Health care workers refuse to take H1N1 vaccine

[O.G]

I'm aware of the possible shady business between the pharmacy industry and some governments. However, as I said, mandatory H1N1 vaccination is very unlikely because there is no good reason after we all saw how "bad" H1N1 really was. No government in its right mind would blatantly mandate the vaccination unless it wished to lose the next election. For countries such as those in Africa, it's an entirely different story.

You really think that elections, or the democratic process, has anything at all to do with "forced program of vaccination for the good of the public health"? I am in agreement with you that there is no issue while the vaccine is purely voluntary, but this is not the point being made, which you just seem to keep glossing over.

The motions are already under way to force mass vaccinate. It will be by cross party agreement and there will be no political party to blame, there will be no one to blame. There is a protest being held outside parliament in October to protest the finding of a recent meeting of the JCVI, which discussed the constitutional implications of the state taking guardianship of children, where the parents were refusing to allow their children to be vaccinated. The state would by force take guardianship, then vaccinate those children against the wishes of their parents. If there were no undelying plot of mass vaccination, there would be no need for such discussions.

If there are no mass vaccinations, we are still left with the financial implications, and the possability that the entire swine flu pandemic was little more than a sales pitch.

@ rob.derosa

I don't have a hangup so much about mercury, especially in adult vaccines. But the fact remains that mercury is toxic, it is a poison. And there is NO safe limit as far as I'm concerned. The fact it has been banned in childhood vaccines (except flu funny enough), should tell you something. It was banned because there was enough compelling evidence to raise serious questions as to the safety of Thimerisol versus its effectiveness as a preservative.

@The_Decryptor

No you do not get vaccines all that much. You don't come in contact with plutonium all that much either, you want to volunteer to expose yourself to 4 times the safe level of that in one dose too? Go right ahead.

[lamminium]

You really think that elections, or the democratic process, has anything at all to do with "forced program of vaccination for the good of the public health"? I am in agreement with you that there is no issue while the vaccine is purely voluntary, but this is not the point being made, which you just seem to keep glossing over.

The motions are already under way to force mass vaccinate. It will be by cross party agreement and there will be no political party to blame, there will be no one to blame. There is a protest being held outside parliament in October to protest the finding of a recent meeting of the JCVI, which discussed the constitutional implications of the state taking guardianship of children, where the parents were refusing to allow their children to be vaccinated. The state would by force take guardianship, then vaccinate those children against the wishes of their parents. If there were no undelying plot of mass vaccination, there would be no need for such discussions.

If there are no mass vaccinations, we are still left with the financial implications, and the possability that the entire swine flu pandemic was little more than a sales pitch.

Children were shown to be among the most vulnerable to this new strain.

I haven't heard of a motion to mandate the vaccination here in Australia. Perhaps it's something only in the USA?

[O.G]

It appears that the US and the UK already have contingency plans for mass vaccination as well as numerous European countries (I would assume Australia wouldn't be far behind). These have mostly been refined and ramped up since the none existant h1n1 "outbreak". All the legal and officail documents are out there in the public domain, for those who can be bothered to read them, and care to understand exactly what it is their governments propose. The UK gov has even gone as far as planning in fine detail the disposal of all the dead bodies that never quite happened. Like I said, it's almost as if swine flu was meant to be far worse than it was. Perhaps they underestimated the power of the human immune system. Meanwhile the stockpiling of vaccines continues, and that can only because of mass vaccination, this flu thing ain't over, or simply to line the coffers of pharma.

The whole thing just doesn't quite add up.

[lamminium]

^ Our immune system is sophisticated but extremely vulnerable to novel viral strains. Look at all past pandemics.

H1N1 outbreak is real. However, it appears we overestimated its severity. There is no guarantee that it won't mutate and turn into another H5N1-like threat. We're only exercising caution by learning from past mistakes. The WHO was criticised for being slow to act at the time of H5N1 pandemic.

