Swine Flu Vaccine - Deaths

[glyder]

FWIW....


Apparently there have been five deaths and 350 cases of adverse after effects from the swine flu vaccine in Sweden.

http://www.thelocal.se/22846/20091024/


http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article6026728.ab
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_3712585.svd

I don't know which vaccine the Swedes are using.Nor whether the newspapers reporting it are their equivalent of the Times or the Sunday Sport.

The UK Govt has ordered 2 different vaccines (sensibly to diversify suppliers) one requires only one jab and no boosters because it has a booster element in it. Which sounds a good idea.
However this booster element is untested on various sensitive types eg pregnant women, leukaemia sufferers. The World Health Org does not recommend it for vaccination on persons with these conditions, the German govt and various other EU govts are ensuring that this vaccine with the 'booster' (adjuvant) is only used in accordance with the WHO rules.
The UK govt refuses to do so, claiming it is safe for all whateverthe WHO recommends, and we all get the booster adjuvant version whatever condition we have unless we have a history of being allergic to eggs, which apparently really gives you a bad reaction.

Just putting this up here because I have come across the info, it seems it gets a lot more news coverage overseas than here, so thought would post it. I am not at all medically qualified, nor do I have science background and cannot very well judge what I am told about swine flu vaccines but some things seem fairly black and white eg WHO lack of approval....
DYOR, sprinkle the word 'allegedly' throughout the above. I'm certainly no expert to listen to on this.


This link has some info on the adjuvants

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ferguswalsh/2009/10/vaccination_gets_the_green_light.html

 

[Gumping]

FWIW....


Apparently there have been five deaths and 350 cases of adverse after effects from the swine flu vaccine in Sweden.

http://www.thelocal.se/22846/20091024/


http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article6026728.ab
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_3712585.svd

I don't know which vaccine the Swedes are using.Nor whether the newspapers reporting it are their equivalent of the Times or the Sunday Sport.

The UK Govt has ordered 2 different vaccines (sensibly to diversify suppliers) one requires only one jab and no boosters because it has a booster element in it. Which sounds a good idea.
However this booster element is untested on various sensitive types eg pregnant women, leukaemia sufferers. The World Health Org does not recommend it for vaccination on persons with these conditions, the German govt and various other EU govts are ensuring that this vaccine with the 'booster' (adjuvant) is only used in accordance with the WHO rules.
The UK govt refuses to do so, claiming it is safe for all whateverthe WHO recommends, and we all get the booster adjuvant version whatever condition we have unless we have a history of being allergic to eggs, which apparently really gives you a bad reaction.

Just putting this up here because I have come across the info, it seems it gets a lot more news coverage overseas than here, so thought would post it. I am not at all medically qualified, nor do I have science background and cannot very well judge what I am told about swine flu vaccines but some things seem fairly black and white eg WHO lack of approval....
DYOR, sprinkle the word 'allegedly' throughout the above. I'm certainly no expert to listen to on this.


This link has some info on the adjuvants

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ferguswalsh/2009/10/vaccination_gets_the_green_light.html

The adjuvant in this case consists of squalene, which is an intermediate in cholesterol biosynthesis and also the major component of earwax :-0
Alpha tocopherol, aka vitamin E.
And Polysorbate 80, which is an emulsifier that has been used in foods for decades.

The squalene is the active component in this case, and presumably it stimulates the immune system. These types of triterpenoids are known as immunomodulators and pro-inflammatory reagents. It will serve to activate the immune system, causing a more vigorous response to the antigen present in the vaccine. Fine in a healthy patient, but as mentioned in the article, untested on the infirm, elderly and pregnant etc. as well as anybody else at possible risk. Hence the use of the adjuvated vaccine is a sensible precaution.

As for the side-effects it's difficult to say anything about them, since all vaccines cause side-effects (Due to their having an major effect on the immune system), and most flu vaccines can cause flu-like symptoms...so I'm not sure what they are referring to when they say this - it is natural, for example, to experience nausea, dizziness, tiredness, low energy etc after vaccination.

