H1N1 Ingredients for Depopulation

In order to make informed vaccine decisions, you must know what the ingredients are. Since there are no long term saftey studies done on any vaccines including h1n1 it is up to you to decide if the vaccine is safe or not. I'm just here to tell you what it's made of...

Formaldehyde: 
A 37% gaseous solution of formaldehyde which includes methanol. (formalin) is considered a hazardous compound and is vapour toxic.

Polysorbate 80: 
Is shown to cause infertility in mice.

Sodium Chloride and Calcium Chloride:
A deliquescent salt; used in de-icing and as a drying agent.

Monosodium Glutimate:
MSG has been attributed to a wide range of symptoms including migranes, nasuea, digestive upsets, hair loss and asthma to name a few.

Potassium Phosphate:
A soluble salt used as fertilizer, food additive and fungicide. It is also a buffering agent.

Thimerosal:
A form of mercury still found in some multi vile vaccines.

Polyoxidomium:
Synthetic polymers and nanomaterials. When mixed with DNA they can drastically alter specific genetically controlled responses to these agents.

And the soft kill ingedient....

Squalene:
An oil based adjuvant that has never been proven safe. Can cause blindness, automotive dysfunction and decrease sperm production. Take at your own risk.

docs.docstoc.com...

With a little media scare tactics and forced vaccinations depopulation is starting to look like a reality.





[edit on 17-12-2009 by SuperSlovak]

Since there are no long term saftey studies done on any vaccines including h1n1 it is up to you to decide if te vaccine is safe or not.

This statement is just demonstrably wrong. Most all medications are subject to Phase IV post-clinical trials which are ongoing long after approval processes so as to assess potential risk in the greater population outside of control environments. (I.E., where people tend to mix OTC drugs with prescription drugs, over/under medicate, are exposed to a wider ranger of environmental factors, etc). Basically, it's a matter of keeping an eye on how the drug is preforming and gathering data so as to correlate emerging long term trends. Everybody has a unique biochemistry, and no one drug is going to work exactly the same as as well for everyone in all situations in all environments. Yet if a previously tested safe drug seems to be positively correlated to some other condition (such as hypertension, for example) in a noticeable segment of the population - it is subject to discontinuation.

In regards to vaccines, I didn't have to do but a single search on PubMed before bringing up results that contradict your claim. For instance the first one at the top of page for me was:

Sustained efficacy and immunogenicity of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine: analysis of a randomised placebo-controlled trial up to 6.4 years.

Snipped from the Abstract: BACKGROUND: Prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have to provide sustained protection. We assessed efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine up to 6.4 years. METHODS: Women aged 15-25 years, with normal cervical cytology, who were HPV-16/18 seronegative and oncogenic HPV DNA-negative (14 types) at screening participated in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled initial study (n=1113; 560 vaccine group vs 553 placebo group) and follow-up study (n=776; 393 vs 383). 27 sites in three countries participated in the follow-up study.

PubMed

That's just one site which holds all the studies you could possibly need to make or break your point of contention if you actually gave a damned about being right. So next time how about before you claim that no long-term studies have been conducted on safety - try to at least make it look like you did a little research first.

The rest of your post is a mess which doesn't address the differences between the components of the nasal inhalation and injection version. I suppose a word or two about the LD50 of those components would be too much to hope for. Everything is poisonous, governed by the dose. In rats, the LD50 of Vitamin C is about 11.9 g/kg (dose per kilogram of body weight). For Caffeine it's about 192 mg/kg. Nicotine, 50 mg/kg. Sodium Nitrate, 180 mg/kg.

Did you know the LD50 for Table Salt in rats is about 3,000 mg/kg. Impressive considering that table salt is a compound consisting of Sodium and Chlorine. NaCl. Do you know what pure sodium or chlorine would do to your body? The LD50 in rats for Chlorine is 292 mg/kg roughly. Sodium? It wouldn't matter. You'd likely either never be able to ingest it, or die regardless as it interacted with the water in your mouth/GI tract.





If there are legitimate concerns over H1N1 vaccine safety - you're not doing a good job of presenting them, nor do you seem the right person to be arguing them.

reply to post by Lasheic


I could find you a bunch of information on vaccine related deaths but even that might not be enough for some.

Originally posted by Lasheic

Originally posted by Super Slovak
Since there are no long term saftey studies done on any vaccines including h1n1 it is up to you to decide if te vaccine is safe or not.