Contrary to your belief, the true number of worldwide cases is higher than the official figure, owing to the fact that many recovered on their own and never sought medical advice. A universal flu vaccine is still being researched. For now, we're being cautious.

I am also a conspiracy theorist but I don't stick to conspiracy for conspiracy's sake. No sane governments would hand out something that potentially will kill its citizens, no matter what kind of profit it gains from it; because there will be no one left for them to govern. I'm expecting side effects but that's about it if according to you, they will rush the vaccines out once WHO finalised their selections (which I believe are already safe, seeing the selection process is well conducted).

People can be greedy but not all of them are heartless. Certainly the current governments are not out to get you in such a way. If you're so fearful of living in your own society, perhaps consider moving to a remote area beyond humanity's reach?

[deletedxyz]

BOB.. GOD gave us our immune systems. our immune systems are here to help us. we aren't PC's with an extra space in our bodies for a harddrive or genetically engineered components. Now GOD as you said gave us medicine, but not all medicine is of GOD.

BS. There's technology right now that's being developed that allows us to modify our bodies. Prosthetics, stem cells, bionic limbs, eyes, etc. There's no god; there's only human beings. We will modify ourselves with upgrades just like a PC. Don't believe me? I'll be more than happy to show you the hundreds of injured American soldiers whose lives are back on track with human made robotic prosthetics after losing their original limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

H1N1 is real. It can be avoided by good hygiene just like any flu virus. If health care workers (govt. workers) refuse to take the vaccine, then they should quit because they are endangering the very people they're trying to help. For private health care workers, they should follow what their company policy. I'm sure any and every health care provider will make their employees take the vaccine with some exceptions since they don't want any scandal or disaster happening because of their poor response to the prevention of this outbreak.

[O.G]

No sane governments would hand out something that potentially will kill its citizens, no matter what kind of profit it gains from it; because there will be no one left for them to govern.

Yes there would, the goal is not to eliminate the population, but to thin it out. Now that is not a conspiracy I necessarily subscribe to personally, but it is absolute fact that there are people in this world, powerful people, who would like to see the earth's population greatly reduced. These individuals have been openly vocal about their opinions, and feel that the world would be a much better place if it had a population of around half a billion people. To them that is a sustainable population (and a controllable one too), there really are people who wield power who would rather you were not using up their precious resources. All the richest most powerful people in our world all believe in eugenics in one fashion or another, the real question is are they actually attempting it? Look at history, is it really beyond comprehension that a group of elitists would conspire to have the planet to themselves? It's not exactly a unique idea now is it?

Orwellian is the new democracy.

Edited September 25, 2009 by O.G

[lamminium]

I belong to a family of the working class. I am also attracted to the idea of meritocracy. I sometimes want the stupid to be gathered in one place so they can do their stupid things and the rest of us who are intellectually competent and able to exercise such an intelligence through words and actions can get on with our lives. Nonetheless, I equally dislike that concept because it is a form of discrimination. I now extend this notion to our topic: the politicians may harbour desires of a similar nature but not all of them are fully committed to them because of conflicting principles which we like to call humanity.

It is true that people would like to have the planet to themselves. Most of us. The difference between our present and the past is that our democracy usually comes with a bipartisan parliament. In your example, the identity of the government is stagnant - a kind of prerequisite for an Orwellian society, which is not the case in a democratic society where the ruling party is bound to be unseated at some stage. Sure the two major political parties can go so fas as scheme together to work towards an Ingsoc society. It is not impossible but there is the sense of political survival that impedes such a co-operative act, namely, if Ingsoc or its analogous form thrived, the ruling government would be the de facto ruler and their first target for elimination would the Opposition, allowing no chance for merging (read: perilous union).

The possibility of Orwell's hypothetical society is not zero. However, our current international relationship serves to prevent it from happening. It may not be as perfect as one hopes but at least, each nation enters the conference with its own interests. This distinction in personal goals, encumbered with racial differences, polarises the political landscape. What this leads to is the fact that the existing countries cannot simultaneously transform into "Orwellian democracy" (the phrase is oxymoronic because Orwell's political paradigm in his 1984 novel is not democracy). The prevailing consequence? A country that adopts such a system is discriminated against by international figures. Of course China is a very close example but not quite it, given that, as another prerequisite of an Orwellian society would have prohibited, international interactions are still permitted and, ironically, encouraged.

