From a freind

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:18:50 +0000


This was forwarded via friends of great integrity - no conspiracy theory here! Which makes it more troubling...
With love






Dear Friends,


We feel obliged to make it known (to those not yet in the know) that the
preparations now under way to treat large numbers of people with the
H1N1
and H5N1 vaccination are cause for very considerable concern.

Strains of this vaccine have been bio-engineered by the genetic
engineering
industry, namely Novartis and Aventis, in collaboration with governments
and
military organisations in the USA and involving GB and France. The
corporations producing the majority of these vaccines are Glaxo Smith
Kline
and Baxter. Both have already been implicated in producing dangerous
vaccinations (such as Tamiflu) that have been the cause of serious
sickness,
various side effects and even death to those treated with them.

There is no evidence that flu vaccine are either effective or safe. The
production of the H1N1 vaccination was ordered at least a year before
the
first 'swine flu' incidences were reported and the US Secretary of
Health
has granted the companies producing them complete immunity from any
lawsuits
that may result.

There is also a 'live attenuated viral vaccine' that has been produced
by
Astra Zenecca - another biotech corporation - which is applied as a
nasal
spray. In clinical trials, it is reported that this vaccine more than
doubled the severe adverse effects in children of less than 2 years in
comparison with the inactivated vaccine.

A further element concerns the 'adjuvant' which is added to the vaccine
to
ensure its effectiveness.

In this case there are 2 highly risky elements involved: mercury
(ethyl-mercury) and Squalene, an immune system stimulant. There are
other
suspect ingredients besides these, such as aluminium.

Please read Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Professor Joe Cummins of the Institute of
Science in Society (Google this) concerning this subject. Also visit
(Google) Jane Burgermeister's site (an Austrian medical journalist who
has
started international litigation against all the main players) for a
powerful expose of the bigger picture and her remarkable response.

We see a cross connection between biotech corporate attempts to control
the
food chain and their development of these vaccines. You must work this
out
for yourselves; but it goes without saying that the same level of
resistance
needs to be shown to both. They are both illegal operations and any
attempt
to force them on citizens contravenes international human rights
protocols
and basic civil liberties.



Best wishes,


September 28th 2009

________________
ICPPC -

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all vaccines, from the first to the latest, "bio-engineered" in order to provide immunity from the disease being vaccinated against?

All drugs can have serious side effects in people. e.g. I'm allergic to penicillen. It will kill me if I take it. That doesn't mean it's a problem for the vast majority of other people who can be helped by it.

I've had the flu twice - once in 1999 and again last year. I didn't get the flu shot those years but I did in all the ones in between, as well as last week. (Although, last year's shot apparently didn't cover the main strain going around, so a lot of people who got the shot also got the flu. It wiped out 43 out of 45 people where I work - average days out per person was 3, with some up to 7.) Personally, I'd rather have the shot than the flu, as the flu is quite debilitating and the shot has been well tolerated with no side effects. My experience is that the flu shot is both safe and effective, however, others may have allergies or reactions and are advised not to take shots that could be problematic.

The flu shot is either a killed virus vaccine or it contains only specific parts of the killed virus. People cannot get the flu from the vaccine shot, although, due to other problems - e.g. allergies - other adverse reactions can occur. The flu nasal vaccine is a live virus vaccine and can cause the flu in those who receive it. It is not recommended for people at high risk, such as those with weakened immune systems, the elderly, people suffering from asthma etc. It is not recommended for people at risk to be in contact with people who receive the nasal vaccine either for a period of 2 weeks after receiving the nasal vaccine. The nasal vaccine is really only recommended for healthy people at low risk who have no allergies to any of the carrier ingredients in the vaccine.

Mercury occurs in vaccines as a preservative. While it is still present in some vaccines, and is not generally harmful to adults, a good many vaccines are now made without it, e.g. the Flumist nasal vaccine recommended for children (because it is generally tolerated better than a shot), does not contain mercury containing preservatives. Same goes for the nasal version of H1N1.

