse than normal flu... Certainly it doesn't seem to be the killer/monster virus it was made out to be.

    I've been reading quite a lot recently about what is actually in the vaccine, and how it is produced. I've spent a good few days over the last month researching what exactly I would be permitting to be be injected into my blood stream. What I've found out is quite scary to be honest.

    I believe everyone should be aware of the following information, so they can make a more informed choice over whether or not to be vaccinated.

    I've found out that a chemical called Squalene is being used as an adjuvant in the swine flu vaccines. This acts as a 'booster' making less antigen (a weaker/muter version of the swine flu virus) is needed per vaccine dose. An adjuvant causes the body's immune system to react more to a smaller amount of antigen. This is obviously beneficial because it makes production of vaccines quicker and cheaper.

    Squalene is naturally occurring in the body. So what's the problem then I hear you ask? Well Squalene injected directly into the blood stream, stimulates an immune response AGAINST Squalene. It actually causes your body to view ALL Squalene as a foreign invader. Your immune system builds a resistance to Squalene which is a vital lipid which plays an important role in the body.

    Squalene was also in a number of anthrax vaccinations and has been linked to gulf war syndrome. The symptoms of which include... chronic fatigue, loss of muscle control, headaches, dizziness and loss of balance, memory problems, muscle and joint pain, indigestion, skin problems, shortness of breath, and even insulin resistance. Brain cancer deaths, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as Lou Gehrig's disease) and fibromyalgia.

    That's a summary of what I've found out. While the risk may not be high, there is a clear risk which is evident from what I've read. I will not be accepting a swine flu vaccine personally.

    For anyone who is interested this is worth a read:

    http://www.twine.com/item/12g0znkjm-...cine-adjuvants
    That is scary, but at least its not mantatory for people and they can choose themselves! But i bet, if it does become avaiable, people who are in health proffessions (doctor, dentist, nurse etc) will have to have the vaccine by law to practice.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Tangerine Dream)
    Currently there is no plan for the vaccine to be mandatory. I think it would be highly unpopular if they tried to implement this. That's not to say it couldn't happen though... It is not outside the realm of possibility that the government could force one to be vaccinated in order to remain in school, or university, or keep your job.

    I hope it doesn't come to that obviously. People need to be free to choose.

    If anyone has any other questions I'll do my best to answer them

    To people who said tl;dr: If you read what I posted rather than what I quoted, you will get the idea... The quoted text goes into much more detail and is far more informative obviously, but I realise it is rather long...
    Woah, OK! Thanks for that! :p:

    Umm, I have another question - when it does come into force, you do have to pay for it right? Because I really doubt it would be free due to mass production/short notice etc...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    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.
    If the possible harm done by the vaccine is very small or very unlikely, and the harm done by causing panic about it could be pretty big, then it would be absolutely right to keep it quiet, and discuss it with the relevant people rather than the general public. Duh.

    The thalidomide issue revolutionised drug testing. It's because of it that drugs are now tested on people and animals in all relevant stages of life, including pregnancy if that's where the drug will be used. We have come a long way since then. Not only that, but the reason we all remember it is because it's so unusual for science to get it so drastically wrong.

    And aside from all that, this whole thread is bullcrap. Squalene is used in all sorts of things. No one ever gave a crap about it and no one does now.
 
 
 
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.