Is the Swine Flu vaccine harmefull in any way?

[John Phoenix]

I get regular reports from various health advocates that claim that there is evidence that this swine flu vaccine has in the past and is now causing major health concerns. (many adverse effects to the drug has been reported, some crippling people for life.) It is suggested that while x number of people will die from swine flu, many more will certainly die from side effects of a swine flu vaccine if it is forced on Americas population. This number of deaths would greatly outweigh the normal deaths of swine flu victims who did not live through the treatments for the disease.

 

( sorry for the typos.. it happens cus i've been up all night)

 

What have you head about this and what do you think about it?

Edited September 4, 2009 by John Phoenix

[insane_alien]

i have seen no reports of it crippling people for life.

 

just the usual run of side effects, nausea, insomnia etc. etc. nothing permanently debilitating or fatal.

 

can you provide links to where you got this information?

[John Phoenix]

Here is the new site for one outspoken health advocate and its sister archived site:

 

http://www.nocodexgenocide.com/nocodexgenocide.html

 

and http://www.iahf.com/

 

I don't know how much info you will find on the site, as I generally just read the newsletter they send me in email.

 

Also if you google: " swine flu vaccine harmful " you get tons of websites that talk about this issue.

Edited September 4, 2009 by John Phoenix

[insane_alien]

i think those sites are a little on the biased side. i think you'll find if you read actual medical literature you'll find that site contains a lot of misinformation and downright lies.

[John Phoenix]

Here is the text of one article called Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine's Dirty Little Secret Exposed

 

found here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/04/Squalene-The-Swine-Flu-Vaccines-Dirty-Little-Secret-Exposed.aspx

 

I copied this one for you because you can't read it from their site without joining.

 

( well you can if your fast enough.. I am not a member of this website but it pops up a popup frame after a few seconds to keep you from seeing the whole article. I simply copied the page before the popup could pop up. )

 

But there are many more pages with harmful examples such as this one.

 

Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed

Posted by: Dr. Mercola

August 04 2009

 

vaccine, swine fluBy Dr. Mercola

 

According to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, your children should be the first target for mass swine flu vaccinations when school starts this fall.

 

This is a ridiculous assumption for many reasons, not to mention extremely high risk.

 

In Australia, where the winter season has begun, Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon is reassuring parents the swine flu is no more dangerous than regular seasonal flu. "Most people, including children, will experience very mild symptoms and recover without any medical intervention," she said.[ii]

 

Sydney-based immunization specialist Robert Booy predicts swine flu might be fatal to about twice as many children in the coming year as regular influenza. Booy estimates 10-12 children could die from the H1N1 virus, compared with the five or six regular flu deaths seen among children in an average year in Australia.[iii]

 

“Cure the Disease, Kill the Patient”

 

Less than 100 children in the U.S. die each year from seasonal flu viruses.[iv] If we use Australia’s math, a very rough estimate would be another 100 children could potentially die of swine flu in the United States in the coming year.

 

If children are the first target group in the U.S. per Sebelius, that means we’re about to inject around 75 million children with a fast tracked vaccine containing novel adjuvants, including dangerous squalene, to prevent perhaps 100 deaths.

 

I’m not overlooking the tragedy of the loss of even one child to an illness like the H1N1 flu virus. But there can be no argument that unnecessary mass injection of millions of children with a vaccine containing an adjuvant known to cause a host of debilitating autoimmune diseases is a reckless, dangerous plan.

 

Why are Vaccinations Dangerous?

 

The presumed intent of a vaccination is to help you build immunity to potentially harmful organisms that cause illness and disease. However, your body’s immune system is already designed to do this in response to organisms which invade your body naturally.

 

Most disease-causing organisms enter your body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, pulmonary system or your digestive tract – not through an injection.

 

These mucous membranes have their own immune system, called the IgA immune system. It is a different system from the one activated when a vaccine is injected into your body.

 

Your IgA immune system is your body’s first line of defense. Its job is to fight off invading organisms at their entry points, reducing or even eliminating the need for activation of your body’s immune system.

 

When a virus is injected into your body in a vaccine, and especially when combined with an immune adjuvant like squalene, your IgA immune system is bypassed and your body’s immune system kicks into high gear in response to the vaccination.

 

Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature, and vaccination carries enormous potential to do serious damage to your health.

 

And as if Vaccines Weren’t Dangerous Enough on Their Own …

 

… imagine them turbocharged.

