I am btw no longer getting into the argument about the vaccine it's self. That is Patricks job :)

I have problems with this vaccine but my mind is not in the right place for 'getting in to the ring again' :) right now :) maybe when every one has calmed down and the winter is over we could have a proper talk about it all ' .......the death of Kings.....' without the sillinessess that the boys love so well. Me jumping in again now could just spoil their sport :)

"Nope, I am not suggesting anything, just saying that as far as any one knows it has not been destroyed, it was sent back and they still have it, is what I said."

>>Why is that worthy of note? Even if it had been destroyed it would be a trivial exercise to generate more live virus if necessary.

"It was an impossible mistake though, wasn't it ?"

>>Clearly it wasn't, since it happened. I'm sure that Baxter is now operating under much greater scrutiny and its products subjected to much more rigorous release criteria.

"What were those two things doing in the same place to get mixed together anyway ...when the one is treated as safe and the other only by 'space suited' people ? A Mystery huh ?"

>>Almost certainly it boils down to human error—the mislabeling of already filled vials, would be my guess.

"It was them who were transporting a flu vaccine mix by train, ( illegally ) when it exploded too, wasn't it ? In Poland if I remember rightly."

>>I haven't heard anything about exploding flu vaccines (or did you mean exploding railway cars?)

"There are quite a few lawyers and scientists on the case, both incidents are being taken to court, so we shall see soon enough :)"

>>Which is of course exactly how the system is supposed to work, right?

White, I love you, but ....er....could you perhaps translate that last post into plain English ?

It was worth noting, because whenever I hear of other chemicals or such like being in a 'mistake' I always hear, as well, that it has been disposed of, usually in boring detail. This was not even reported here, I only know because I still take interest in what the Europeans are up to.

Of course they can make more if they want to.

Baxters where already working under the most stringent of rules ..... you and I shall never know what happened or how or why ...well you might one day but .... I am not asking you too nor expecting you too excuse someone else's 'mistake' JGC. Shit happens for all sorts of reasons.

The container exploded, it hadn't been packed properly, in Switzerland, not Poland, it was the none deadly swine flu virus ...it was reported. in April. One person was slightly hurt. But many reported cases of flu in Switzerland have come from around there since ...Freburg.

We shall see what happens with the courts, it is a different system there, in Europe, you are presumed guilty and have to prove innocence :)

JGC had asked what something I said had to do with the safety of the vaccine.

Well when I started posting about the vaccine it was not really about what was in it as much as the panic and politics of it all.

So I said that I wasn't intending to get into an argument about the actual vaccine as such, that is Patricks job :)

That though I have some problems/questions with some aspects of this and perhaps other vaccines, I would rather not get into another battle about it now, that maybe when the flu is over and not hanging over our heads ( no panicers ) we could have a more reasonable talk about it all. Also I don't want to spoil every bodys fun with Patrick, he love it too :)

Is that what I said ?

I am sorry, I am not really 'with it' at the moment. I shall pull myself together and come back next week fighting fit. Put all my doubts and fears sur la table :) so that we can sort them all out, ok ? :) Politics aside.

Hope u are okay, white! Take care of yourself.

Or you read other material like from this doctor who appears to be an epidemiologist:

<link>

About 36,000 people will die on average a year from any flu. I'd be surprised to see the statistic for swine climb that high.

"It is important to note that the flu does not kill most people directly, but indirectly through secondary infections or exacerbation of underlying chronic medical problems."

Meaning it can magnify preexisting hidden inflammatory conditions.

Also: "The JAMA study also demonstrated that the older you are, the more likely you are to die of influenza, that if the patient is >85 years old, there is a 16 times higher chance of dying of flu than if they are less than 65."

Most people who die from the flu are older chaps. And:

"Given that limitation, over time deaths from influenza have fallen since 1900 from 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in the 1940s to 0.56 per 100,000 by the 1990s. That would be about 16,800 deaths directly from influenza each year,"

And check out

<link>

"The CDC's estimate of the number of deaths associated with the influenza epidemic for the 1975–1976 season (24 600 deaths) was close to the expected annual average for the 1972–1973 through 1991–1992 seasons (21 300 deaths).18 That these estimates would be of similar magnitude is expected, of course, because a pandemic did not occur during the 1975–1976 influenza season. "

And there's no difference between the 1975 season and now accept that the WHO changed its definition of pandemic to exclude "lots of death" to basically pockets of sickness here and there around the world. This means that one should expect the deaths not to accede the average death for flu, which is like 36,000. Would you like to make this a bet?