Edited September 25, 2009 by lamchopz

[O.G]

The difference between our present and the past is that our democracy usually comes with a bipartisan parliament. In your example, the identity of the government is stagnant - a kind of prerequisite for an Orwellian society, which is not the case in a democratic society where the ruling party is bound to be unseated at some stage.

I would agree with your sentiment, however you rule out the possibility that the opposition is not actually the opposition, it's merely another facet of corporate controlled government. We are possibly more fascist in nature now than we have ever been, at least we certainly appear to be increasingly resembling the definition of a fascist society. You might be convinced that you live in a democracy, but it's just talking points, who you vote for is irrelevant.

The possibility of Orwell's hypothetical society is not zero.... What this leads to is the fact that the existing countries cannot simultaneously transform into "Orwellian democracy" (the phrase is oxymoronic because Orwell's political paradigm in his 1984 novel is not democracy). The prevailing consequence? A country that adopts such a system is discriminated against by international figures. Of course China is a very close example but not quite it, given that, as another prerequisite of an Orwellian society would have prohibited, international interactions are still permitted and, ironically, encouraged.

Ok, take a look at the US and the UK, they are the benchmark here, not China, they are the self appointed world police and it is their idea of democracy (which is in reality only an illusion) that they attempt to enforce via policy, or just war. They are discriminated against, in fact they are hated thanks to their globalist war like capitalist attitude. In order to perpetuate this military-industrial machine, fear is the order of the day. Rights are squandered for the good of the whole. The goal is plain and simple, to have everyone living in our illusionary democracy, with their illusion of choice, being good consumers.

In the UK we have CCTV than can pinpoint an "aggressive" person by their voice or the way they walk. We have massive databases of personal information held by government, and they want more, as well as a means for each individual to be identified so that information is at hand on request at point of need. We have warrent-less wire-tapping, and mobile phones that can be turned on remotely for the purposes of eavesdropping/gps tracking and all manner of electronic snooping and censoring. Swearing is illegal, being in a group of more than 2 people is illegal, filming a police officer is illegal, protesting (may as well be) illegal. The police are allowed to arrest you without cause, they can detain you without charge, they can search you without reason and they can beat or even murder you in cold blood without recourse. And yet as Orwellian as all of that is, we accept it. You think we wouldn't accept worse?

Lets look at the wiki "are you orwellian" checklist;

The political manipulation of language, by obfuscation, e.g. WAR IS PEACE. Using language to obfuscate meaning or to reduce and eliminate ideas and their meanings that are deemed dangerous to its authority.

Check

Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.

Check

State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.

Check

Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.

Check.

The substitution of traditional religion[citation needed] with the adoration of state leaders and their Party.

Not quite, though Obama? Well, you decide.

The encouragement of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are "doublespeak", and "newspeak"

Absolutely check.

The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.

Check

A (generally) dystopian future.

Getting there.

Edited September 25, 2009 by O.G

[lamminium]

If you single out the US or the UK, I can't say much because I don't know what is going on there.

Out of curiosity, can you elaborate (with evidence) on those check points?

[O.G]

If you single out the US or the UK, I can't say much because I don't know what is going on there.

Out of curiosity, can you elaborate (with evidence) on those check points?

You can find plenty of examples of "Orwellian" acts simply by visiting the BBC News website and checking out their UK politics and technology sections. Likewise with other tech based sites (mostly on the snooping) such as The Register, or any google news search for the UK. It really is not hard to find. Besides, I'd be doing all the hard work for you otherwise.

[Growled Member]

Contrary to your belief, the true number of worldwide cases is higher than the official figure, owing to the fact that many recovered on their own and never sought medical advice. A universal flu vaccine is still being researched. For now, we're being cautious.