 

The main ingredient in a vaccine is either killed viruses or live ones that have been attenuated (weakened and made less harmful).

 

Flu vaccines can also contain a number of chemical toxins, including ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde, phenol (carbolic acid) and even antibiotics like Neomycin and streptomycin.

 

In addition to the viruses and other additives, many vaccines also contain immune adjuvants like aluminum and squalene.

 

The purpose of an immune adjuvant added to a vaccine is to enhance (turbo charge) your immune response to the vaccination. Adjuvants cause your immune system to overreact to the introduction of the organism you’re being vaccinated against.

 

Adjuvants are supposed to get the job done faster (but certainly not more safely), which reduces the amount of vaccine required per dose, and the number of doses given per individual.

 

Less vaccine required per person means more individual doses available for mass vaccination campaigns. Coincidentally, this is exactly the goal of government and the pharmaceutical companies who stand to make millions from their vaccines.

 

Will There Be Immune Adjuvants in Swine Flu Vaccines?

 

The U.S. government has contracts with several drug companies to develop and produce swine flu vaccines. At least two of those companies, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, are using an adjuvant in their H1N1 vaccines.

 

The adjuvant? Squalene.

 

According to Meryl Nass, M.D., an authority on the anthrax vaccine,

 

“A novel feature of the two H1N1 vaccines being developed by companies Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline is the addition of squalene-containing adjuvants to boost immunogenicity and dramatically reduce the amount of viral antigen needed. This translates to much faster production of desired vaccine quantities.”[v]

 

Novartis’s proprietary squalene adjuvant for their H1N1 vaccine is MF59. Glaxo’s is ASO3. MF59 has yet to be approved by the FDA for use in any U.S. vaccine, despite its history of use in other countries.

 

Per Dr. Nass, there are only three vaccines in existence using an approved squalene adjuvant. None of the three are approved for use in the U.S.

 

What Squalene Does to Rats

 

Oil-based vaccination adjuvants like squalene have been proved to generate concentrated, unremitting immune responses over long periods of time.[vi]

 

A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Pathology demonstrated a single injection of the adjuvant squalene into rats triggered “chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation,” also known as rheumatoid arthritis.[vii]

 

The researchers concluded the study raised questions about the role of adjuvants in chronic inflammatory diseases.

 

What Squalene Does to Humans

 

Your immune system recognizes squalene as an oil molecule native to your body. It is found throughout your nervous system and brain. In fact, you can consume squalene in olive oil and not only will your immune system recognize it, you will also reap the benefits of its antioxidant properties.

 

The difference between “good” and “bad” squalene is the route by which it enters your body. Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.

 

Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system.[viii]

 

Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) received anthrax vaccines which contained squalene.[ix] MF59 (the Novartis squalene adjuvant) was an unapproved ingredient in experimental anthrax vaccines and has since been linked to the devastating autoimmune diseases suffered by countless Gulf War vets.[x]

 

The Department of Defense made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Persian Gulf war military personnel – deployed and non-deployed – as well as participants in the more recent Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP).

 

However, the FDA discovered the presence of squalene in certain lots of AVIP product. A test was developed to detect anti-squalene antibodies in GWS patients, and a clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the GWS sufferers who had been injected with the vaccine containing squalene.

 

A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in the February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics:

 

“ … the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.

 

In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene.”[xi]

 

According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia:

 

“… this adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called "Gulf War Syndrome," documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War.

 

The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.”[xii]

 

Post Vaccination Follow-Up Might as Well Be Non-Existent

 

There is virtually no science to support the safety of vaccine injections on your long-term health or the health of your children. Follow-up studies last on average about two weeks, and look only for glaring injuries and illnesses.

 

Autoimmune disorders like those seen in Gulf War Syndrome frequently take years to diagnose due to the vagueness of early symptoms. Complaints like headaches, fatigue and chronic aches and pains are symptoms of many different illnesses and diseases.

 

Don’t hold your breath waiting for vaccine purveyors and proponents to look seriously at the long-term health consequences of their vaccination campaigns.

 

What You Can Do Right Now

 

The International Vaccine Conference is held about once every FIVE years. It is without question the single best conference on vaccines in the world. For every speaker that is speaking there are 5-10 others that were not able to speak.

 

It is the best of the best speakers on this topic and I am VERY excited about attending. Washington DC is absolutely delightful in the fall and all the world class museums there are free.