Here ya go, here's the funny part:

"As of July 31, 2009, 168 countries and territories had reported at least one laboratory-confirmed case of pandemic H1N1 2009, and all continents had been affected by the pandemic."

Gee, one laboratory case in 168 countries, one(!), and that makes a pandemic! LMAO! The swine flu is simply an A subtype, and on average only about 36,000 people die in the US, and most are either old or immune compromised. Swine flu may or may not be slightly more virulent, but we won't see more than 36,000 deaths, or if slightly more virulent, we it won't reach much further than that.

Here's one that shows it's not very different than regular flu:

<link>

"Table 2 in the Dushoff paper (p. 185) shows a very interesting tally of all estimated deaths for the two seasonal flu subtypes (H1N1, H3N2) and influenza B. Of the 41,000 deaths, H3N2 is the nastiest, contributing (annual average over the 23 years) 29,000 of the estimated 41,000 deaths. Influenza B comes next: 8500. Bringing up the rear is the seasonal flu subtype H1N1: just under 4000. This means that the seasonal flu subtype H1N1 is by far the least virulent, less than a seventh of the estimated mortality burden of the other seasonal flu subtype, H3N2, by this method. What there is about the seasonal H1N1 that makes it less virulent (or conversely, what there is about H3N2 that makes it nasty) we don’t know, but it appears that the current swine-origin H1N1 is more like its seasonal cousin. On the other hand, the 1918 virus was also H1N1."

There you have it. H1N1 is the least virulent and that the swine-H1N1 is more like is seasonal cousin. That means it's pretty much like regular flu associated with seasonal H1N1 and that deaths will simply be similar to regular deaths - no more than 36000. Deaths from H1N1 are 4,000 though. So, I wouldn't expect the numbers to be higher than that.

There's also a problem of confirming cases when you to to the hospital. I used to work in the hospital and many of them just use a serology device that makes a blue line if flu A shows up. But many don't make a distinction between the subtypes of H1N1, whether it's seasonal or swine. It's easy to inflate statistics too.

Come on? Look at the facts? It's not a pandemic any more than regular seasonal flu H1N1 is. Deaths generally don't exceed 36,000 and for H1N1 they generally don't exceed 4,000. I'm assuming those stats are for the US and not world wide. (You can't compare stats with the US to developing nation by the way because of sanitation factors and nutrition. So it's best to stick to US stats.)

Btw, the grim statistic you showed me is for simply H1N1 - it doesn't make a distinction whether it's seasonal H1N1 or swine H1N1. I'll be honest, I thought swine was different than regular A, but apparently, unless I got my facts wrong, there's seasonal H1N1 and swine H1N1 - both type A flu.

Here's another site you'll like to alleviate your fears:

<link>

"Swine flu death rate similar to seasonal flu-expert"

Excerpts:

"New estimates suggest that the death rate compares to a moderate year of seasonal influenza, said Dr Marc Lipsitch of Harvard University."

"New estimates suggest that the death rate compares to a moderate year of seasonal influenza, said Dr Marc Lipsitch of Harvard University."

To be fair he says:

""We are going to see probably twice as many people die from the flu as we do in a typical flu season. That is tens of thousands of people. And many of these people are going to be younger.""

Since the evidence would suggest it's comparable to seasonal H1N1, which has 4,000 deaths in US, and here if we consider that "probably" (a guess, lol), twice as many will die, then no more than 8,000 people will die this year of influenza A.

Also:

"Seasonal flu is usually far worse among the elderly, who make up 90 percent of the deaths every year. In contrast, this flu is attacking younger adults and older children, but they are not dying of it at the same rate as the elderly do during seasonal influenza, Lipsitch said."

Most of those deaths will be the elderly. Only slightly few children will die of H1N1 than is normal, but not that much.

Here's another one:

<link>

The results show that the virus is no more virulent than last season’s H1N1 strain.

In mice, ferrets, and non-human primates, the 2009 H1N1 swine-origin influenza virus (S-OIV) replicated more efficiently, and caused more severe lesions in the lungs than a seasonal H1N1 virus. These findings lead the lead author of the study to comment:

There is a misunderstanding about this virus. People think this pathogen may be similar to seasonal influenza. This study shows that is not the case. There is clear evidence the virus is different than seasonal influenza.

