Saturday, October 31, 2009

"Vaccine phobia runs deep" because your irrational.

That's right!

When I got up today and contemplated my blog post for the day, I thought to myself
-Do not blog on swine flu! Let it go for a day or so. But, dammit, I can't!
Why? Because of the morning newspaper!
This article Vaccine phobia runs deep just burnt me up.

The very title of the article is intended to portray the concern over vaccine usage as irrational, hence the use of the word phobia. If the article wanted to portray legitimate concerns with anything other then derision, words such as "concern", or "uneasy" could have been used. But since that was not the intent of the article, the writer or someone chose derogatory terminology.

The opening cheap shot:
"Canada is in the midst of its largest-ever mass immunization campaign and, these days, people naturally turn to the Internet for information, or what passes for it"

Or what passes for it, means simply this is not credible information, it is just something that passes for it. Pretends to be credible. Better to get your info from msm or the government, because they do not lie or misinform, ever.

Then she quotes this statement as information available on line, "or what passes for it."

They will learn a variety of things. For example:

1) That vaccines are flat-out dangerous because they're chock-full of toxins; mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, and such like.


Let's go to the closing paragraph, which of course no one is going to read, or very few people, save for me read to the end.

For the record: The H1N1 vaccine – named Arepanrix by manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline – doesn't contain a live virus but "antigens" that trick the immune system into thinking it's been attacked and help produce anti-bodies. It also contains two "adjuvants," agents that stimulate the immune system: vitamin E and the organic compound squalene from fish oil. Minute amounts of thimerisol, a mercury-containing preservative, and aluminium are in it too.
Do you notice that first paragraph of "what passes for information" is correct? Mercury and aluminum are indeed in the shots. Does Lynda Hurst wonder at the cumulative effects of these toxins in the body? Apparently not.

See, it's not that bad Lynda Hurst soothes us . GSK admits it has mercury, aluminum, two experimental adjuvants (which she fails to mention) and she forgot the formaldehyde.

Here is a link to an Arepanrix Information Pamphlet by GSK. That is the H1N1 vaccine.
And here is the formaldehyde mentioned in the pamphlet:

"The virus is inactivated with ultraviolet light treatment followed by formaldehyde treatment"

Oh and in between the labelling and ridicule we have the esteemed Dr. David Butler Jones claiming "People make up the facts". Yeah, sure they do!
The reality is you don't have to make this stuff up!

The experimental adjuvant is ASO3. "Adjuvant: DL-α-tocopherol 11.86 milligrams/0.5mL dose Squalene 10.69 milligrams/0.5mL dose, Polysorbate 80 4.86 milligrams/0.5mL dose
Squalene, Squalene, Squalene.

The adjuvant ASO3 was not tested along with the H1N1 vaccine for useage with children, it was tested with the H5N1 vaccine. GSK admits that in their own literature, though I have written on that previously. Their dosage recomendations are not even based on the mix of H1N1 vaccine and ASO3 adjuvants. GSK acknowledges that also.
The dose recommendations are largely based on:

• safety and immunogenicity data available on the administration of AS03-adjuvanted vaccine containing 3.75 μg HA derived from A/Indonesia/5/2005 (H5N1) (Arepanrix™ H5N1) at 0 and 21 days to adults, including the elderly

• safety and immunogenicity data available on the administration of the adult dose and half of the adult dose to children aged from 3-9 years with anotherAS03-adjuvanted vaccine containing 3.75 μg HA derived from A/Vietnam/1194/2004 (H5N1) at 0 and 21 days
• limited
I say largely because there was one limited study done with ASO3 and H1n1, done only on adults.

• limited immunogenicity data from 2 studies obtained three weeks after administration of a single dose of an investigational formulation of another AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine containing either 5.25 μg or 3.75 μg HA derived from A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) (Pandemrix™) to healthy adults aged 18-60 years

Therefore the dosage recommendations for children are based on a different vaccine.

Nothing has to be "made up" by anyone. All the facts are available.

But, how dare you make your own decision in your own best interests! How dare you want to chose and control the amount of known toxins in your own body? How dare you want to think for yourself, and not follow the herd. How dare you not listen to Lynda Hurst as she derides legitimate concerns. Your concerns are not legitimate, your just an irrational phobic prone delusional nutjob!