 

[glyder]

Gumping,
thanks for adding to the thread, clearly far more informed than I am.

Another article here...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/s...e-flu-more-likely-to-need-intensive-care.html

one thing that arises out of this interview is that the medical tests included 90 women who have subsequently become pregnant and some have since given birth. There have been no adverse effects. Also Dr Salisbury, Head of Immunisations for the UK, prefers chocolate biscuits.a
Which is good news.

 

[£10kLoser]

H1N1 vaccines have split the population in two. The general public has no clue but a growing number realise what is going on. This is not the place to talk much about it but if you Google the topic, you will find extremely strong evidence that the vaccine is harmful and has deliberately been made so. Lawsuits have been brought against manufacturers (and politicians) involved (Google Jane Burgermeister), which have conveniently disappeared. Officials were replaced with those sympathetic to ‘the cause’. Numerous doctors have given evidence and various way out info about death threats claim to have resulted! Research it for yourself and make up your own mind.

Why? Again, long story but it is connected with the financial crisis, the fact that pharmaceutical companies want sickness, not health, in order to make money and also the desire for several governments to tighten up their control laws (talk of Martial Law in the US) and introducing the One World Government that politicians are now openly talking about. Sounds good? Not really as it will be the end of freedom, involve death and suffering and certainly be the end of trading as we know it!

This also ties in with the COP15 climate talks that will lay down the global regulations to allow a One World Government or the New World Order.

Vaccinations will make the minor epidemic much worse, whether you are one of the uninformed who gets a shot or not - since we only need 10% of the population to be carriers of a more deadly strain. Incidentally, the World Health Organisation's declaration of a level 6 pandemic allows them to overrule all national laws and by coincidence, the head of WHO is a Chinese whose speciality was epidemics.

And no, I’m not a long-time supporter of conspiracy theories, just somebody who has taken the trouble to find out what’s behind the obvious fiasco of Swine Flu…

 

[dcraig1]

Oh please, can we not don the tin foil hats just yet.

No doubt big pharma has acted shall we say, less than ethically, in the past and no doubt will do so on occasions in the future.

But it is more than a bit of stretch to tie it into some sort of mega conspiracy.

In general capitalism doesn't especially like unhealthy populations. Sick workers don't produce much and sick consumers don't consume much. To suggest that there is a plan to make the populace so ill as to be unable to resist the "conspiracy" is absurd - of the order of the return of the black death.

In any case, just about any medical procedure, medication etc can and do have side effects - the question is whether the risk outweighs the condition that it attempts to treat or prevent.

And what has it got to do with global warming?

 

[£10kLoser]

There's an informed reply. You've obviously researched it well...

 

[dcraig1]

There's an informed reply. You've obviously researched it well...

You mean I don't believe every bit of silliness posted on internet blogs and conspiracy web sites. You are right.

And I don't conflate propaganda with research.

 

[glyder]

H1N1 vaccines have split the population in two. The general public has no clue but a growing number realise what is going on. This is not the place to talk much about it but if you Google the topic, you will find extremely strong evidence that the vaccine is harmful and has deliberately been made so......

I've not heard this sort of stuff. It sounds urban myth stuff, and not the symptoms of possible less than rigorous scientific testing that I refer to in the earlier posts above.

I posted this thread to inform, I'm pretty certain the majority of readers on this forum can sort the internet myth stories from the concerns about the vaccine that certain 'at risk' sectors of society are facing.

Still, then again, I wouldn't put it past Labour to include a 'vote labour at the next election' agent into the vaccine.
And I don't put a smiley after this cos if they could they would.
Hey maybe thats the big plan all along, cos I never met any real life person with swine flu yet, .....probably can find out from google

 

[glyder]

Theres a PM petition for this now. For what its worth.
Have any of these things ever had any impact on policy ?
Or is it more likely just a way to appease the public, giving the impression they can have an influence?