I’m puzzled by this statement. As far as I know, the 2009 H1N1 strain has so far likely infected millions of people, and most have concluded that the disease is no more severe than seasonal influenza. Are mice, ferrets, and non-human primates more reliable indicators of influenza virus virulence than humans?

.

.

It’s worth noting that when the authors of the Nature paper infected miniature pigs with the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus, the virus replicated without clinical symptoms. This result emphasizes the importance of remembering that animals are models for studying virus infections; they rarely duplicate the effects of a virus infection in humans. Furthermore, the virulence of a virus strain may vary dramatically depending on the dose and the route of infection, as well as on the species, age, gender, and susceptibility of the host. Virulence is a relative property. Consequently, when the degree of virulence of two very similar viruses are compared, the assays must be identical.

Do we really want to conclude that the new H1N1 strains is ‘more dangerous’ than we think based on tests in animal models which may or may not accurately reflect what occurs in humans? The ongoing infection of millions of humans with the new H1N1 virus seems a better source of data – and so far the results indicate that the new pandemic strain is no more dangerous than seasonal influenza.

Of course, it is possible that a more virulent version of the 2009 H1N1 virus could emerge in the coming months – what will happen as this virus evolves in humans is anyone’s guess – but who knows if it will retain the ability to multiply in the lower tract? The only thing that is certain is that it will be a different virus from the one that has been studied in mice, ferrets, and small pigs.

------------------------------­-------------

It would appear that most cases of the flu are the 2009 H1N1 (swine) and not seasonal H1N1. Yet given that's it's no more dangerous than regular flu, we should see death statistics that compare to regular seasonal flu. Minimumly, we will see 4000 deaths, as is the usual case for seasonal. Maximumly, we'll see twice that number: 8000. This would suggest that the total number of deaths this year will reach either the normal 36,000 average, or with the extra 4000 deaths, we'll see 40,000. Won't get much higher than that. I just really don't think it's that big a deal, it certainly does not seem to deserve more press than regular flu. So far we're at like 850 deaths, whatever it was. We aren't quite to the 4,000 mark yet even. That will change of course. One can predict that it will either reach 4000 to 8000. And if it's even less than 4000 then I laugh at the inflated statistics (not the deaths!).

">>Contamination of the anthrax vaccine by the mycoplasma m. ferementens was suggested as a possible cause. This has been ruled out, however: Vaccine lots were tested for mycoplasma, live mycoplasma was added to vaccine lots but did not survive beyond 24 hours due to preservatives included in the formulation; blood tests performed on servicemen who were symptomatic and a symptomatic for GWS were identical with respect to markers of mycoplasma infection."

That's because people are covering their asses. It hasn't been ruled out because they have treated many cases of Gulf War successfully with antibiotics. You won't find that in journals.

"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?"

>>Just google squalene—it's a required precursor for the biological synthesis of critical sterol hormones (i.e., you don't produce enough squalene, you get sick and/or die). It's also secreted by sebaceous glands in the skin, whyere it asks to pretect against drying. Want some squalene? Just rub your index figure down the side of your nose or behind your ear, where it will have collected in the creases.

Interesting. (Sorry btw, don't have time to address everything else.)

>>Why would it have added up, rather than being metabolized? The squalene your body produces naturally doesn't pile up in your blood stream over decades. (And once again, there's no evidence linking squalene or for the matter vaccinations to GWS.)

I don't know but the question is also directed at yourself too because you said high levels of squalene could lead to autoimmunity.

>>My god, we've actually made progress.

Lol. Thx for the info on squalene too. Wish i could "play" more but time's limited.

"I consult the magic eight ball. Lol. Kind of reporting from the newsletter here. "

>>I'd place more confidence in the magic eight ball—it pretty much says yes or no, right? It's got a 50% chance of being correct.

And I have, what 0% by contrast? Come now JGC? Lol. Don't milk the humor for all it's worth.

"Look it up yourself. I trust doctor Blaylock here as an expert witness."

>>Why do you trust him as an expert witness, especially now that you agree his claims re; squalene aren't supportable?

Because anytime I have looked things up, he's always been right, least 99% of the time (not gonna say 100% because we're all human).

>>The evidence indicates it isn't squalene at all, at any concentration, either received as a single dose or in multiple doses over a short period of time.