You get more squalene, and squalane, from daily use of cosmetics, such as moisturizers, and vitamin/mineral/herbal supplements than you do from any vaccine. Aluminum is also found, in the form of alum in a great many cosmetics, deodorants/antiperspirants (this is what the deodorant crystal that people use as an alternative to commercial deodorants/antiperspirants is made of) as well as in antiseptic powders, liquids and gels, and is prevalent in foods, including breast milk. It's highly unlikely that the amount of aluminum administered in vaccines would make any difference at all in anyone's aluminum intake. (Although, the aluminum salts used in vaccines may contain other elements as well, such as sulphur, which can also cause reactions in people allergic to them. I am allergic to sulphur and often have skin reactions to soaps, shampoos, cosmetics, moisturizers etc. that contain sulphur/sulphates, as well as foods preserved with sulphur, such as dried fruits. Occasionally a shot will leave me with an itchy, red, sore spot for a few days longer than most people.)

If everyone decided back in the good old days that vaccines were such a terrible thing, then we would still be living with polio, smallpox, tetanus, yellow feaver and a whole host of other deadly diseases which have been virtually eradicated. Yes, a few people may experience serious side effects or die from vaccines, but it's, by comparison, a tiny fraction of those who would suffer serious side effects or die without these vaccines.

Basically, it comes down to nothing more than this - be careful, be vigilant, take notice of side effects and reactions and take them seriously. For myself, since I have become allergic to so many anti-biotics (5 to date), I go so far as to take my first dose either at the doctor's office, if they provide a free sample, or while sitting next to the phone so I can dial 911 in case of an adverse reaction. If you have an adverse reaction to one vaccine, it is likely you could have an adverse reaction to another, in which case, you can work out with your doctor whether it is safer for you to get a vaccine or go without.

I mean really, just because I and maybe 1% of the total population, are allergic to penicillen doesn't mean that other people should have to suffer by being denied access to it, nor does it mean that the side effects those who have adverse reactions experience are likely to occur in people who are not susceptible to those reactions.

Vaccines are safe and effective for the majority of the population and cause no adverse side effects. The health and safety of the majority should not be compromised by the adverse ractions of the much, much smaller minority.

This should be Patricks baby really. xxxxx

I don't have the jab and I don't get flu ???? whatcha gonna do :)

Swings and round abouts hap's

Oh btw I forgot happy smoking ....poor thing xxxx

Oh no, the question was about them being made compulsory .

I have come across all this info before your post so we are in complete agreement, accept I haven't substantiated for myself the validity for those under the age of 2, but that's a minor point. However, I HAVE substantiated that regular flu vaccines don't work for those under the age of two so by simple extrapolation I find the claim likely. Few other points.

1. The vaccines in general can cause the immune system to kick over into over drive, producing a free radical storm. After a while it starts to resemble various disease, which I forget off the top of my head, but it's one of the main components to Gulf War Syndrome - receiving multiple shots in a short time.

2. Live viruses generally do not leave the body. For example, the measles virus stays in you for life.

3. The free radical storm can cause viruses to become more virulent. Live viruses are not necessary benign because they can mutate as a result of the free radical storm.

And another thing, there's also a lot of B.S. about that Gardisil vaccine, especially when they are now trying to push that on male children. First of all there's like 100 pap viruses, and the vaccine only carries the 4 or 5 of the more virulent strains. Secondly, there's no guarantee the vaccine will work. Thirdly, more precancerous lesions from the pap virus disappear and heal. Very few lead to cancer. Fourth, apparently cervical cancer has a 90+% cure rate. Fifth, and somewhat to the side, vaccines and condoms aren't the only answer. Behavioral modification shouldn't also be a factor since the virus can spread simply from the perianal area to vulva. I just read this stuff today and I can only relate the info at the top of my head. For further inquiries, consult the internet.

"polio, smallpox, tetanus, yellow feaver"

1. We still live with them cause many of these viruses stay in you for life, like the measles virus, don't know about the other ones.

2. These guys started to disappear before the vaccines due to improved sanitation and other measures.

"Vaccines are safe and effective for the majority of the population and cause no adverse side effects. The health and safety of the majority should"

Pat to Whitelight: I've studied this stuff here and there. I can tell you that vaccines are generally not safe or effective for the majority of people. Well, okay, I'll be honest. I only looked at flu vaccines, I can't make the hasty generalization about these other ones. But I'd consider that they'd be even worse. But, oh yeah, I remember some other stuff now. When outbreaks occur, it has generally been in those who had the vaccine! Must be the viruses mutating and turning virulent.