 

Visit the National Vaccination Information Center (NVIC) site and join in the fight against mandatory swine flu vaccinations.

 

Educate yourself about influenza strains, vaccination risks, and the public health laws in your state that may require you or your children to undergo either mandatory vaccination or quarantine.

 

Take care of your health to reduce or eliminate your risk of contracting the flu. The key is to keep your immune system strong by following these guidelines:

 

* Eliminate sugar and processed foods from your diet. Sugar consumption has an immediate, debilitating effect on your immune system.

* Take a high quality source of animal-based omega 3 fats like Krill Oil.

* Exercise. Your immune system needs good circulation in order to perform at its best for you.

* Optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency is the likely cause of seasonal flu viruses. Getting an optimal level of vitamin D will help you fight infections of all kinds.

* Get plenty of good quality sleep.

* Deal with stress effectively. If you feel overwhelmed by stress, your body will not have the reserves it needs to fight infection.

* Wash your hands. But not with an antibacterial soap. Use a pure, chemical-free soap.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

i think those sites are a little on the biased side. i think you'll find if you read actual medical literature you'll find that site contains a lot of misinformation and downright lies.

 

 

This may be true but that's not a good enough reason to discount the possibility of harmful effects out of hand. History is full of examples where the medical establishment ( or rather pharmaceutical establishment) has hidden the truth in the ' peer reviewed medical literature'. Therefore to blindly trust this literature all the time is fallacy.

 

Here are another couple of examples in video format from 60 minutes ( the tv show) that talk about the dangers of swine flu vaccines.

 

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFcnneAqnTM

 

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Bvf9AaC-4

Edited September 4, 2009 by John Phoenix
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

It probably causes autism.

 

[Pantaz]

Just a quick browse of of the Wiki page for Mercola shows he is a big-time medical crackpot. Just a few tidbits for your amusement:

 

• Mercola advises elimination of most prescription drugs and immunizations, and favors what he calls natural food choices, lifestyle modifications and energy psychology tools to address emotional challenges.
   
  
• Foods he recommends avoiding include pasteurized milk, homogenized milk, most fish (due to mercury content), trans fats, certain processed vegetable fats (such as corn and canola oil), unfermented soy products, artificial sweeteners, sugar, starches, and for those with elevated insulin levels (such as anyone who is overweight, diabetic, or has high blood pressure or high cholesterol) he also advises avoiding all grain products (including "even whole unprocessed grains, and alternative grains like quinoa, amaranth, millet and teff"), fruit juices (including fresh-squeezed fruit juices), and canned, packaged or artificial foods.
   
  
• Mercola makes an extensive argument that disease alerts such as swine flu and their resulting immunizations were actually false alarms put forth to terrify the public.

 

There is MUCH more on Wiki, QuackWatch, and even a BusinessWeek article about his marketing of "questionable" products.

[John Phoenix]

Just a quick browse of of the Wiki page for Mercola shows he is a big-time medical crackpot. Just a few tidbits for your amusement:

 

• Mercola advises elimination of most prescription drugs and immunizations, and favors what he calls natural food choices, lifestyle modifications and energy psychology tools to address emotional challenges.
   
  
• Foods he recommends avoiding include pasteurized milk, homogenized milk, most fish (due to mercury content), trans fats, certain processed vegetable fats (such as corn and canola oil), unfermented soy products, artificial sweeteners, sugar, starches, and for those with elevated insulin levels (such as anyone who is overweight, diabetic, or has high blood pressure or high cholesterol) he also advises avoiding all grain products (including "even whole unprocessed grains, and alternative grains like quinoa, amaranth, millet and teff"), fruit juices (including fresh-squeezed fruit juices), and canned, packaged or artificial foods.
   
  
• Mercola makes an extensive argument that disease alerts such as swine flu and their resulting immunizations were actually false alarms put forth to terrify the public.

 

There is MUCH more on Wiki, QuackWatch, and even a BusinessWeek article about his marketing of "questionable" products.

 

As a serious student of health and nutrition as a layperson for over 20 years I agree with most of the foods to avoid that you (he) list. Only ones I don't agree with are fruit juices, gains and fish.. all the rest on that list is garbage.

 

I also agree 100 % with the first statement with exception about energy psychology. Taking prescription drugs are very bad for the body and in the long term cause toxicity and this leads to greater health problems such as cancers. Almost everything we can do with a drug can be done safely with natural means. ( with a few exceptions)

 

Based on those two things I don't see any evidence for him being a 'medical crackpot'.

