H1n1 Vaccine Debate Recently Inoculated May Spread Flu Virus

[Misanthrope 0]

Before we proceed, lets see what they think of this whole controversy in Canada, a land I lovingly refer to this time of year as The Great White North: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Ok. Now that weve seen the good side of crack, er, vaccines, lets get serious. Heres a short list of some of the ingredients that should concern any thinking person: (from http://www.rense.com/general86/dngers.htm ):

The following is an incomplete (but significant) list of vaccine ingredients: GlaxoSmithKline Plc based in London Vaccine Ingredients: Aluminum adjuvant: an aluminum-containing compound. It releases the antigen [an active substance that is capable of generating an enhanced immune response from the body, and then reacting with the products from that response], causing strong, enhanced antibody response what Dr. Mercola calls a "turbo charge" to the body's immune system. It has been linked to Gulf War Syndrome that has caused tremendous permanent damage to thousands of military.(7) Aluminum is a known cause of cognitive dysfunction.
AS03: The company's proprietary squalene adjuvant. (See: squalene below)

Daronrix: Glaxo's H5N1 bird flu vaccine.

Disodium phosphate: a white powder, water-soluble salt. It is used as an anti-caking additive in powdered products. This inorganic chemical is also used as a fungicide and microbiocide.

Formaldehyde: a known carcinogen and reproductive or developmental toxicant. Interestingly, according to PANNA, in 2007, California used 30,328 pounds of this carcinogen, as a microbiocide [a drug or other agent that can kill microbes] on the top 50 crops grown in the state.(8)

Octoxynol 10: (Also known as Triton X-100) A detergent, emulsifier, wetting and defoaming agent. [Octoxynol-9 is a spermatocide.] It can alter metabolic activity, damage membranes, and cause a rapid decline in cell function.

Polysorbate 80: Also known as Tween 80. It is used as an emulsifier in cosmetics, and is one of the ingredients in Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine that is being mandated/promoted for teen-age girls. This ingredient is known to cause infertility, grand mal convulsions, spontaneous abortions, and life-threatening anaphylactic shock. So far, 28 Gardasil deaths have been reported.

Sodium Chloride: Refined table salt. Salt is a naturally occurring complex mineral that balances the water inside and outside our cells. Refined salt, sodium chloride, is chemically treated and contains many other hidden chemicals that destroy natural salt's healing abilities. The body can get most of its daily requirement by eating a well-balanced, organic diet --eliminating processed foods. A good source is untreated, natural sea salt.

Squalene: A natural oil found in sharks (mostly found in their livers) and humans. The American Journal of Pathology (2000) reported that rats injected with squalene triggered "chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation," i.e., rheumatoid arthritis. How will this affect people who already have an immune inflammation, or will it cause untold new cases (lupus, chronic fatigue)? Squalene is being added to all new vaccines. It is linked to the thousands of military who have contracted "Gulf War Syndrome" and have suffered irreparable auto-immune damage, including lupis, multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, and rheumatoid arthritis.(9)

Thimersol: (MERCURY). Put in all multiple doses of vaccines. Any amount of mercury is highly toxic. There is no safe level. This is has been repeatedly linked to the increasing rates of autism, multiple sclerosis, and ADD.(10)

Vitamin E: This anti-oxidant vitamin helps protect the body's red blood cell functions, and helps to oxygenate our tissues. The best sources are from organic, cold-pressed vegetable oils, such as wheat germ, sunflower seeds, and safflower. Vitamin E from corn or soybean oil now often comes from genetically engineered sources.

Baxter International Based in Chicago. Called "Celvapan" or its common name: pandemic influenza vaccine [H5N1]

NOTE: Adverse reactions include: headaches, dizziness, vertigo, nasopharyngitis, chills, fatigue, malaise, injection site pain. There is "no data on Celvapan vaccination dose and schedule for subjects under 18 years of age" and for subjects who are immuno-supressed. Vaccine Ingredients: African Green Monkey: Cultured cells are taken from this species of monkey through a process called "vero cell technology." This species of monkey (and the tissue derived from it) have been implicated in transmitting several viruses, including HIV and polio. Baxter has "applied for a patent on a process using this type of cell culture to produce quantities of infecting virus, which are harvested, inactivated with formaldehyde and ultra violet light, and then detergent. Baxter has produced H5N1 [bird flu] whole virus vaccine in a Vero cell line derived from the kidney of an African green monkey."(11) According to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Cummins, "details of the production of this vaccine have not yet been released to the public."