To happy:

Anyways, the primary science literature (i.e. journals, other sources) I saw said something like (roughly) the flu vaccine was generally only affective in like 30% of people (something also about 50% but I forget). However, the nasal spray was effective only at 80% at best. Not too bad, however, efficacy does not mean it has no side effects. So it's still a gamble. Thing is, there's no guarantee you won't get the flu anyways due to mutating strains, and plus the viruses mutate when the body slings a free radical storm at them to get rid of the them. For production the viruses turn more virulent. (Hmm, sort of a self-defense mechanism. This would suggests that viruses are alive. Must be more to em than just DNA and protein!)

You guys are just going to have to take this info at face value. I'm not interested in proving it to you. I know it for myself and that's all I'm interested in at the moment (mainly because it's my busy week). Don't downplay this stuff though. Indeed, it's also one of the highest ironies: "I don't believe in God but um I believe that all is well in the world and that my government loves me with best interest." Who's believing in fairies now!?

;)

Don't downplay it because um, there was a swine flu scare back in 1976 I believe too. Many of those who got the shot um got Guillain-Bar disease - whatever. Likewise, Gulf War syndrome has strongly been implicated from two sources: 1) contaminated batches with Mycobacteria avium (think it was avium, but I have doubts Mycobacteria something), 2) multiple vaccines in a short period (despite the manufacturer's advice) - created a free radical storm. Then the scape goating began and you have "well no weapons of mass destruction, but hmm, these guys were exposed to weapons after all", or something about pesticides. Nah, it was a multitude of factors including stress! But the main culprit? The vaccines!

Nah, I'm not going to debate it, but if you believe that everything is all right in vaccine fairy world, go ahead.

Good job for posting this stuff though WhiteLight.

Thank you.

I will take this into consideration.

Both have already been implicated in producing dangerous vaccinations (such as Tamiflu) that have been the cause of serious sickness, various side effects and even death to those treated with them.

Being the resident nit-picky bastard, I'd like to point out that Tamiflu isn't a vaccine. It's an anti-viral, and can be effective up to 48 hours after you start getting flu symptoms.

Yes, viruses, once the disease they cause has passed, stay in the system, but, most of them are no longer able to cause disease because the bodies immune system has recognized it and creates an immunity to it. Some of them, like chickenpox go into dormancy after the disease stage has passed and can be reactivated again later in life with the same or different symptoms (e.g. chickenpox virus causes shingles later in life, or herpes which can reactivate fairly regularly).

Smallpox and polio did not start to disappear with improved sanitation or other measures. It wasn't until there was widespread vaccination that smallpox was eradicated and polio fairly close to eradicated - look them up, these diseases caused widespread debilitation and death well into the 20th century, long after effective sanitation was in place.

The vast majority of people in industrialized nations are vaccinated against a whole slew of viruses - polio, chickenpox, measles, rubella, tetanus, dyptheria, mumps, whooping cough - and the vast majority of them suffer no side-effects at all and the majority of those who do experience side effects, the side effects are so mild as to be negligible. And all of these vaccines are delivered in a solution much the same as the solution that the flu shot is delivered in. The only difference being that the flu shot is received annually while most of the others are once or twice in a lifetime. Therefore the flu shot, and the solution in which it is delivered, has more of a chance to cause an adverse reaction simply because people's bodies change and can react differently to a variety of injected agents. (As is the case with many allergies - people can go for years in close contact with certain substances without any adverse reaction, then one day they develop an adverse reaction. It happens to me all the time with antibiotics, seasonal pollens, metal, cosmetics, animal dander etc. as it does with many others.)

The only time an outbreak can occur that is caused by a vaccination is in the case of live virus vaccines - it cannot happen with a killed virus vaccine. It has been documented in polio when the person vaccinated with the live virus has close contact with an unvaccinated person (e.g. the last case I can remember was an infant/toddler given the oral live virus vaccine passed it to an unvaccinated grandparent who was changing diapers. I think that was late 70's/early 80's), and similarly with the nasal live virus flu vaccine. Also, the person vaccinated has a chance of getting the disease through a live virus vaccine, but this is usually only in cases where that person's immune system is already compromised. CDC and WHO guidelines indicate that live virus vaccines should not be given to immune compromised individuals of any age.