 

The false alarm thing I have no knowledge of.

 

I have learned you cant trust everything you read on wikipedia or quackwatch.

 

Don't judge the content of the article by its author. Check out the references at the bottom on the web page. (I did not list them here) You will find most of his references sound.

 

Here is one from a well known respected doctor.

http://www.rense.com/general67/vacc.htm

 

and his website

 

http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

He has really good info about vaccines on his Published Papers link.

 

That being said, if you read the science behind the problem with vaccines. If not enough to down right scare you at least it would make you question their safety.

Edited September 4, 2009 by John Phoenix

[John Cuthber]

" Taking prescription drugs are very bad for the body and in the long term cause toxicity and this leads to greater health problems such as cancers."

This statement is at odds with the observations that;

People live longer than they used to and they take more prescription drugs than they used to.

People in the developing world who do not have access to drugs do not live as long as people in the developed world who do have access to prescription drugs.

 

Anyone who says that all drugs are bad for you is being unscientific (since all drugs are tested for safety) and may well be thought of as a crackpot.

[John Phoenix]

" Taking prescription drugs are very bad for the body and in the long term cause toxicity and this leads to greater health problems such as cancers."

This statement is at odds with the observations that;

People live longer than they used to and they take more prescription drugs than they used to.

People in the developing world who do not have access to drugs do not live as long as people in the developed world who do have access to prescription drugs.

 

Anyone who says that all drugs are bad for you is being unscientific (since all drugs are tested for safety) and may well be thought of as a crackpot.

 

Lets examine this. many doctors (scientist) who have studied the affects of drugs on the body know what they do to the body long term. To say that people are living longer due to drugs is fallacy because you are not taking into account other factors that may contribute to this, such as peoples general level of nutrition has gone up over the past 50 years.

 

Your statement here proves my point, "People in the developing world who do not have access to drugs do not live as long as people in the developed world who do have access to prescription drugs."

 

People in developing worlds also do not have anywhere near the level of nutrition in their bodies as we do.

 

For the most part, pharmaceuticals are synthetic and our bodies are not designed to get rid of these poisons. Yes I said poisons because that's what they are. The body treats them this way. The second you put one into your bloodstream the body goes to work to reject and eradicate these substances. That's one reason they make drugs so strong. These pharmaceuticals build up in the tissues of the body and over time brings the body into a toxic state, which can causes disease. This is proven scientific fact.

 

So the people are living longer due to nutrition but when they get sick many times it is due to disease caused by a toxic state which was caused by years of drugs building up in the body ( amoung other things like smoking).

 

Yes drugs may save your life and have great short term benefits like pain killers for those with chronic pain, but the heath risk in the long term should be avoided at all cost. I agree that there are some times when a drug may seem to have greater benefit than a natural substance like during surgery but for almost all everyday use there is a natural substance that is just as effective as a drug, many times more so, and they do not build up in the body and cause a toxic state.

 

All drugs are tested for safety. Are you serious? Do you not know that every drug comes with a list of side effects? Do you know any safety test is only done in the short term and does not take into account how in 50 or 60 years these substances react with other drugs in the body and often times mutate to form other substances and their effect on each patients body chemistry? No drug company ever does this yet there is growing evidence of disease caused by this. Tested for safety my foot! Do a search on all the law suits that have been against the drug companies who told the public their drug was safe and it was later found they lied and falsified the medical papers. This happens all the time. Do you not know anything about toxicity and how it's formed in the body and it's causes?.. not my ideas mind you, but established medical and scientific fact. Just research it.

 

To All: I must apologize because when I posted this thread I did not know this web site had a medical forum. That is where it should have been posted. If you want you may move it.

Edited September 5, 2009 by John Phoenix

[Bignose]

How can nutrition be so much better (post #10) when not two posts earlier (#8) you tell us that most of the food we eat is "garbage"?

 

Let's see, almost total eradication of deadly diseases like mumps, measles, and rubella in the modern day thanks to vaccines. The fact that the average person in the 1st world doesn't have to worry about a cold turning into bronchitis, then pneumonia, and then dying thanks to modern antibiotics seems like a pretty good thing to me. The fact that we can fight off quite a significant number of cancers -- especially with early detection -- injecting those poisons in the right amounts and times seems like a pretty good thing to me. Rather than dying of cancer at age 40, I'll take the (unproven) risk of whatever long-term side effects may kill me at age 70.