Plus, some are never tested. My nephew is sick with the flu and they never tested him to determine if it was H1N1 or not. They said it cost $90 and even if it came back positive they would still treat it the same way, so they didn't see the need of doing the test.

[O.G]

Plus, some are never tested. My nephew is sick with the flu and they never tested him to determine if it was H1N1 or not. They said it cost $90 and even if it came back positive they would still treat it the same way, so they didn't see the need of doing the test.

Plus there was the whole script monkey farce. Phone lines filled with short-contract people poached from telesales and call centers, who had zero medical experience, manning swine flu hotlines. People with absolutely no medical training determining whether or not someone had swine flu by reading questions dictated from a script. Sneezing? Swine flu. Runny nose? Swine flu. Bum itch? Swine flu.

And now we get proposed vaccines containing squalene, a toxic linked to various auto-immune diseases including Gulf War Syndrome. As the days go by and more of this comes out, I have to conclude that the only people who would willingly line up for one of these vaccines must be either completely uninformed, or an idiot.

Study prompts provinces to rethink flu plan

A “perplexing” Canadian study linking H1N1 to seasonal flu shots is throwing national influenza plans into disarray and testing public faith in the government agencies responsible for protecting the nation's health.

Distributed for peer review last week, the study confounded infectious-disease experts in suggesting that people vaccinated against seasonal flu are twice as likely to catch swine flu.

The paper is under peer review, and lead researchers Danuta Skowronski of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control and Gaston De Serres of Laval University must stay mum until it's published.

“There are a large number of authors, all of them excellent and credible researchers,” he said. “And the sample size is very large – 12 or 13 million people taken from the central reporting systems in three provinces. The research is solid.”

The vaccine suspensions do not apply for people over 65. Seniors are considered more susceptible to severe seasonal flu symptoms. At the same time, they carry antibodies from a 1957 pandemic that seem to neutralize the current version of H1N1.

Even if the statistical link is proven, the medical link between seasonal flu shots and H1N1 remains mysterious. One hypothesis suggests seasonal flu vaccine preoccupies the cells that would otherwise produce antibodies against H1N1.

But it's good for you. It's filled with all kinds of nutritious goodness your body will thank you for. Ahem.

[lamminium]

Squalene is linked to various auto-immune diseases? What?

Last I checked it's a naturally occurring precursor to steroids, such as cholesterol that is crucial for biological systems.

I had to do a search on Gulf War Syndrome and here's what I found: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10640454

Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) is a multisystemic illness afflicting many Gulf War-era veterans. The molecular pathological basis for GWS has not been established. We sought to determine whether the presence of antibodies to squalene correlates with the presence of signs and symptoms of GWS. Participants in this blinded cohort study were individuals immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm during 1990-1991. They included 144 Gulf War-era veterans or military employees (58 in the blinded study), 48 blood donors, 40 systemic lupus erythematosus patients, 34 silicone breast implant recipients, and 30 chronic fatigue syndrome patients. Serum antibodies to squalene were measured. In our small cohort, 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.

O.G., I'm starting to think you're just another sensationalist who likes to spread FUD without a proper background on medical science.

[supernova_00]

You can get your doctor to order the H1N1 vaccine without mercury.

[O.G]

O.G., I'm starting to think you're just another sensationalist who likes to spread FUD without a proper background on medical science.

By the same logic I could say that your a denialist, or worse, an apologist. Keep on denying, see where it gets you.

Squalene:C30H50 an Adjuvant

Too dangerous for human use, Squalene is not licensed for use in the United States. Oil adjuvants like squalene have been ordinarily used to inflict diseases in animals – for experimentation and study. According to anthrax vaccine expert Gary Matsumoto and other reliable sources, the US military used an unlicensed, experimental anthrax vaccination laced with squalene, with disastrous consequences, including Gulf War Sydrome. Chemical descriptions:

Unites States National Library of Medicine: PubChem

http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/su....cgi?cid=638072

Toxicity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...e%2ftoxicity%22

Adverse effects:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...se%20effects%22

Must read:

Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A; The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers – and Why GI's Are Only the First Victims. Basic Books, 2004.

