A mass swine flu vaccination programme in the U.S. in 1976 caused far more deaths than the disease it was designed to combat, and the Health Protection Agency watchdog has asked doctors to look out for cases of GBS when the vaccinations begin.
According to Meryl Nass, M.D., an authority on the anthrax vaccine:
A novel feature of the two H1N1 vaccines being developed by companies Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline is the addition of squalene-containing adjuvants to boost immunogenicity and dramatically reduce the amount of viral antigen needed. This translates to much faster production of desired vaccine quantities.
All higher organisms produce the hydrocarbon squalene (oil soluble), including humans. Squalene is a natural and vital part of the synthesis of cholesterol, steroid hormones, and vitamin D in the human body.
The difference between “good” and “bad” squalene is the route by which it enters your body. Injection is an abnormal route of entry which may incite your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.Anti-squalene antibodies have also been linked to Gulf War Syndrome.
Symptoms included – arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, CFS, headaches, hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR, lupus, MS, ALS, Raynaud’s, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.
How did the authorities assess the safety of the Swine flu vaccine?
Because authorities believe this is and will be a severe pandemic, it is felt that emergency protective measures are needed. It is on the basis of the safety and efficacy record of the existing seasonal flu vaccine programs that the swine flu vaccine program will be fast-tracked through…because there is no time to conduct the usual efficacy and safety tests.
However the safety of the swine flu vaccine cannot be gleaned from old data because the viral elements are new and there will be new adjuvants and new combinations of virus. So if the virus is new enough to cause panic, pandemic and huge death toll, why is it not considered new enough to warrant anything more than traditional rapid testing of the normal flu vaccines.
Swine flu trials
Trialled on healthy 18-50 year olds…however the vaccines will be used on everyone else! Elderly, sick, pregnant and young children.
Can we rely on the safety data from swine flu trials?
Nina Bautz reported in the German newspaper Munich Merkur 21/8/09:
Graduate businessman Axel Sch. (40) claims:
The vaccination has made me ill! – the test is irresponsible.” He says that within a few hours after the vaccination, on August 10, he had sweat on his forehead. “I felt totally beat. On the third day, my kidneys and head were aching and I got a fever. I then had a coughing fit – and the wash basin was suddenly red – it was blood!”
LMU-medical researcher Frank von Sonnenburg, who is in charge of the German country-wide vaccine safety trial, does not consider these accounts credible. He says that such side-effects cannot be related to the vaccine.
Axel Sch. however insists that his complaints were a result of the vaccination – “Surely it is no coincidence that they occurred directly after the vaccination.” Now his trust in research is gone, he is quitting the vaccine trial.
Doctors and Nurses not convinced of the vaccine…
Up to half of family doctors do not want to be vaccinated against swine flu. More than two thirds of those who will turn the jab down believe it has not been tested enough. Most also believe the flu has turned out to be so mild in the vast majority of cases that the vaccine is not needed.
Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse, said: ‘The medical profession has yet to be convinced by the Government’s whole approach to swine flu, with most GPs now feeling that the Department of Health overreacted in its policy on blanket use of Tamiflu…initially recommended and later withdrawn from blanket use.Nurses polled also reflect that one third are unwilling to be vaccinated
Will the vaccine be tested?
If authorities can’t show effectiveness in 40 years of seasonal flu vaccine how are they going to do it now with swine flu vaccine?
Is the vaccine going to be tested at all? Governments say yes, however they have already bought the vaccines on the basis that the vaccines will pass tests on a certain date.
“Therefore: how is it possible to have a pre-specified schedule of approval in a process where the approval may be delayed or even rejected? And how is it possible for governments to spend public funds by paying in advance for products whose introduction on the market may never be granted?
The answer is clear:
Our health authorities have never been seriously thinking of genuinely assessing the new influenza vaccines.” Dr Marc Girard
Evidence emerging swine flu is a mild illness
Before the vaccine campaign is underway the evidence emerging from the Southern Hemisphere is that this is an unusually mild illness. Inspite of this evidence pandemic status remains and vaccine promoters urge vaccination to protect against the flu mutating to a more serious form.
However if we do follow this argument we see that it is quite incongruent: Mutation is the tendency of all flu illnesses, therefore what’s so special about this one and why is it necessarily more deadly than previous diseases?
If it does mutate it could equally mutate to a less dangerous illness. Additionally if it does mutate significantly the vaccine made from existing swine flu virus would be useless.
Why are people so scared of the swine flu?
Peter Doshi, “Viral Marketing: The Selling of the Flu Vaccine.” March. 2006
There is a strategy for selling flu shots. 2004 National Influenza Vaccine Summit, Glen Nowak of CDC explained how certain messages generate buzz and drive demand.
The influenza vaccine is a national industry, with President Bush asking Congress to fund a $7.1 billion flu “preparedness plan.”
The recipe, as Nowak revealed, relies on creating “concern, anxiety, and worry” its main ingredient, in other words, is fear.
Government officials and health experts are instructed to:”Predict dire outcomes.”
2002 focus group, the CDC determined that death statistics were “eye catching and motivating.” Participants in the study believed “20,000 deaths was compelling, frightening” and “should be part of the headline.”
In 2003, the agency began announcing that the number of Americans killed each year by flu had surged to 36,000, an 80 percent increase that is now widely reported.
Among all flu-prevention messages in the news during the week of 9/21/03, according to Nowak’s presentation, “Flu kills 36,000 per year” appeared second most often, just behind “Doctors recommend/urge flu shot.”
But the 36,000 figure is actually a measure of “flu-associated” fatalities, almost exclusively among the elderly and infirm, whose deaths from other illnesses the CDC thinks might not have occurred without the flu but not caused by flu. Records show that only 1,400 deaths a year are attributed to flu.
Another way to “motivate behavior,” is to describe a flu season as “very severe,” “more severe” than previous years, and “deadly“ all terms that had been used to frame the 2003-2004 threat. Yet that winter’s flu was later ruled “typical” and “medium in terms of overall impact.”
The CDC believes anything that encourages more people to get flu shots, even, as suggested in this step, spreading the notion that all of us could be in serious danger, will result in fewer deaths.
But the efficacy of the flu vaccine is itself uncertain. After looking at more than three decades of data, scientists at the National Institutes of Health last year concluded:
We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group.”
And because flu shots contain some level of toxic mercury, there is concern that for some the vaccine might do more harm than good.