This statement is just demonstrably wrong. Most all medications are subject to Phase IV post-clinical trials which are ongoing long after approval processes so as to assess potential risk in the greater population outside of control environments.

You think the US government and their countless agencies have our best interests at heart? No problem my friend. Suppose you tell us how the FDA approved aspartame? Could it be that some cash passing the right palms can work wonders?

Could it be that a company like Baxter can distribute contaminated materials across many different countries and still remain in business -- without cooperating or criminally incompetent governments backing them??

Perhaps you can explain to us why we are still buying chinese products after they have poisoned our pet food and baby formula?

Originally posted by Lasheic

If there are legitimate concerns over H1N1 vaccine safety - you're not doing a good job of presenting them, nor do you seem the right person to be arguing them.

SuperSlovak appears to have our best interest at heart and he writes far more eloquently than I do. At the very least he is not giving a CIA mouthpiece a stage for disseminating pro-government propaganda. Which is more than I can say for some people and conspiracy boards.













[edit on 17-12-2009 by praxis]

reply to post by SuperSlovak

I could find you a bunch of information on vaccine related deaths but even that might not be enough for some.

You can try, but prior experience has shown that when such a claim is generally made - it throws out any consideration of establishing actual demonstrable correlation presenting a direct and present threat to public health. Usually just standard conspiracy theory fare of personal testimonies, arguments from ignorance, and padding the numbers - topped off with a few examples of legitimate cases where outlier freak accidents caused the vaccine to actually do demonstrable damage to a few people.

I'll of course want to compare the mortality and disability rate of the cases where the vaccine can be demonstrably shown to have been a primary factor in the debilitation/death of the patient - then compare that to the mortality rate of the H1N1 virus itself. And then I want to compare that to the total number of vaccinations (both nasal and injection, as well as individually) given which had no fatal or debilitating effect. And while we're at it, let's go ahead and take some polls of randomly selected metropolises where vaccine distribution was high and compare average death rates in those cities before, during, and after both the virus's peak and the vaccines distribution. Marking controls for differentiating between children and high-risk groups, and low-risk geriatric groups.

We can even poll mortuaries on increases in funeral services/caskets sold/cremations preformed/etc.

And if you really want to see strong correlation between vaccination and improved health - we can compare impoverished African nations who have no health-care infrastructure against those African nations which DO have a functioning health care infrastructure - and we'll see how the distribution of the TB vaccine is affecting morbidity rates between the two nations of complications of TB, and complications of TB vaccine.

But I'm going to tell you right now, you're not going to like the outcome of the data.

You think the US government and their countless agencies have our best interests at heart?

Not necessarily... but I'm not so paranoid as to think they're trying to kill me either.

Suppose you tell us how the FDA approved aspartame? Could it be that some cash passing the right palms can work wonders?

And that would have... what.. to do with the claim of no long-term studies of vaccination recipients to gauge a potential health risk?

Considering the weight of current evidence strongly leading to aspartame being safe for general use when taken withing recommended guidelines, and that it's passed the approval process of over 90 industrialized nations - I think it's you who has the case to be making here.

But just how deep in peer-review research do you want to be buried? Because from what I've seen, the vast majority of studies do not support your claim that aspartame (in it's recommended guideline) is positively associated with health risks or complications. And even if you did positively establish that correlation, you still have the baseless assertion of a payoff to try to support despite not having a shred of substantiating evidence. You may think it's substantial.. but I've tended to notice that what many tout as substantial enough to hang others on, will quite quickly becomes unjust and flimsy trite should the same standard of evidence ever be held in establishing their own guilt over some matter.

For the moment, however, I'm resetting the goalpost and would ask that you stick to the topic at hand.

At the very least he is not giving a CIA mouthpiece a stage for disseminating pro-government propaganda.

Two issues...

Can you positively establish that The Lancet (the publication I cited, via PubMed) is a CIA mouthpiece as per the claim (since I never mentioned the FDA), and further explain how it is that CIA affiliation would in any way compromise the veracity of specific claims made in the paper I posted from a respected peer-review journal if you can't yourself judge the veracity of the article based on it's content?

reply to post by SuperSlovak

Breaking news:
"U.S. researchers have discovered antiviral proteins in cells that naturally fight off influenza infections, a finding that may lead to better ways to make vaccines and protect people against the flu."
Hmmm. Potentially complicates issues.

www.reuters.com...