The efficacy of the flu vaccine is dependent on whether or not the experts guess the correct strain to vaccinate against (and they are guessing - educated guessing, but guessing, nonetheless). As I said previously, last year's flu shot did not include the strain that actually ended up being the most prevalent and therefore it had a less than stellar performance because people weren't actually vaccinated against the strain that occured, they were vaccinated against a different strain. So they had immunity to the flu strain the vaccine targeted, that just didn't pan out to be the flu strain that took hold and spread last year. And the same is true of the HPV vaccine. It immunizes against, I think, 7 strains of HPV - the 7 most common strains that are responsible for 70% of the infections. There are, however 10-14 other strains that it does not provide protection against, therefore, it is still possible to be infected with one of those strains even if you have been vaccinated for the other 7.

<link>

Out of 48 million people vaccinated in 1976, 1098 people got GBS and 25 people died. That's not "many".

GWS is still not completely understood - neither the symptoms, nor the causes - and there are a great many factors that possibly contribute to it, the anthrax vaccine being only one of several. That vaccine also, in all likelihood, was delivered in batches that may or may not have been FDA approved and likely contained some carrier substances that may not have been completely safe simply because the manufacturers rushed through production to get it to those who may have benefitted from it, had it been tested and deemed safe. Shortcuts were taken, undoubtedly, but that happens often in the rush to war with all sorts of things including weapons, amunition, heavy equipment and even safety apparel.

I would agree that it is prudent to be suspect of any vaccine that is a rush job that has not been thoroughly tested and may be manufactured with substandard materials. But any vaccine that has a long history of effectiveness with few side effects can be considered safe for the majority of the general public.

Understanding the efficacy and side effects of vaccines - how they can help and how/when/why they can be problematic - is not believing in fairies. It's checking the science and making sure it's accurate.

And, unlike you folks who refuse to get vaccinated, I know from whence I speak, since there probably aren't many people around who have been vaccinated more than I have - with the records to prove it. Having a father who was one odd duck - good at keeping records, although not very good at actually consulting them at a later date - I have the records showing that I have been vaccinated for rubella 6 times - once in US (circa 1971-72), several days after which I actually got rubella, 4 times in Aust. In RI, it is required to get the vaccine or show proof of having the vaccine before getting married. I brought my documentation to the doctor in 1986, showing the 5 shots I had already had and the note where I had the disease and they made me get the shot again, just in case! In Aust. the vaccination van travelled around communities giving free vaccinations to all, and every time a van was within a 45 min. drive my dad had us there getting vaccinated for whatever they were vaccinating against regardless of the fact that we more than likely had already been vaccinated for it several times already. The vans came to school once or twice a year also. So anything that had a vaccine between the years 1964-1979, I got - at least once, more than likely, 2 or 3 times (except for smallpox, since that leaves a visible record of itself).

If vaccines were inherently dangerous, unsafe, problematic, deadly or debilitating, then I should be long dead or at least adequately maimed or handicapped, since I've been stupendously over vaccinated, my brothers too. Yet we all live and are all healthier than a good many other people in our age group. And better looking too, I might add - so maybe all those vaccinations did have a side effect... ;)

Anyone with a pet and a halfway decent vet knows that you're not supposed to get multiple shots at the same time - it can cause an immune system overreaction. You get them in succession and vaccinate in different locations each time. One shot this week in the left arm, next shot in 2 weeks in the right arm.

What happened with the gulf war soldiers was that they were called up suddenly, needed protection quickly and didn't have adequate time to space them out properly before deployment. Happens occasionally to people also who travel overseas and don't allow enough time before departure to get their vaccinations spread out over an appropriate time period. This can be problematic for some, but is not necessarily for most.

Being educated is a person's best defense.

The message forwarded by 'friends of great integrity' should be read with a very large grain of salt, and it's claims considered sketically--it offers several false claims oand meaningless criticisms in the course suggesting that immunizations are neither safe nor effective means to prevent and/or reduce the incidence of viral infections.