I'll keep an eye out for evidence.

"So maybe they did have squalene?"

>>A few paragraphs above didn't you agreed we could rule out squalene?

I haven't totally ruled it out. It's on the back burner remember? Probability wise - perhaps; and the amount is another question. I'm leaving if for another time "G"?

>>Vaccines sometimes contain thimerosal, not mercury—there's a difference.

Yeah, vaccines contain methylmercury, fish contains ethylmercury, not mercury.

>>More likely they make antibodies to an unrelated antigen that cross react with squalene due to the presence of a similar epitope. Recall antibodies which recognize squalene have been found in the blood of people who have never been immunized at all.

Any proposed mechanism? I also learn as I go along you know? I don't know everything; I'm not afraid to admit it either.

(All I have time for.)

So contamination happens? They started to put mercury in for a reason because they assume contamination, the mercury was supposed to kill contaminated pathogens! I told him about GWS as a contamination issue, but he said they ruled it out. I told him the studies were lies to cover various people's asses, esp. the government's. This is proved from the simple fact that many cases of GWS have been successfully treated by a doctor using antibiotics, which you won't find in any journal! It's easy to design studies to make something appear the way you want it to.

They put in thimerosal in as a preservative. The molecule does incorporate a single mercury atom, but suggesting it's indistinguishable for mercury itself or any other molecule containing mercury is to ignore biochemistry. (Although I guess if you don't have any actual evidence that thimerosal poses a health risk refering to its use as "They put mercury in!" might sound scary enough to cause people unwarranted concern over its use.)

Of course I am darling, We are just all ( at home ) preoccupied with Tash and critics ect ... This has been a long and intense journey. We are waiting for Time Out on Tuesday,and the free paper, Metro, on Monday, maybe we will all breath again after that :)

It is exhausting stuff, theatre. This one especially, making it rather difficult to get into a battle with a scientist about his science :)

I would like to have a wider discussion about pharmas one day on here but not when it is so emotive, as it all seams to be now. I know that Patrick enjoys these 'fights' but I don't, much :)

"It hasn't been ruled out because they have treated many cases of Gulf War successfully with antibiotics."

>>How does the fact that many cases have been treated successfully with antibiotics argue that Gulf War Syndrome is the result of immunization? It this would argue that it's caused by a pathogen.

"You won't find that in journals."

>>So where will you find it instead--Jack Chic pamphlets?

"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?"

"I don't know but the question is also directed at yourself too because you said high levels of squalene could lead to autoimmunity."

>>In the studies which found squalene could cause autoimmune responses in laboratory animals they were dosing the animals with extremely high concentrations--much higher than normally circulating and much, much higher than the amount you'd receive on immunization--even if you had mutliple immunizations over a short period of time.

"And I have, what 0% by contrast? Come now JGC? Lol. Don't milk the humor for all it's worth"

>>Well, for many of your claims do have 0% confidence, since they're known to be false.

"Because anytime I have looked things up, he's always been right, least 99% of the time (not gonna say 100% because we're all human)."

>>What have you been looking up, then? Certainly not that anthrax vaccines have been linked to GWS, not that squalene has been linked to GWS, not that thimerosal has been linked to neurological disorders, not that 'antibodies don't do jack', etc. -- if those were the claim's you're talking about you'd have found that he's wrong.

"I'll keep an eye out for evidence"

>>If you ever find any actual evidence I'd love to see it.

"I haven't totally ruled it out. It's on the back burner remember?"

>>How about the evil eye or soviet mind control sattelites--how have you totally ruled those out? If the standard is to consider something involved even when there's no reason to believe it's involved and strong evidence indicating its failure to be involved don't we have to keep everything on the back burner.

"Yeah, vaccines contain methylmercury, fish contains ethylmercury, not mercury."

>>Thimerosal is an organomercuric compound but it doesn't contain methyl mercury; it's metabolized to produce either ethylmercury or thiosalicylate. It's methylmercury that fish accumulate fand which poses serious health risks.

"Any proposed mechanism? I also learn as I go along you know? I don't know everything; I'm not afraid to admit it either."

>>The same mechanism by which all other antibodies are produced, nothing unique. Exposure to an antigen, response and production of antibodies against it, and non-specific recognition by those antibodies of homologous epitopes on molecules other than the original antigen. Such cross-reactivity is quite common.