Present in these vaccines:

Anthrax (experimental, used on military personnel)

Squalene was found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in five lots of the AVIP anthrax vaccine. The discovery of serum anti-squalene antibodies and the development of a test to detect these antibodies has made it possible to see that links appear to exist between the contaminated AVIP vaccine lots, the illness experienced by post-1997 vaccine recipients, the illness experienced by non-deployed 1990-1991-era patients, and the illness in deployed 1990-1991-era patients that has been referred to as GWS.

The data establishing these links is presented in the peer-reviewed February 2000 and August 2002 articles. The published findings (1) strongly suggest that the GWS-like illness being reported by all of the various patient groups is the same illness, (2) strongly suggest that the contaminated vaccine caused the illness in the AVIP group, and (3) further suggest that squalene contamination of one or more 1990-1991-era vaccines accounts for the GWS cases from that era.

source

First the DOD denied it, then the FDA refined their testing methods and found it, thenthe FDA said "yeah we found squalene, but it's ok, it's not enough to harm you. Sorry, but I'd say they had their chance to come clean.

More

We previously reported that antibodies to squalene, an experimental vaccine

adjuvant, are present in persons with symptoms consistent with Gulf War

Syndrome (GWS) (P. B. Asa et al., Exp. Mol. Pathol 68, 196–197, 2000). The

United States Department of Defense initiated the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization

Program (AVIP) in 1997 to immunize 2.4 million military personnel.

Because adverse reactions in vaccinated personnel were similar to symptoms

of GWS, we tested AVIP participants for anti-squalene antibodies (ASA). In

a pilot study, 6 of 6 vaccine recipients with GWS-like symptoms were positive

for ASA. In a larger blinded study, only 32% (8/25) of AVIP personnel

compared to 15.7% (3/19) of controls were positive (P 0.05). Further

analysis revealed that ASA were associated with specific lots of vaccine. The

incidence of ASA in personnel in the blinded study receiving these lots was

47% (8/17) compared to an incidence of 0% (0/8; P 0.025) of the AVIP

participants receiving other lots of vaccine. Analysis of additional personnel

revealed that in all but one case (19/20; 95%), ASA were restricted to

personnel immunized with lots of vaccine known to contain squalene. Except

for one symptomatic individual, positive clinical findings in 17 ASA-negative

personnel were restricted to 4 individuals receiving vaccine from lots containing

squalene. ASA were not present prior to vaccination in preimmunization

sera available from 4 AVIP personnel. Three of these individuals became ASA

positive after vaccination. These results suggest that the production of ASA in

GWS patients is linked to the presence of squalene in certain lots of anthrax

vaccine.

source (pdf)

more

Division of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610-0221, USA.

Although mineral oils are generally considered nontoxic and have a long history of use in humans, the mineral oil Bayol F (incomplete Freund's adjuvant, IFA) and certain mineral oil components (squalene and n-hexadecane) induce lupus-related anti-nRNP/Sm or -Su autoantibodies in nonautoimmune mice. In the present study, we investigated whether medicinal mineral oils can induce other types of autoantibodies and whether structural features of hydrocarbons influence autoantibody specificity. Female 3-month-old BALB/c (16-45/group) mice each received an i.p. injection of pristane (C19), squalene (C30), IFA, three medicinal mineral oils (MO-F, MO-HT, MO-S), or PBS. Sera were tested for autoantibodies and immunoglobulin levels. Hydrocarbons were analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. IFA contained mainly C15-C25 hydrocarbons, whereas MO-HT and MO-S contained C20-C40, and MO-F contained C15-C40. Pristane and n-hexadecane were found in IFA (0.17% and 0.10% w/v, respectively) and MOs (0.0026-0.027%). At 3 months, pristane and IFA induced mainly IgG2a, squalene IgG1, and MOs IgG3 and IgM in sera. Anti-cytoplasmic antibodies were common in mice treated with MO-F, as well as those treated with pristane, squalene, and IFA. Anti-ssDNA and -chromatin antibodies were higher in MO-F and MO-S than in untreated/PBS, squalene-, or IFA-treated mice, suggesting that there is variability in the induction of anti-nRNP/Sm versus -chromatin/DNA antibodies. The preferential induction of anti-chromatin/ssDNA antibodies without anti-nRNP/Sm/Su by MO-S and MO-F is consistent with the idea that different types of autoantibodies are regulated differently. Induction of autoantibodies by mineral oils considered nontoxic also may have pathogenetic implications in human autoimmune diseases.