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SFjabchoicePG/

 

[£10kLoser]

Since H1N1 is less dangerous and has caused far fewer deaths than ordinary flu, why bother with vaccinations at all? It's only when it mutates to a more lethal form that we need be worried. But, the vaccine has been deveoped for the existing form so will have little effect on future, mutated strains. Doctors tell us that a vaccination given to anyone carrying the virus will greatly increase the chace of mutations and do more harm than good.

But as long as people believe what the media tells them...

Who owns the media? The same few families that are connected with the pharmaceutical companies.

 

[glyder]

Since H1N1 is less dangerous and has caused far fewer deaths than ordinary flu, why bother with vaccinations at all? I.

Quite possibly true. Whether it will remain so we do not know.
Quite possibly we do not need vaccinations. But maybe we do.
Maybe some of us won't live to regret it if we don't have them.
Probably noone knows the answers to this.
I certainly have no idea. I'm not a medical man or scientist.
I doubt very much if I would get vaccinated my self.
I put this information here because it seems only available to a few in the medical world and to those who have bothered to do their research. And there are genuine concerns for some members of society.
This is probably the case for many medical issues, that we never hear about.
But this affects lots of people. And they are issues beng debated in the medical world.
Not conspiracy theories. So here it is.

Take your doctors advice.
I

 

[£10kLoser]

Take your doctors advice?

People have been saying that for hundreds of years and yet we laugh at the advice given back then. In 50 years time, people will laugh at our doctors. Up until now, nobody could find out the facts and had to 'take advice'. Now, it's all available on the Internet.

Traders are supposed to be mavericks who think for themselves, not take advice.

Don't you think that doctors 'take advice' from the drug companies and simply hand out whichever drug makes them most money? Laws have been hurriedly been passed to absolve the pharmaceutical companies of any responsibility for harm caused by the H1N1 vaccine so that they cannot be taken to court if any bad side effects result.

The point is not whether I am right or wrong, it is that you should actually think about it and find out for yourself. Don't be a sheep and blindly do what you are told.

 

[dcraig1]

Mr Loser,

I'm going to have to disagree with you again.

The fact of the matter is that it is not "all available on the internet" in many different ways.

1. Many and probably most peer reviewed papers are not available for free. You need to pay hefty journal subscriptions for access. In fact the majority of authoritative sources are not available for free, so some casual Googling doesn't really cut it.

2. Do you really think that the kind of educational background and experience that should be expected of health care professionals can be acquired by a bit (or even a lot) of surfing . To be sure a dedicated person can self educate to a quite remarkable degree, but they still miss out on the direct interaction with peers and experience acquired in the traditional paths of training and education. This is not to be taken lightly.

3, The internet is awash with garbage. The problem is that many sites are there just for what might most generously be call advocacy, or possibly more accurately termed propaganda. They have no interest in publishing anything contrary to their particular view. They frequently cherry pick their examples, and not infrequently publish gross distortions of the fact. Throw in some scientific or medical jargon and the average person finds it very difficult to form any sort of informed critical opinion as they simply do not have the expertise. The publishers of these types of sites know this full well and cynically exploit it for their own purposes. The anti AGW sites are a prime example of this.

So no, the Internet has certainly not obsoleted formal education and training at all. In fact, it has probably made it more important to establish critical patterns of thinking and knowledge of science so that the typical person has some sort chance of sifting through all the muck on the Internet.

 

[glyder]

£10Loser
I'd say find out the best you can from experts first. Be a maverik after that if you want.
But find out the worst that can happen whilst you are maveriking.

I don't think you have read any of the thread properly, cos if you had you'd know I am offering information that many people are not aware of, although some of it is coming out in the news now, so that people are able to add to their knowledge ....and then guess what..... think for themselves.!!!!

Some of this information is from people who have researched papers at pretty high levels and had access to senior people in the project, they have a vested interest in their own health as they are in the 'at risk' groups.
Hence why they are thinking for themselves .....
Most people here are capable of that and they won't need your special advice about thinking(?) for yourself .