9 comments:

  1. Penny Penny Penny, tsk. Tsk. Tsk. each and every day you sound more like a benefit of vaccine denier, just to think that all of the moneys that the government has spent on trying to convince us all of the value of said vaccines and it seems all of their bullshit has been totally wasted on you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, it is so irrational of you to have misgivings about essentially being a test subject for an experimental drug. From Public Health Canada's "Guidance Document on the Use of Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1)2009 Inactivated Monovalent Vaccine October 21, 2009: "To date there are limited immunogenicity data available for either of the GSK pH1N1 vaccine formulations, although data on them and on vaccines produced by other manufacturers are begining to be released as clinical trials and pandemic immunization programs in other countries are being implemented." Meaning, we will know what happens & how it works as it is being given to people. Everyone who gets it is essentially a test subject in a drug trial. The clinical trials they refer to include two test groups with a combined total of 123 subjects (see same Puclic Health document). This low number of subjects would not normally be accepted in a drug trial - standard is 1000 subjects. Such "irrational" people - how silly to be cautious about being a guinea pig for GSK !

    ReplyDelete
  3. hey silverfish, wanna laugh?
    someone hit on this blog, searching for "big pharma puppet david butler jones"

    I had to laugh, and of course, twas your comment that brung'em!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Public Health Canada document that Sanj so kindly provided the quote from is available

    here

    The specific information is on Pg.7


    But there is more, as Sanj pointed out the data for the trial comes from very small group of adult subjects. And for children there appears to be no information specific to the vaccine being used.
    That information also begins on Page 7 and carries on to Page 8

    irrational? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's crazy, the way people are brainwashed by propaganda given out by the government. Amazing, and sickening to watch.

    For all you who have children: Please, teach them independence of thought, and please teach them to question everything.

    To be able to reason things out for yourself, and to be able to accept conclusions that run opposite to common thought, and to have the courage to not be emotionally coerced into cowing to the greater will of the public - this is the greatest gift you can give a child.

    This second coming of the swine flu is an amazing psychological experiment to watch. Amazing, and horrifying.

    News these days is a mindfuck.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The contents and goals of vaccine manufacterers shouldn't surprise anyone. We have a privately owned and operated for profit government working with privately owned and operated for profit vaccine manufacterers getting togather to make money.

    We should only be surprised if we had a government that was mandated to protect our rights doing this. We do not have a government that is mandated to protect our rights. That government went into Ch11 bankruptcy and has been taken over.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The propaganda push for flu vaccines has reached a level of absurdity that's just begging to be made fun of. Today, a flu vaccine story appearing in Reuters claimed that injecting pregnant women with flu shots would increase the birth weight of their babies by half a pound. (That’s a lot of mercury btw) That same story claimed flu shots are so healthy for pregnant women that they also prevent premature births.

    It even quotes a team of experts who claim that injecting an expectant mother with a flu shot would reduce the hospitalization of her infants, explaining: "Flu vaccine given to women during pregnancy is 85 percent effective in preventing hospitalization in their infants under 6 months of age."

    This conclusion was derived from a study of pregnant women in Bangladesh, by the way, and it didn't even use randomized, placebo-controlled study protocols, meaning the conclusions of the study are highly unreliable (more vaccine quackery).

    Speaking of bizarre claims, another Reuters report appearing this week claims that statin drugs prevent flu deaths!

    This story reports, "Patients taking statin drugs were almost 50 percent less likely to die from flu, researchers reported on Thursday in a study providing more evidence the cholesterol-lowering drugs help the body cope with infection."

    How was this "science" conducted? There wasn't even a clinical trial at all. Researchers simply checked the medical records of people who died from seasonal flu infections and found that 3.2% of the patients who weren't taking statin drugs died from flu complications while only 2.1% of the patients who were taking statin drugs died. Since 2.1% is roughly 50% less than 3.2%, they leaped to the conclusion that "statin drugs prevent flu deaths by 50 percent!" Yuh know Penny if Yuh adjust the light just right and squint a bit this all starts to make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. slozo: I was thinking about what you said, as I was out for a woodland walk this am.

    I am all for teaching your kids to be independant thinkers, and to not follow the herd.

    The teen years make that such a challenge, because all they want is to fit in.

    And then when they think for themselves and challenge you and your authority as a parent, it also get's tough.

    I know, been there, done that.

    But, it is worth it, and you get this sense of pride when they do think for themselves and make their own decisions.

    And you realize you done good!

    ReplyDelete
  9. hey doug, true, true.
    Look at the money being spent if Afghanistan for the pipeline, that is money far better spent at home.

    And silv, my god, anything to push the swine flu vaccine.
    anything at all.

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS