Problems with the "Swine flu vaccine"

[Finnegan]

I've always been very cautious about programs that seek to mass-vaccinate people against relatively minor things--like flu.

You really cannot take the big pharma companies at their word that these vaccines are safe, or even effective. Often they are untested, or seek to try new ingredients and production methods--using the public as their guinea pigs.

I think it's unethical, and will NEVER recieve a flu shot.
Your local family doctor is very probably unaware of the potential side effects, since even the drug companies that make the vaccines cannot predict how they will react in every individual. Personally, I'd rather be in bed sick for a few days, than take that kind of long term risk to my health and receive a "vaccine".

Also, please note that this critical information had to be "leaked" out to the media. You were never warned by anyone responsible for the vaccine that there could be a problem with it. They will hide all negative information about their products even if it means killing you. Remember that.

And no--I'm not anti-medicine, or advocating against immunizing children for serious threats, etc--just very, very untrusting of big pharma....bastards

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-concern-neurologists-25-deaths-America.html

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Number one, the flu is not a "minor thing." Do you realize how many millions of people are killed by it every year?

Swine flu, on the other hand, has been absurdly hyped, and I agree that rushing to get vaccinated against that specific strain is probably not a great idea. Considering its death rate is lower than that of the regular flu, it seems a bit overkill.

There should be full disclosure on any risks and side effects, too, and people should weigh whether the risks are worth the protection. For some, the benefits might outweigh the risks.

However, the article you linked is more than a little deceptive. The headline implies 25 Americans have been killed by this vaccine--in reality, they are talking about 25 deaths that occurred in 1976, due to a swine flu vaccine that wasn't tested thoroughly. I find that pretty shady.

Plus, this is the Daily Fail we are talking about. Not the most authoritative source on anything.

 

[Lindley]

Any vaccine that presents a significant danger would not be allowed to remain in use by the FDA. The rare occasion when such things happen represent failures of the system, not the status quo.

 

[JustAFriend]

If you think the flu is 'minor', go look at the history books at the 1918 flu epidemic that killed a significant portion of the world.

My wife worked in the main offices of an insurance company in the 80s and the records they had for that time period were in her words, "staggering".

You can delude yourself about vaccinations but that's the main reason that people only lived to 40 years old up until the start of the 20th century....

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Well, you can always eat pork rinds in hopes that it'll increase your immunity to swine flu. As for me, I'm gonna trust science.

Oh, and minor? Look here.

 

[Finnegan]

I'm not talking about the 1918 flu strain--which DID kill millions.
I'm talking about the mild strains that pop up every flu season and cause no more than the sniffles and a few days off work. And swine flu as well, which is also proving to be minor--yes, minor. I'll never get a shot for something like that, was my point.

 

[Finnegan]

Any vaccine that presents a significant danger would not be allowed to remain in use by the FDA. The rare occasion when such things happen represent failures of the system, not the status quo.

Exsqueeze me? By definition, the "system" IS the status quo--else it would not be considered as the "system". I know you're a moderator and all, and (perhaps) to you the status quo--ANY status quo--must seem like the best thing since sliced bread, but come on! You are being either incredibly naive, or disingenuous--which is it? The FDA? Regulators don't regulate, at least when it comes to big pharma--they rubber stamp and approve, often with a knowing wink and a nod. THAT is your revered status quo in action.

When a drug proves to be a demonstrable danger (bad PR/press due to deaths), and is pulled from the North American or European store shelves, the drug companies will continue to sell and market it in other countries where it is still legal, usually in Third World nations--knowing full well and having proof that the drug is a danger or harmful. What the hell is that?

How can it be allowed to be sold and/or exported? The almighty buck, spread around into just enough pockets to grease the machinery and allow the unforgiveable and unconscionable to become commonplace--
A.K.A.: the status quo. Bravo!

 

[Lindley]

Any vaccine that presents a significant danger would not be allowed to remain in use by the FDA. The rare occasion when such things happen represent failures of the system, not the status quo.

Exsqueeze me? By definition, the "system" IS the status quo--else it would not be considered as the "system". I know you're a moderator and all, and (perhaps) to you the status quo--ANY status quo--must seem like the best thing since sliced bread, but come on! You are being either incredibly naive, or disingenuous--which is it? The FDA? Regulators don't regulate, at least when it comes to big pharma--they rubber stamp and approve, often with a knowing wink and a nod. THAT is your revered status quo in action.

When a drug proves to be a demonstrable danger (bad PR/press due to deaths), and is pulled from the North American or European store shelves, the drug companies will continue to sell and market it in other countries where it is still legal, usually in Third World nations--knowing full well and having proof that the drug is a danger or harmful. What the hell is that?

How can it be allowed to be sold and/or exported? The almighty buck, spread around into just enough pockets to grease the machinery and allow the unforgiveable and unconscionable to become commonplace--
A.K.A.: the status quo. Bravo!

The fact that such failures exist proves the system isn't perfect. But I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be. Without some kind of supporting evidence, I'm not in the mood to start panicking over a bit of worst-case-scenario scaremongering.

If an article clearly written to scare people couldn't come up with anything more recent than 1976 to point to, that indicates a *lot* of reasonably safe vaccines in the meantime. Of course no vaccine is totally safe; that would be counter to the very idea of putting a virus into a human body. But by and large these people know what they're doing, and bad PR is just as good a motivator as FDA regulation.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The last thing vaccine manufacturers want is a bad vaccine that will kill a bunch of people. They know damn well it would be a PR nightmare, and in future years fewer people would get vaccinated for fear of a repeat. It's not in their interest to push bad vaccines.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Vaccines are used to inject toxins and chemicals into people to dumb down the population and cause damage to health.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Vaccines are used to inject toxins and chemicals into people to dumb down the population and cause damage to health.

Links or STFU.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Vaccines are used to inject toxins and chemicals into people to dumb down the population and cause damage to health.

Links or STFU.

Don't ask for links on that shit, you know what kinda sites it will bring.

As for "flu that causes sniffles and a few days off work" that is not flu, that is a cold. Similar but much weaker virus. Flu kills 100,000s per year in the US alone. It can hit you like a ton of bricks, unless it's a mild strain, which would still be worse than a cold.
Thankfully at this point swine flu is fairly mild and mostly killing people with pre-existing conditions, but this is the summer, with countries well stocked with anti-virals. The best course of action is to be vaccinated if you're an "at risk" person, just as it is with flu, because flu DOES kill regardless of strain.

And the reason for trails and waiting till Autumn for the vaccine is so it can be tested and weed problems and warn of side effects, they wouldn't deliberately put out a vaccine they know was bad because it would cause bad PR and fuck with their bottom line.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Vaccines are used to inject toxins and chemicals into people to dumb down the population and cause damage to health.

llama-tron

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Can we get a mod in here to do something about Tachy's posts? This is SciTech, not TNZ. I am sick of seeing ignorant conspiracy bullshit in here.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Can we get a mod in here to do something about Tachy's posts? This is SciTech, not TNZ. I am sick of seeing ignorant conspiracy bullshit in here.

What does my opinion on Vaccines have to do with TNZ?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Can we get a mod in here to do something about Tachy's posts? This is SciTech, not TNZ. I am sick of seeing ignorant conspiracy bullshit in here.

What does my opinion on Vaccines have to do with TNZ?

Because that's where this horseshit without any scientific basis belongs.

You always make these statements without backing them up with any reputable sources. This is not the first time you've done this, either.

I come to SciTech to have interesting discussions about actual science and technology, and you are always bringing in whacked-out conspiracy theories you can't provide a shred of proof for.

Your threads about impractical scientific fantasies, like the pyramid thing, I don't really mind so much. At least there is some scientific content there, marginal as it is. But if you're going to come in here and claim vaccines are part of a conspiracy to kill people or make them stupid, you'd best bring some proof or you're just going to get called out and ridiculed for it.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Can we get a mod in here to do something about Tachy's posts? This is SciTech, not TNZ. I am sick of seeing ignorant conspiracy bullshit in here.

What does my opinion on Vaccines have to do with TNZ?

Because that's where this horseshit without any scientific basis belongs.

You always make these statements without backing them up with any reputable sources. This is not the first time you've done this, either.

I come to SciTech to have interesting discussions about actual science and technology, and you are always bringing in whacked-out conspiracy theories you can't provide a shred of proof for.

Your threads about impractical scientific fantasies, like the pyramid thing, I don't really mind so much. At least there is some scientific content there, marginal as it is. But if you're going to come in here and claim vaccines are part of a conspiracy to kill people or make them stupid, you'd best bring some proof or you're just going to get called out and ridiculed for it.

What does my opinion on Vaccines have to do with TNZ?

I'm entitled to such an opinion and if you don't like it, rather than cry about it, ignore it instead.

LINK

LINK

Other additives in vaccines such as formaldehyde, 2-phenoxyethanol (not too far distant from antifreeze) and aluminum salts are also unlikely to be good for the human body.

Those are just the chemicals we know about. What else is thrown in there is the ultimate question.

Imagine vaccines with the toxins we know about being injected into children or pregnant women and the damage done would be irreversible. Neurological damage done to the baby whilst it's still in the womb.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

What does my opinion on Vaccines have to do with TNZ?

Because that's where this horseshit without any scientific basis belongs.

You always make these statements without backing them up with any reputable sources. This is not the first time you've done this, either.

I come to SciTech to have interesting discussions about actual science and technology, and you are always bringing in whacked-out conspiracy theories you can't provide a shred of proof for.

Your threads about impractical scientific fantasies, like the pyramid thing, I don't really mind so much. At least there is some scientific content there, marginal as it is. But if you're going to come in here and claim vaccines are part of a conspiracy to kill people or make them stupid, you'd best bring some proof or you're just going to get called out and ridiculed for it.

What does my opinion on Vaccines have to do with TNZ?

TNZ has very low standards for discussion, obviously.

I'm entitled to such an opinion and if you don't like it, rather than cry about it, ignore it instead.

Opinions have no place in science.

LINK

LINK

You do realize the Thimerosal-autism link proved to be bullshit, right?

And you just relinked the OP's article...

Other additives in vaccines such as formaldehyde, 2-phenoxyethanol (not too far distant from antifreeze) and aluminum salts are also unlikely to be good for the human body.

You are misinformed about formaldehyde.

Saying a chemical is "not too distant" from some other toxic chemical is very deceptive. Carbon dioxide is a natural waste product of respiration, and is not typically dangerous to humans. Carbon monoxide differs by a single atom, and yet it is potently lethal to humans. How similar one chemical is to others is irrelevant--their effect on humans varies widely.

Those are just the chemicals we know about. What else is thrown in there is the ultimate question.

It's not that hard to find out what's in vaccines, you know. Go look it up. Or ask your doctor for an information pamphlet on whatever vaccine you're concerned about. They have to disclose what the ingredients are.

Imagine vaccines with the toxins we know about being injected into children or pregnant women and the damage done would be irreversible. Neurological damage done to the baby whilst it's still in the womb.

Show me that damage is being caused by vaccines in more than a handful of isolated cases. Go on, show me.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Claiming the link to Autism and other neurological damage was proven false is false itself. You are choosing the words of one bunch of scientists over another bunch. It would be absolutely ridiculous to just presume that vaccines are safe because a bunch of scientists say they found no link, the fact that some scientists say otherwise and vaccines are full of chemicals proven to be toxic is a huge whopping flashing red light.

Yes I know I linked to the OPs link because it's a very valid link and valid proof so I re-linked to it to emphasize it.

In regards to any compound that has ethanol contained within it then you're damn right it's toxic to Humans. Since when has any form of ethanol been good for humans? (Alcohol isn't even safe really). It doesn't matter about the odd atom here or there the fact is it's still ethanol and beyond alcohol it becomes more and more toxic.

Pump all this into a child or a baby in a womb and do you really think it wont cause neurological damage?
The link I provided you about Mercury shows Mercury immediately destroys brain neurons on contact.

Fresh Link.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

No, it's not choosing 1 group over another, it's choosing 1 paper which found 2 cases of autism in a study and a bunch of media frenzy over the evidence of many peer reviewed studies that found nothing to say there was causation between vaccination and autism.