source Edited September 30, 2009 by O.G

[lamminium]

Oh gosh, must we continue this?

The study you linked was done in 2002 and also in 2000 by the same leading authors. Their methods in 2000 study were criticised so they did it again in 2002, which is what you linked to.

In 2006, a better analytical method was devised to detect squalene in the vaccine lots handed out to GWS veterans. It concluded that:

Specific lots of anthrax vaccine adsorbed administered to members of the U.S. Armed Forces have been alleged to contain squalene, a chemical purported to be associated with illnesses of Gulf War veterans. A method of enhanced sensitivity for determining squalene in anthrax vaccine adsorbed using high-performance liquid chromatography with photodiode array detection has been developed, validated, and applied to 44 bottles of 38 lots of anthrax vaccine. In 43 bottles of 37 lots, no squalene was detected within a detection limit of 1ng/0.5ml dose (2 parts-per-billion). One lot, FAV008, was found to contain trace amounts of squalene at 7, 9, and 1microgl(-1), levels considerably below normal human plasma levels (290microgl(-1)). The overall results of this investigation provide direct evidence for the absence of squalene in nearly all of anthrax vaccine preparations tested.

In the latest study (2009), the finding is:

Since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, there have been reports of unexplained, multisymptom illnesses afflicting veterans who consistently report more symptoms than do nondeployed veterans. One of the many possible exposures suspected of causing chronic multisymptom illnesses Gulf War veterans is squalene, thought to be present in anthrax vaccine. We examined the relationship between squalene antibodies and chronic symptoms reported by Navy construction workers (Seabees), n = 579. 30.2% were deployers, 7.4% were defined as ill, and 43.5% were positive for squalene antibodies. We found no association between squalene antibody status and chronic multisymptom illness (p = 0.465). The etiology of Gulf War syndrome remains unknown, but should not include squalene antibody status.

Sure I may be an apologist but the one thing I don't assume is that the governments scheme to get rid of me. Conspiracy is fun, up to a point. After that, it gets absurd and annoying.

For instance, after reading your previous posts, your rant about thiomersal (or thimerosal in your daily language) was bad because it contains mercury. Interestingly, though, we've used it for a really long time. Here's why that "toxic" thimerosal somehow got into our vaccines: link (please read this in its full context, thanks).

The people here made a fair point: that an individual element is toxic does not make all of its compounds toxic. The table salt you eat is composed of sodium and chlorine elements (chloride ion, to be precise) which are individually harmful to the human body if ingested in an amount that exceeds physiological concentration. When combined, they give us something to flavour our food.

Can we stop now? It's getting tedious.

EDIT: Actually, no. Keep going. This helps me learn a lot more about the world. :)

Edited September 30, 2009 by lamchopz

[lamminium]

@O.G: In response to your extra article which I apparently missed during my type-up, I suggest you read the entire article itself and not just the abstract:

The question arises of the significance of these findings for the pathogenesis of human disease. It might be argued that humans are not exposed to hydrocarbons via the intraperitoneal route and that other routes of exposure pose less risk. For instance, the immunotoxicity of aminocarb varies depending on the route of administration, with intraperitoneal exposure resulting in greater toxicity than oral administration (Bernier et al., 1995Go). Humans are exposed to mineral hydrocarbons via ingestion (foods, medications) (Dincsoy et al., 1982Go; Grob et al., 1997Go; Heimbach et al., 2002Go), inhalation (diesel exhaust, oil mists, aspiration of ingested mineral oil) (Simpson et al., 2003Go; Spickard and Hirschmann, 1994Go), skin absorption (cosmetics, skin contact with oils or fuels) (Nash et al., 1996Go; Riviere et al., 1999Go), or injection (immunization, accidental inoculation) (Di Benedetto et al., 2002Go; O'Hagan et al., 1997Go). It is not known with certainty whether nonperitoneal exposure to hydrocarbons can induce autoimmunity. However, it is clear that such exposure can cause an intense inflammatory reaction (lipogranulomas) in the lungs, liver, and regional lymph nodes (Dincsoy et al., 1982Go). Moreover, ingested mineral oil is absorbed through the intestine and becomes widely distributed throughout the body (Bollinger, 1970Go; Ebert et al., 1966Go). Mouse experiments are in progress to determine whether nonperitoneal exposure to pristane can induce the autoantibodies seen following intraperitoneal injection.

Another issue is whether the hydrocarbon doses given to the mice are ever reached in humans. Although the single 0.5-ml ip dose given to mice is quite large, humans can be exposed to considerable quantities of hydrocarbon oils over the course of a lifetime. It has been estimated that an average person living in a developed country ingests 50 grams of mineral oil per year in food (Heimbach et al., 2002Go). Individuals using mineral oil chronically as a laxative have much greater exposure. At the recommended dose of 1–3 tablespoons (15–45 ml) per day, exposure may be as high as 0.75 ml/kg/day for a 60-kg person, or the equivalent of 20 ?l/day in a mouse weighing 26.7 grams. On a kg-per-kg basis, the intraperitoneal dose given to the mice in these studies is comparable to that of a human ingesting mineral oil as a laxative for 25 days.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Doses of adjuvant-free vaccine will be available for pregnant women. So if you don't want the adjuvant or the Thimerosal then you can get that. It's no big deal either way. If you really want to cut back on mercury then don't eat sport fish, tuna steaks, marlin, swordfish or shark meat.

[O.G]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the anthrax vaccine as we really could be here all day in quotefest madness. The fact remains that

1. the origin of GWS is unknown

2. it is a fact that anthrax vaccines were tainted with squalene

3. it is a fact that the bodies in question (pharma and the military) will utterly refute any claim, even if it is true, untill such a time that they can no longer deny it, and will even introduce false evidence in support of their claim

I'm not an immunologist, or a chemist, so I'll leave the causality to the people who know what they're talking about.

As for the H1N1 vaccines, the efficacy of every single proposal is unknown, and will not be known until widespread vaccination has occurred. If there are issues with certain vaccines, it will be too late to do anything about that, as people will have already received those vaccinations. My main issue in all of this is based on common sense. There are a miriad of examples of lax regultation (mostly due to self regulation) in the manufacturing and preparation of vaccines, and you would be a fool to take anyone's word as gospel when they tell you it is safe.

As it stands, swine flu is all hype. There is zero evidence that the vaccines will work. The strain could change next week making them all useless. If you have an untested vaccine for something that is unlikely to kill you, you're an idiot, and if you promote that as actually being of benefit to people, then you have an agenda. One only needs to browse recent freedom of information documentation to see just what governments will do to people without their knowledge. But I suppose that's all scaremongering too.

Take your shot, enjoy the rest of your life, or not. Either way, it's no skin off my nose.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Anthrax vaccines are presumably not intended for the general public (certainly they aren't standard fare around here).

The H1N1 vaccine, however, will be intended for the general population. Health care workers come into contact with people that have reduced immune systems which is why we want to have them protected. Individuals also may come into contact with high risk groups so there is a benefit to having a significant percentage of the general population protected as well.

So, if you're 25 and healthy then you don't need the vaccine but many will take it to help others survive. Hopefully when you are old some young whippersnapper will do something nice for you in return.

