Hermes Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=40878 Well - it's happened. A member of staff at Nobles has been taken ill with a serious complication after receiving the inadequately tested vaccine against the so-called 'Swine Flu'. Staff receiving the jab have been given a leaflet telling them that this jab is the same as the normal flu jab, an unfortunate lie as it is augmented with chemicals called 'adjuvants', including one known as Squalene. Squalene antibodies have been identified as a marker of the so-called Gulf War Syndrome, controversially linked to hurriedly-prepared military vaccines in the 1990's and early 2000's. Worryingly, it appears from information given to the DHSS staff that the vaccine manufacturers have negotiated a deal where they are not held responsible for any adverse reactions resulting from this possibly inadequately-tested and poorly-justified medical treatment! This point is very worrying indeed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the uptake of the vaccine by hospital workers is possibly less than 20%, suggesting a deep mistrust of both the vaccine and the indeed the whole characterisation of H1N1 as a serious public health problem, which overwhelming emerging evidence is suggesting that it is not and has never been. If medical professionals have this much trust in the vaccine, then what conclusions must the public then draw from this? I also hear stories of staff being pressured into receiving the jabs - both within healthcare services and in the education sector. There is no evidence suggesting a need for vaccination, particularly as there is no evidence it significantly protects against influenza. Even leading experts on vaccination are concurring with this (eg - Professor Tom Jefferson of the influential Cochrane Collaboration). H1N1 typically manifests as an illness similar to the common cold, but with a higher fever. Many sufferers are asymptomatic, and many describe it as less of an illness than the usual Influenza, which considering the WHO-encouraged global response is utterly shocking. Attention needs to be drawn to a number of alerts now being raised about the connections of some of the WHO's senior flu advisors, who shockingly have been shown to have close connections to the pharmaceutical companies now making Billions out of 'Swine Flu' vaccines and drugs, even though scientific doubt has been cast on the utility of these for years. It appears that the World Health Organisation (a branch of the World Trade organisation) has seemed a little too keen to promote these interventions, in the face of overwhelming evidence against the need for them. This smacks of corruption at the highest level, particularly as their chief - Dr Margaret Chan - is on record as claiming that H1N1 posed a threat to 'all of humanity', even though she provided no basis for such a claim. The Isle of Man is following closely (but not exactly) after the example of Britain, and people ought to be aware that one of Britain's top Swine Flu advisors - Professor Sir Roy Anderson - is a paid-up non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, one of the major players in the pharmaceutical industry supplying drugs and vaccines. What are we to make of this? The public really needs to wake up and start to question just what the hell has been going on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 The public really needs to wake up and start to question just what the hell has been going on! I agree. People should definately wake up and question this kind of fear propoganda and misinformation. Your email is mostly nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Many sufferers are asymptomatic, and many describe it as less of an illness than the usual Influenza, which considering the WHO-encouraged global response is utterly shocking. But for vulnerable groups it's not, which is why hospital workers need to be vaccinated so they don't infect the patients. But you know this don't you? You're just scaremongering. Go and buy the Daily Mail where you'll have more sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishbashbosh Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Where did the word serious come from? And from what I've seen there is no pressure on Government staff to have the vaccine as will be the case for at risk groups. It's a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 We're doomed, I tell thee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted November 28, 2009 Author Share Posted November 28, 2009 ....Your email is mostly nonsense. Huh? Do you mean my post is nonsense? You're welcome to your opinion, but is it based on checking the facts for yourself? Sarah C: As for suggesting that healthcare workers will give Influenza to their patients - that is nonsense, as they will be off work if they are ill to avoid passing it on - just like any other mild cough or cold! They are being offered vaccines to stop them being off sick. As you can probably tell from my post, I am against the position of scaremongering - generally defined by dictionaries as 'circulating alarming rumours'. Slim and many others agree that 'scaremongering' is a key problem with H1N1... Are you willing to provide evidence to the contradict my arguments or are you just going to sit and snipe? The fact is that there is little evidence to suggest the efficacy of Influenza vaccines in general. A world authority on the matter has concluded such, and has criticised the WHO for its position. Go and Google for articles by Professor Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration if you have any doubts... The fact is that in spite of the propaganda we are saturated with, there is no evidence justifying the massive and unusual response to 'Swine Flu', or the power given over local authorities to circumvent the opinions and practices of our doctors in determining if there is in fact a crisis worthy of such a response. The Flu season is a terrible time anyway, and H1N1 is at least a light relief from some of the other more virulent Influenza infections we get most years. Surely your best bet to guaranteed immunity, if healthy, is to get H1N1 and seek early treatment with antibiotics if you think you have acquired a secondary infection. This is better than going round for a week with flu-like symptoms and a sore red arm, and at worst Guillain-Barre Syndrome and a prolonged stay in intensive care (if you are lucky)! Even after the vaccine, you probably only have a 1:5 chance of being fully immune to H1N1 ... but then Public Health officials skirt around these points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Are you willing to provide evidence to the contradict my arguments or are you just going to sit and snipe? I actually agree with you that the vaccine has had insufficent testing. That is clear from the speed these drugs have appeared, which normally take years in the development and testing stage. However, after reading your first post again, you don't actually offer much in the way of evidence yourself. A couple of vague references, the use of words like 'anecdotal' and 'I've heard stories' don't do much for those wanting to make appraised judgements for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 i did find it odd that the 'kish' who keeps on spouting about the benefits and necessity of 'waxinations' was himself allegedly/possibly afflicted with swine flu. how come he hadn't had the protection of the jab?? moving on, when the MMR jab became the in thing and people were blaming it for autism, the same priminister who was backing the safety of the jab didn't have his own child vacinated with it, but went down the more expensive route ( that we all used to get till the cost was an issue ) of seperate innoculations. lastly, all the deaths that get attributed to the flu waxine are all blamed on 'underlying' medical conditions!! why then are people with underlying medical conditions given the jab???? is it some sort of culling of those who may be a drain on resourses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Careful not to touch your screen reading this thread - Hermes IS a Carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Where did the word serious come from? You actually. The original report says they "became ill" and that's all. You managed to turn that into "taken ill with a serious complication" Whatever scaremongering you claim goes on from health authorities is something you're quite partial to yourself from the other side of the fence. After all, you rushed to your keyboard to post your ill informed sensationalist rhetoric as soon as you heard about this, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Are you willing to provide evidence to the contradict my arguments or are you just going to sit and snipe? Can I stand and snipe? Oh, and if it's often symptomless, how will they know to stay off with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Well I wouldn't have the jab if I worked at Nobles. In all drug regimes the benefit/risk angle should always be considered. IMO I don't think the benefit outweighs the risk unless you are otherwise medically compromised. wtf - I've read your post several times and I still can't work out if you are drawing a parallel with this and MMR. If you are then MMR has been very well tested and the alleged link to autism has been completely discredited. The separate triple innoculations were also a cynical exploitation of peoples fears to sell them something supposedly safer. I wasn't of course but, hey, playing on people's fears is a great marketing tool. The press worked that one out a hundred or two years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Where did the word serious come from? You actually. The original report says they "became ill" and that's all. You managed to turn that into "taken ill with a serious complication" Whatever scaremongering you claim goes on from health authorities is something you're quite partial to yourself from the other side of the fence. After all, you rushed to your keyboard to post your ill informed sensationalist rhetoric as soon as you heard about this, right? But it's Hermes' thread and title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.