>>As of October 24th there were more than 1000 deaths and more than 20,000 hospitalizations reported in the US alone.
Still not a pandemic, certainly no more than regular flu with some 30,000 deaths a year! Gee, let's all panic about swine flu but not about regular flu with vastly more deaths!
>>Any debate regarding whether the virus was engineered is no
more substantial than the debate regarding whether or not the human eye
was designed.
In other words, you'll stick your head in the sand and close your mind.
>>That's
interesting, but do you have anything which supports the idea that the
virus was designed? This virologist's statement doesn't argue for nor
imply design.
No, just largely going off the doc's newsletter.
>>And how is the identity of the manufacturers significant?
Not exactly sure. Guess he's just pointing out problems with manufacture.
>>All seasonal flu vaccine apprrovals are fast-tracked, and
the H1N1 vaccine went through the standard clinical testing procedure
flu vaccines are subjected to (i.e., no short-cuts were taken re
testing or approval).
Well that's true, and they did come up with a vaccine in the 1970's too, which by the way created like 200 or so cases of the Guillian-Bar whatever.
>>Yes: that's a much more modern technology which offers
significant advantages over producing virus' in chicken eggs, a 1950's
era technology stil;l used by the US.
Yeah, the doc mentioned it was more modern but I didn't think it was important. You know there's one point the doc didn't mention and I don't know. Are...you injected with monkey cells?
>>The cells used for virus production are tested and demonstrated to be free of other viruses prior to use.
How do they do that? Just make small samples and test DNA? There's always a risk of missing something, some contamination. Like part of the reason for the Gulf War Syndrome was that some of the vaccines were contaminated with Mycobacterium (or was it something else?).
>> You went on earlier about "how many worldwide deaths—1000?"
to suggest the risk from contracting H1n1 was trivial, so one has to
ask: how many people worldwide have died from the simian equivalent of
HIV as a result of being immunized with a vaccine produced in monkey
cells? Let's hear the number.
Erm, don't know much about it at this time. I've seen no statistics or evidence of death from HIV contracted from vaccines. I've only seen it as rumor. Perhaps I'll come across it in my various studies.
>>Yes—Baxter screwed up big time, and you have (for a change)
pointed to an actual problem with specific batches of a specific
manufacturer's vaccines.
Still, I'm just reporting. I really don't know much about it other than what I've stated.
>>Squalene is a naturally occurring molecule that's
circulating in your bloodstream as we speak in levels comparable or
greater than anything you'll receive through inmmunization.—your liver
produces significant quantities of squalene daily. If this is such a
dangerous compound perhaps we should all have our liveres removed?
Huh. Really? Can you give me more information, perhaps a link? Most interesting. Are there different types of squalene, like there are different types of vitamin B12?
"This adjuvant causes autoimmune disorders in animals like RA, MS, and lupus. "
>>At much higher doses, yes. There's no evidence that the
concentration of squalene used in vaccines as a n adjuvant confers an
increased risk of autoimmune disease.
Really? I didn't expect confirmation from you! Perhaps part of the reason for the Gulf War Syndrome is their receiving, what was it, 17 shots over a short period? The squalene must have added up. What I don't get is if squalene is nature, what you're body make it for, and secondly, why would you get autoimmunity at high doses?
"The Chiron vaccine company makes an anthrax vaccine called MF-59
which has been shown to trigger all these autoimmune diseases when
injected. "
>>Patrick, MF-59 is squalene.
Ah, that point was a little ambiguous in the doc's newsletter.
>>So unless there's similar evidence that these vaccines cause
autoimmunity I think we can rule out the squalene as a causative agent,
don't you?
Probably. It's on the back burner right and will consider this later in my own studies, assuming I come across it.
>>It seems you don't need to see evidence to know a great many
things—that vaccines are bad, that antibodies don't do jack, that
heterosexuals 'own' marriage, etc.
Lol. Sounds like you're holding a grudge with continual reference here? The evidence I see is precisely what helps me to decide such things. It doesn't mean I'm able to report all that evidence given time constraints.
"Seventh, several studies have shown that MF-59 to be a very safe immune adjuvant."
>>Wow! Not only do you not need evidence to know something,
you also have the ability to know things despite strong evidence to the
contrary! How do you do it?
I consult the magic eight ball. Lol. Kind of reporting from the newsletter here.
>>Which studies in which publications? References, please.
Look it up yourself. I trust doctor Blaylock here as an expert witness.
"Eight, anyone who doubts this should do their own journal searching, as will in the next few months. "
>>Why don't you just point us to the studies you referred to
above—you know, the ones by "independent laboratories and research
institutions, with similar publishing status" which "found a strong
link between MF-59 and autoimmune diseases"? I mean, you do know what
they are and you have read them yourself, before making this claim,
right?
Because it's the doctor's study and newsletter not mine. What really bugs be about his newsletters is that, while they are packed with useful information, he never cites evidence! Argh!!
"However, one need only consider Gulf War Syndrome, which squalene has been strongly linked with."
>>I'm not aware of such a strong link. In fact, a cursory look at Wikipedia indicates quite the opposite:
I'm sure it the additive affect of squalene from 17 or so shots in a short period of time.
"It is important to note that our laboratory-based investigations do
not establish that squalene was added as adjuvant to any vaccine used
in military or other personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War
era."[21] A later study reported that many humans have squalene
antibodies in their blood, regardless of whether or not they received
squalene from a vaccination.[22]
So maybe they did have squalene? Recall the statement that the vaccine companies planned to greatly reduce mercury content in vaccines. They continue to let the old ones be used until they are used up for a number of years, for how long who knows. They don't keep track very well!
"Subsequent investigation revealed that
the study in question, which attempted to link squalene to Gulf War
Syndrome, had several technical deficiencies in the way in which it
analyzed its data. On top of this, it has been determined that the
anthrax vaccines given to those US military personnel, did not use
squalene as an adjuvant [8]."
It's still in question then. And obviously studies can be designed to cover things up. And remember, why would they make antibodies to squalene. They make antibodies but not to squalene in vaccines! They make it just for the hell of it? Lol.
