Girl Gets Flu Shot - Now She Can Only Walk Backwards


Recommended Posts

You are lying. You know that is not what your quote says. It says that based on other flu vaccines, it's estimated that 1 in 10,000 have a more severe reactions (such as allergic reactions), not that they end up "drooling retards."

Once again your inability to read astonishes us (or is it just denial or ignorance, hmm). Glaxo states in their own Pandemrix info sheet that the "Very Rare" side effects affect >1:10000, so we'll say 1:10000 because they did not say 1:20000 or 1:30000, so one in ten thousand for arguments sake. 1 in 10000 people may contract Guillain–Barr? syndrome as a side affect of the vaccine. What is Guillain–Barr? syndrome? It is a debilitating autoimmune disease that affects a persons motor function, causes paralysis and possibly death. Now if you have issue with any of that, I would suggest you call GlaxoSmithKline and request that they change their product sheet so it more accurately conforms to what you want it to say. Then you can cheerlead with conviction.

Now if you have issue with any of that, I would suggest you call GlaxoSmithKline and request that they change their product sheet so it more accurately conforms you what you want it to say. Then you can cheerlead with conviction.

It does not say that. It says that less than 1 in 10,000 might have a very rare reaction, with Guillain?Barr? syndrome being one possibility. It does not say that 1 in 10,000 will get Guillain?Barr? syndrome. You should also note that these are rare reactions registered with other flu vaccines that are already given in extremely large numbers all the time around the world, without millions ending up with Guillain?Barr? syndrome.

May I also remind you that thousands of people die every year from adverse reactions to common drugs like aspirin which people take without thinking.

all drugs have side effects even the most common ones. some have nasty side effects. if you though about too much about side effects you wont take anything.

more chance of death on the road or being robed then getting some side effects

It does not say that. It says that less than 1 in 10,000 might have a very rare reaction, with Guillain–Barr? syndrome being one possibility. It does not say that 1 in 10,000 will get Guillain–Barr? syndrome. You should also note that these are rare reactions registered with other flu vaccines that are already given in extremely large numbers all the time around the world, without millions ending up with Guillaume–Barr? syndrome.

May I also remind you that thousands of people die every year from adverse reactions to common drugs like aspirin which people take without thinking.

There are 2 "Very Rare", one is kindey problems the other Guillain–Barre, neither of which I'd say is worth the risk for vaccines with questionable efficacy, moreso with virtually untested vaccines such as Pandemrix. I personaly could not care if the the ratio was 1 in a million, it's still a risk I'm personally not willing to take. I've had the flu, bad, and I know people who have supposedly had the swine flu, none of them had the vaccine, and none of them died. So, again, unless you can prove that there is a very high chance of death from swine flu unless vaccination has occured, you're just talking out your bottom.

all drugs have side effects even the most common ones. some have nasty side effects. if you though about too much about side effects you wont take anything.

more chance of death on the road or being robed then getting some side effects

A few years back it was estimated that 1 in 6000 Brits die every year of adverse reactions to common drugs.

I've had the flu, bad, and I know people who have supposedly had the swine flu, none of them had the vaccine, and none of them died.

I've had a dozen vaccines, as have most people I know. None have had any adverse reactions, and none have died. I did know someone who was hit by a bus though. Your anecdote is completely meaningless.

Having said that, you are a free man, so do what feels right for you.

A few years back it was estimated that 1 in 6000 Brits die every year of adverse reactions to common drugs.

How many of those could have been avoided had they been educated on the side effects?

I've had a dozen vaccines, as have most people I know. None have had any adverse reactions, and none have died. I did know someone who was hit by a bus though. Your anecdote is completely meaningless.

When we took my eldest daughter to be vaccinated against tetanus/polio she stopped breathing. It took over 2 minutes for the nurse to bring her round. The reason listed was anaphalactic reaction to the whooping cough ingredient. When the HPV vaccine came round in her school she made her own mind up and refused it while her friends missed days from the pounding headaches. I suppose it's all about your perspective.

Edited by O.G
How many of those could have been avoided had they been educated on the side effects?

Who knows? I think a large majority still would have taken them. The point I'm making though, is that the swine flu vaccines appear to be extremely safe, and that we should tone the hysteria down. If you want to wait and see how the swine flu spreads and how deadly it turns out to be before making a decision, then that's more than fair enough, but there's no reason to run around screaming like the sky is falling and that the vaccine is going to kill us all.

Oh, andI'd hit it.

Is it wrong that there are only 2 of us that thought of this? :unsure:

Anyways, this is one of the many reasons that a flu/swine shot is unneccesary. Just follow standard steps (washing hands, not touching anything that you dont know, etc) and you wont get anything. Simple as that :)

I do hope there is some way to cure this poor woman.

Just follow standard steps (washing hands, not touching anything that you dont know, etc) and you wont get anything. Simple as that :)

No, you are less likely to catch something, which is a significant difference.

Not even avoiding being near any other humans won't completely protect you, especially if it does indeed go pandemic. You gotta go to work/go shopping somehow.

Who knows? I think a large majority still would have taken them. The point I'm making though, is that the swine flu vaccines appear to be extremely safe, and that we should tone the hysteria down. If you want to wait and see how the swine flu spreads and how deadly it turns out to be before making a decision, then that's more than fair enough, but there's no reason to run around screaming like the sky is falling and that the vaccine is going to kill us all.

Precisely, who knows. How safe are the swine flu vaccines? No one knows. There is a reason the manufacturers have immunity from legal action resulting from the use of the vaccines. The hysteria needs to be shouted from the rooftops, not toned down. People accept everything they are told these days without question. They are called sheeple for a reason. and you my friend are a prime example. On a positive note, it's not really your fault.

The vaccine is not going to kill everyone. But it will kill some people, of that you can be certain. Whether or not their deaths are worth it, again, who knows. Will it kill more than the flu? Who knows, it did in 76. But you carry on taking their word for it by all means, it's your right.

Precisely, who knows. How safe are the swine flu vaccines? No one knows. There is a reason the manufacturers have immunity from legal action resulting from the use of the vaccines. The hysteria needs to be shouted from the rooftops, not toned down. People accept everything they are told these days without question. They are called sheeple for a reason. and you my friend are a prime example. On a positive note, it's not really your fault.

The vaccine is not going to kill everyone. But it will kill some people, of that you can be certain. Whether or not their deaths are worth it, again, who knows. Will it kill more than the flu? Who knows, it did in 76. But you carry on taking their word for it by all means, it's your right.

But here's a thing. To what benefit does it serve the government to kill people more with vaccines than would die from swine flu? Or the scientists performing the research? Or even the drugs companies making the vaccines? We have free press, and the long term ramifications of such bad press could be disastrous.

The alternative of not vaccinating people would only increase vaccinations (and their profile) later as more people succumb... which actually helps the above groups.

It also suggests governments/scientists/drugs companies are made up of evil people - which, frankly, is conspiracy territory.

Note, of course, the press can create/destroy hysteria as they please. To be honest, if there's any group I would trust in this, it's not unscientifically trained journalists.

But here's a thing. To what benefit does it serve the government to kill people more with vaccines than would die from swine flu? Or the scientists performing the research? Or even the drugs companies making the vaccines? We have free press, and the long term ramifications of such bad press could be disastrous.

The alternative of not vaccinating people would only increase vaccinations (and their profile) later as more people succumb... which actually helps the above groups.

It also suggests governments/scientists/drugs companies are made up of evil people - which, frankly, is conspiracy territory.

Note, of course, the press can create/destroy hysteria as they please. To be honest, if there's any group I would trust in this, it's not unscientifically trained journalists.

Exactly.

But here's a thing. To what benefit does it serve the government to kill people more with vaccines than would die from swine flu?

You assume they care. If a load of already sick people die from swine flu (as most dead seem to have pre-existing illness anyway) then they are no longer a burden on the social security system. You get the healthy by vaccination, thin em out a bit Add to that the billions the drug companies will make from publicly funded vaccination programs, and the conflict of interest cases, and at the very least it's turning a blind eye, at the worst its a wider conspiracy along with the continued milking of the world economies. It's called downsizing.

You assume they care. If a load of already sick people die from swine flu (as most dead seem to have pre-existing illness anyway) then they are no longer a burden on the social security system. You get the healthy by vaccination, thin em out a bit Add to that the billions the drug companies will make from publicly funded vaccination programs, and the conflict of interest cases, and at the very least it's turning a blind eye, at the worst its a wider conspiracy along with the continued milking of the world economies. It's called downsizing.

Ah. Conspiracy. Gotcha.

I'm out cause, tbh, talking to the crazies is a waste of my time.

You assume they care. If a load of already sick people die from swine flu (as most dead seem to have pre-existing illness anyway) then they are no longer a burden on the social security system. You get the healthy by vaccination, thin em out a bit Add to that the billions the drug companies will make from publicly funded vaccination programs, and the conflict of interest cases, and at the very least it's turning a blind eye, at the worst its a wider conspiracy along with the continued milking of the world economies. It's called downsizing.

It's called you don't know how the economy works. A living person generates income to the economy and the state. Death is expensive to the country.

I'm chalking this up to be fake as well.

It's not a scam to get on YouTube. She's clearly suffering, even if there may be more to it than "the seasonal flu vaccine did this to her!!". You can question part of the story without the whole thing being fake.

There is a one in a million type of chance that a flu shot (swine or regular) will lead to a swelling of the brain.

We should all be so lucky if the 2009 swine flu vaccine affects more people with these extremely rare side effects than the flu itself this time around.

Just looking at the math, if 300 million people get the flu shot then a few dozen or even a few hundred people will have a serious reaction.

Meanwhile 5,382 people have already died from the swine flu and those numbers are continually increasing. If 50% of the general population gets the H1N1 flu shot then those numbers will stay under control. If too many people pass on the H1N1 flu shot then those numbers will likely keep escalating and if there is a mutation (which is more likely if there are more carriers) then those numbers will truly skyrocket.

How many of those 5382 people were already severely ill with an unrelated complication? How many of those with a complication would have died had they contracted the seasonal flu as opposed to an h1n1 variant? Don't know huh? Speculation speculation speculation. Your post is full of what ifs, and that about sums up the whole swine flu pandemic scam.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!