"Strains of this vaccine have been bio-engineered by the genetic

Engineering industry, namely Novartis and Aventis, in collaboration with governments

And military organisations in the USA and involving GB and France. The

corporations producing the majority of these vaccines are Glaxo Smith

Kline and Baxter."

>>How is the fact that the enzyme was 'bio-engineered' a problem, exactly? How is the fact that it was produced by large biopharmaceutical companies working in collaboration with governments and 'military irganizations' (i.e., the CDC) a problem? What would you suggest as an alternative to this approach to production?

"Both have already been implicated in producing dangerous vaccinations (such as Tamiflu) that have been the cause of serious sickness, various side effects and even death to those treated with them."

>>Which is the reason why there's an ongoing review of the safety profile of Tamiflu, (which isn’t a vaccine, btw, but a small molecule antiviral: ethyl (3R,4R,5S)-5-amino-4-acetamido­-3-(pentan-3-yloxy)cyclohex-1-­ene-1-carboxylate.) Note the deaths the authors reference appear to events seen to occur in Japan, whose health organization mandates a different dosing regimen than that recommended by the manufacturer and used in the US and Europe. Note also that the deaths are a consequence of individuals jumping or falling off buildings and one individual who leapt in front of a moving vehicle. Over 35 million people in Japan have been treated with Tamiflu since 1999--eight have died as the result of these actions. Despite extensive studies no causal link has been established between the taking of Tamiflu or it's generic competitors and these deaths.

"There is no evidence that flu vaccine are either effective or safe."

>>This statement is false. While the seasonal flu vaccines tailored annually to address that years anticipated strains exactly how effective they are varies they’ve all been effective with respect to prevention/improved recovery times/reduced severity of illness.

"The production of the H1N1 vaccination was ordered at least a year before

The first 'swine flu' incidences were reported and the US Secretary of

Health has granted the companies producing them complete immunity from any

Lawsuits that may result."

>>Such protections against legal action is standard practice; while one can argue whether or not it should it doesn't argue that the H1N1 vaccines are being treated uniquely in any way.

“There is also a 'live attenuated viral vaccine' that has been produced

By Astra Zenecca - another biotech corporation - which is applied as a

Nasal spray. In clinical trials, it is reported that this vaccine more than

doubled the severe adverse effects in children of less than 2 years in

comparison with the inactivated vaccine."

>>My understanding is that the FDA has not approved the use of any nasal vaccine in children under the age of 2, adults over the age of 49, or pregnant women. In any case, until one knows how to parse the phrase “doubled the severe adverse effects in children” one can’t determine the significance of this observation. After all, 2 in 10 million adverse events would represent doubling, if the frequency of adverse events using inactivated vaccines was 1 in 10 million.

"A further element concerns the 'adjuvant' which is added to the vaccine

To ensure its effectiveness. In this case there are 2 highly risky elements involved: mercury (ethyl-mercury) and Squalene, an immune system stimulant. There are

Other suspect ingredients besides these, such as aluminium."

>>Squalene isn't a risky element—it's a molecule that's naturally produced in pretty much all plants and animals, including humans. Your liver manufactures significant quantities of squalene daily and it circulates in our bloodstream as we speak, regardless of whether we've recently been vaccinated or not. It's used as an adjuvant, but in the US at least there are no plans to include adjuvants in vaccines during the 2009 flu season.

Thimerosal—the ethyl-mercury compound you note—will occur in some multi dose formulations as a preservative. It's one of the most exhaustively studied preservatives used in vaccine formulation (due to a suggestion that thimersoal in vaccines was linked to increased incidence of autism.) All studies to date (by the CDC, NIH and DA in the US, as well as other nation's regulatory boards and independent review organizations such as the NAS, ACIP and AAP) have found no evidence that it's use in vaccines correlates with any increased risk of adverse consequence. I'm unaware that any aluminum compounds are being used in the H1N1 formulation, nor any evidence that doing so would increase risk of adverse reaction.

We see a cross connection between biotech corporate attempts to control

The food chain and their development of these vaccines. You must work this

Out for yourselves; but it goes without saying that the same level of

Resistance needs to be shown to both.

>>How is a drug company attempting to control the development of the products they sell any more of a problem than companies producing any other product—cars, films, snack-foods—attempting to control the development of their products?