 

[Gumping]

£10K

Serious question for you:

Until a few months ago, I worked in R&D for the Infectious Diseases Program at one of the companies marketing a swine flu vaccine. I worked there for 4 years.

What, exactly, are you accusing me of?

 

[£10kLoser]

From your wording, you imply that you didn't actually work on the swine flu vaccine. In any case, how can I answer the question when you don't say what you did? However, there is no way you could have adequately tested the vaccine in such a short time - that's why a special law has been passed to prevent the manufacturers being sued for killing or harming anyone.

If you know about these things, tell us how long clinical trials normally last before a vaccine is approved? I'm sure the answer in longer than the time since H1N1 vaccine has been under development.

 

[arabianights]

H1N1 vaccines have split the population in two. The general public has no clue but a growing number realise what is going on. This is not the place to talk much about it but if you Google the topic, you will find extremely strong evidence that the vaccine is harmful and has deliberately been made so. Lawsuits have been brought against manufacturers (and politicians) involved (Google Jane Burgermeister), which have conveniently disappeared. Officials were replaced with those sympathetic to ‘the cause’. Numerous doctors have given evidence and various way out info about death threats claim to have resulted! Research it for yourself and make up your own mind.

Why? Again, long story but it is connected with the financial crisis, the fact that pharmaceutical companies want sickness, not health, in order to make money and also the desire for several governments to tighten up their control laws (talk of Martial Law in the US) and introducing the One World Government that politicians are now openly talking about. Sounds good? Not really as it will be the end of freedom, involve death and suffering and certainly be the end of trading as we know it!

This also ties in with the COP15 climate talks that will lay down the global regulations to allow a One World Government or the New World Order.

Vaccinations will make the minor epidemic much worse, whether you are one of the uninformed who gets a shot or not - since we only need 10% of the population to be carriers of a more deadly strain. Incidentally, the World Health Organisation's declaration of a level 6 pandemic allows them to overrule all national laws and by coincidence, the head of WHO is a Chinese whose speciality was epidemics.

And no, I’m not a long-time supporter of conspiracy theories, just somebody who has taken the trouble to find out what’s behind the obvious fiasco of Swine Flu…

This post... speaks for itself...

 

[Gumping]

From your wording, you imply that you didn't actually work on the swine flu vaccine. In any case, how can I answer the question when you don't say what you did? However, there is no way you could have adequately tested the vaccine in such a short time - that's why a special law has been passed to prevent the manufacturers being sued for killing or harming anyone.

If you know about these things, tell us how long clinical trials normally last before a vaccine is approved? I'm sure the answer in longer than the time since H1N1 vaccine has been under development.

The answer to that is simple: if it was a new vaccine, then the clinical trial process would be extremely long, probably around 10 years. But remember this is an influenza vaccine. It has a standard format, which has been used for years - influenza vaccines are produced every year, based around the particular strains that the WHO think are going to be prevalent that winter. Testing is negligible, since all safety data are already established from years of use. It would be the same with swine flu: H1N1 is a known viral genotype, and therefore the vaccine would follow the same protocol, and would be no safer or no less safe than any other influenza vaccine that has ever been produced.
So the answer to the question about testing is: Whatever the WHO, EMEA and FDA mandate as required. I don't know the answer to this, since I am not involved in safety testing in live patients.
The reason I asked the question is because your accusation is extremely broad and diffuse and seemingly implied there are underlying practices at pharma companies which I would definitely have been guilty of.

 

[gooseman]

ignorance is bliss

 

[£10kLoser]

ignorance is bliss

Yes, and the problem is that ignorant people refuse to look at the facts.

I would strongly suggest that everyone watches at least the first 15 or 20 minutes of this statement by a highly qaulified Spanish doctor who also happens to be a nun.

If you still think I'm promoting stupid conspiracy theories after this, then there's not a lot of hope for the future...

http://vimeo.com/7298827​