 

I just don't buy that all of the increased life expectancy can be attributed to nutrition. Nutrition is going to be a part of it, but it is a combination of a lot of things, including better medicine.

 

I'd like some proof of this statement: "So the people are living longer due to nutrition but when they get sick many times it is due to disease caused by a toxic state which was caused by years of drugs building up in the body". Specifically what diseases are caused by the buildup of what toxins, and what is the incidence rate of disease caused by toxic build up. Since it is, in your own words, "established medical and scientific fact" it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide several peer-reviewed sources to back up your claims. Thanks.

[John Cuthber]

"For the most part, pharmaceuticals are synthetic"

many of them are based on natural molecules.

 

"and our bodies are not designed to get rid of these poisons."

Our bodies are designed to get rid of any xenobiotics. Its not as if the liver can know if a molecule is synthetic or not.

 

"Yes I said poisons because that's what they are."

Paracelsus said this in the 16th century; it's not news, it's not relevant.

 

"The body treats them this way."

That's also the way that the body treats food- it turns it into something else and, quite commonly excretes it.

 

"The second you put one into your bloodstream the body goes to work to reject and eradicate these substances."

Again, same as it does with all things, including food.

 

"That's one reason they make drugs so strong."

It's true that drugs have to be made in such a way that they are not destroyed imediately; to do otherwise would be pointless. Why castigate the pharmaceutical industry for not doing something pointless?

 

"These pharmaceuticals build up in the tissues of the body"

Make up your mind, does the body eliminate them or do they build up?

Anyway, drugs in the body are generally destroyed or excreted with first order kinetics. The removal is characterised by a half life (it varies a bit between different individuals and there are particular phenotypes who have markedly different elimination rates. This is all well known and well documented).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half_life

Caffeine, for example, has a biological half life of about 8 hrs.

 

 

 

"and over time brings the body into a toxic state, which can causes disease."

The build up doesn't happen- so it can't lead to a "toxic state" (whatever that might mean).

 

"This is proven scientific fact."

No it's not; it's bollocks.

 

Lets get this straight John.

Mercola is widely recognised as a crackpot. You agree with him.

Go figure.

[Pantaz]

As a serious student of health and nutrition as a layperson for over 20 years I agree with most of the foods to avoid that you (he) list. Only ones I don't agree with are fruit juices, gains and fish.. all the rest on that list is garbage.

 

From that partial list of foods that Mercola deems unhealthy, let's look at that those with which you do agree:

 

trans fats: Safe to say, these are pretty much universally accepted as "bad for you".

artificial sweeteners: There is enough controversy over "artificial sweeteners" that I'll leave this one out. Although, other than saccharin, I have yet to see any proper studies that find conclusive evidence of "danger" from such things as Aspartame.

artificial foods: I will assume this refers to "artificial flavors and colors" (food additives). I am unaware of any current, proper studies finding harm in the use of these, but I can understand a personal desire to avoid unnecessary additives in one's food.

 

Please, have a go at the rest...

pasteurized milk

homogenized milk

corn and canola oil

unfermented soy products

sugar

starches

canned [or] packaged foods

 

 

I also agree 100 % with the first statement with exception about energy psychology. Taking prescription drugs are very bad for the body and in the long term cause toxicity and this leads to greater health problems such as cancers. Almost everything we can do with a drug can be done safely with natural means. ( with a few exceptions)

Citations, please? I'd especially like to see a source for this "toxicity" claim.

 

Based on those two things I don't see any evidence for him being a 'medical crackpot'.

The false alarm thing I have no knowledge of.

 

So, since you agree with Mercola's anti-vaccine/anti-drug/anti-food rhetoric, you simply dismiss the third bullet-item and refuse to look further into the references I offered.

 

I have learned you cant trust everything you read on wikipedia or quackwatch.

 

Which is why I cite Wikipedia only when it contains sufficient external references -- The Mercola page includes several dozen.

 

The primary entry on QuackWatch for Mercola is a reference to FDA (Food and Drug Administration) warnings issued for "illegal claims for products sold through his web site". (I.e., Claims of treatment for cancer and Alzheimer's.)

 

That being said, if you read the science behind the problem with vaccines. If not enough to down right scare you at least it would make you question their safety.

 

I have read the science behind vaccines, and as with anything we put on or in our bodies, there is risk versus benefit. The proven benefits of modern vaccines heavily outweighs the risk.