[O.G]

And who are you helping if the vaccine is useless and the only complications are as a direct result of the vaccine itself? I will agree with you in so far as if you are a fit and healthy individual, there is no reason at all to get the vaccine. Even the vaccine does work, it will not stop you from contracting the virus, nor will it stop you from spreading it to others. It's effects will be similar to that of seasonal flu vaccines, to reduce the severity. Vaccines are not preventative, immunizations are. Volunteering for a flu shot does not benefit other people in any way shape or form.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

And who are you helping if the vaccine is useless and the only complications are as a direct result of the vaccine itself? I will agree with you in so far as if you are a fit and healthy individual, there is no reason at all to get the vaccine. Even the vaccine does work, it will not stop you from contracting the virus, nor will it stop you from spreading it to others. It's effects will be similar to that of seasonal flu vaccines, to reduce the severity. Vaccines are not preventative, immunizations are. Volunteering for a flu shot does not benefit other people in any way shape or form.

Having a significant percentage of the population (say, above 50%) protected by this H1N1 vaccine will cut the "in-the-wild" infections significantly and that will lead to saved lives.

The only real risk is that the virus will mutate and become more deadly which could render THIS vaccine useless (depending on how significantly it changes). Again, having people protected will reduce the chances of that mutation happening (it's better to have only 1 million people are exposed rather than 50+ million when it comes to chances for a mutation).

[lamminium]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the anthrax vaccine as we really could be here all day in quotefest madness. The fact remains that

1. the origin of GWS is unknown

2. it is a fact that anthrax vaccines were tainted with squalene

3. it is a fact that the bodies in question (pharma and the military) will utterly refute any claim, even if it is true, untill such a time that they can no longer deny it, and will even introduce false evidence in support of their claim

I'm not an immunologist, or a chemist, so I'll leave the causality to the people who know what they're talking about.

As for the H1N1 vaccines, the efficacy of every single proposal is unknown, and will not be known until widespread vaccination has occurred. If there are issues with certain vaccines, it will be too late to do anything about that, as people will have already received those vaccinations. My main issue in all of this is based on common sense. There are a miriad of examples of lax regultation (mostly due to self regulation) in the manufacturing and preparation of vaccines, and you would be a fool to take anyone's word as gospel when they tell you it is safe.

As it stands, swine flu is all hype. There is zero evidence that the vaccines will work. The strain could change next week making them all useless. If you have an untested vaccine for something that is unlikely to kill you, you're an idiot, and if you promote that as actually being of benefit to people, then you have an agenda. One only needs to browse recent freedom of information documentation to see just what governments will do to people without their knowledge. But I suppose that's all scaremongering too.

Take your shot, enjoy the rest of your life, or not. Either way, it's no skin off my nose.

1 is a fact. True.

2 is questionable in light of the 2006 and 2009 studies. Even the 2002 study states that squalene was found in specific (very different from all) lots of vaccines. Next time don't just quote the abstract conclusion if the sentence has "may" or "might", look at the whole article.

3 is a conspiracy but is also plausible. This, I agree. Governments can try to cover up their mistakes but if independent studies support their claim, you must have an open mind - the fact that the government may be honest in the issue.

Swine flu is all hype. Agree. We all see it and I've repeated it over and over.

Vaccines may fail to work because the strains may mutate. Agree, because vaccines use existing variants. However, that's how vaccines work. If new strains come out, we use them to manufacture new vaccines. Our preferred method is to come up with something that generically targets the haemagglutinin and neuraminidase which are the core components of the all flu viruses. Success is yet to be embraced.

Again, no one forces people to vaccinate. Not for this H1N1, at least. Plus the proven formula of vaccine production assures us that it won't be useless, contrary to some people who hope it would be...

[Alley Cat]

Yay ^.^

I got mercury in my blood now

[Solid Knight]

I got the H1N1 vaccine and then I got Bronchitis. Shows how effective this vaccine is. It makes you sick!