"They are both illegal operations and any attempt to force them on citizens contravenes international human rights protocols and basic civil liberties."

>>At what point, exactly did the development and production of drugs and vaccines become a criminal enterprise? or are the authors arguing that a company attempting to exercise control over the development of the products they produce and market represents an illegal activity?

"My understanding is that the FDA has not approved the use of any nasal vaccine in children under the age of 2, adults over the age of 49, or pregnant women."

Or sick people - people with chronic illnesses such as asthma, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, AIDS etc. are not supposed to get the nasal vaccine either. It's specifically approved for healthy people between the ages of 2-49. For healthy people in that age range, the vaccine presents close to zero likelihood of causing illness or side effects.

Another thing these anti-vaccine people forget to mention is this:

<link>

Deaths caused by getting the flu far outnumber deaths that could be attributed to the flu vaccine.

The question that started this discussion off though, was that of the vaccine becoming compulsory. That governments are talking about making these jabs compulsory. What ever ones thoughts about the vaccines, should they be made compulsory ?

What I posted may not be the most informed info, it just happened to be sent to me at the time that I was made aware of the intentions of both of our Governments, by Newsreader.

Most info put 'out there' is pharmo and gov 'propergander' ( fear mongering) with a lot of financial backing, the main intention being, that of making a lot more 'financial backing', That a few people manage to get any argumants agin 'out there' cannot be wrong, and their info is usually far more informed and thorough than anything you will hear from any body in place of 'authority'. ( In my experience )

Did you mean to refer to a cytokine storm, the unmediated release of multiple inflamatory cytokines following the immune system encountering new highly pathogenic viruses or bacteria? It's an exaggerated response by an otherwise healthy immune system (without regard for immunization status) and in fact is one of the adverse consequences of viral infaction that immunization prevent.

If you did mean to refer to cytokine storms they have not been observed to induce more rapid viral mutation that I'm aware of. Any support for that suggestion?

"First of all there's like 100 pap viruses, and the vaccine only carries the 4 or 5 of the more virulent strains."

>>Exactly--the 4 or 5 most virulent--i.e., the ones that pose the greatest risk with respect to developing cervical cancer. How is that a problem?

"Thirdly, more precancerous lesions from the pap virus "

>>And therefore there's no reason to take prophylactic action to address those that instead don't heal and lead to serious complications (including cervical cancer and death)?

"Fourth, apparently cervical cancer has a 90+% cure rate."

>>Define cure rate--survival, or survival with reproductive ability intact? And doe the fact that they survive mean anyone they've potentially infected will also survive? Vaccination will not only lower incidence of cancer but reduce infection rates.

"I can tell you that vaccines are generally not safe or effective for the majority of people."

>>How have you arrived at this conclusion—from what actual evidence does this claim derive, exactly? All clinical studies support the safety and efficacy of immunization.

"Well, okay, I'll be honest. I only looked at flu vaccines, I can't make the hasty generalization about these other ones. But I'd consider that they'd be even worse."

>>Ignoring for the moment the question of whether there's any credible reason to presume that flu vaccines are generally not safe or effective for the majority of the population, what argues that non-flu vaccines should be even less safe or effective? Consider small pox vaccine, for example: what reason is there to think it is neither safe nor effective for the majority of people, let alone 'less safe and effective" than flu vaccines?

"But, oh yeah, I remember some other stuff now. When outbreaks occur, it has generally been in those who had the vaccine! Must be the viruses mutating and turning virulent."

>>Viruses alter their coat proteins constantly—that's the reason why flu vaccines differe annually, to specifically address those strains currently of greatest concern. If people aren't immunized, on the other hand, outbreaks occur far more frequently and affect greater numbers of people as there's no prior necessity for viral strains to first undergo mutation such that it's no longer recognized by antibodies generated through immunization—everyone remains susceptible to infection by the commonly-occurring wild-type strain.

"You guys are just going to have to take this info at face value. I'm not interested in proving it to you. I know it for myself and that's all I'm interested in at the moment (mainly because it's my busy week)."

>>Its face value is less than nothing, unfortunately—not only are the claims unsubstantiated but all available evidence indicates that they're false: that vaccines are in fact safe and effective for the majority of those receiving them, they do reduce incidence and severity of infection and disease, etc.