Whole virus (H5N1) influenza vaccine, vero-celled derived. (See above.)

Trometamol: Also known as Tris (or Tris buffer) or THAM. An organic compound used as a buffer. May be harmful if inhaled. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Long-term effects: no data. Ecological information: no data.(12)

Sodium chloride, Polysorbate 80, and water [what kind? tap? fluoridated? chlorinated?] for injection.

Novartis International AG Based in Basel, Switzerland.

Called "Focetria" or its common name: pandemic influenza vaccine. Licensed May 8, 2007. NOTE: Adverse reactions include: headaches, sweating, joint pain, fever malaise, shivering, and pain at injection site. Vaccine Ingredients: Virus: The company is using a proprietary cell line. [unknown is whether they are using dog or green monkey tissue.] By using this process, instead of growing the virus strain in chicken eggs, it "has cut weeks off the time required to begin vaccine production [to be done at its cell-based facility in Germany."(13) According to the European Assessment Report (May 2007), "Focetria should not be given to patients who have an anaphylactic reaction (severe reaction) to an of the components of the vaccine, or to any substances found at trace levels in the vaccine, such as egg, chicken protein, kanamycin, or neomycin sulphate (two antibiotics), formaldehyde, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB, a disinfectant used to sterilize utensils and instruments) and Polysorbate 80." The CTAB Material Safety Data Sheet notes that its "chemical, physical, and toxicological properties have not been thoroughly investigated" but it "is irritating to mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract."(14) PANNA also lists this as an herbicide and microbiocide.

Squalene: see above.

MF59: A proprietary oil-based adjuvant that and contains (according to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Cummins's ISIS article, already cited) Tween 80, Span85, and squalene. The authors also note that MF59 has "substantially higher local reactogenicity and systemic toxicity than alum." This adjuvant is part of a new generation of potent vaccine enhancers. In their book, "New Generation Vaccines" authors Levine, Kaper, Rappuoli, and Good note that "The precise mechanisms of action of most adjuvants still remain only partially understood."(15) Animal rat studies using oil-based adjuvants have demonstrated severe reactions to them, including paralysis, crippling, auto-immune disorders, and severe arthritis, and immune system impact. The FDA has not yet approved this for use [sic] in any vaccine, according to Jane Burgermeister's July 29 online report (previously cited).

Span85: Patented by the now defunct Chiron (bought by Novartis). Its chemical name is Sorbitan Trioleate. It is an oily liquid used in medicine, textiles, cosmetics, and paints as an emulsifier, anti-rust agent, and thickener. [some factories in China specialize only in manufacturing Tween 80 and Span 85.] According to the Pesticide Action Network North America [PANNA], this chemical is used as a pesticide. It is also used as an adjuvant and is "toxic to humans, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and acute toxicity."(16)

Some speculate that future (or current) dictators will enact laws making resisting getting stuck a crime against the State, as they continue to push propaganda that portrays resisters (i.e. independent thinkers) as a danger to the population. From what I've discerned from both mainstream and unbiased sources -and personal observation- the danger is not from resisters, but the brain-dead masses who blindly roll up their sleeves to any questionable vaccine being pushed by the corportacracy, otherwise known as the "government." These folks have no idea what is in these vaccines, and half the time, neither do their ill-informed doctors. I am of the opinion that the vaccinated are not only a danger to themselves, but the many who had the good sense to resist the fear-mongering, pro-HINI vaccine campaign. At the very least, the newly inoculated should consider waiting for vaccine-induced flu symptoms to pass before venturing forth among among humanity. If you really think that The Creator didnt design you well enough to fend off bacteria and viruses effectively and think its a good idea to bypass all your bodys natural defenses by piercing your skin with a syringe full of some of the most toxic ingredients grown in diseased monkeys and cruelly harvested from their kidneys (See the movie Outbreak), then I'm afraid words may escape me. Following are a few more U-Tube videos to give you more to think about:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
Edited November 28, 2009 by Misanthrope (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

i strongly take on you philosophy....but to speak out against one drug in your philosophy is to speak out against all the others. some of which give us what the body no longer produces

[shadowx 0]

well that was full of twaddle, can we start the reasonable discussion yet?

Personally, I truly believe that if you're dumb enough to get inoculated or poked for any reason, you should have the decency to lock yourself in a room or your house for at least ten days so you dont infect the rest of us.

Sorry, infect you with what exactly? Oh you mean that inactive flu virus I'm carrying? Why yes, i will quarantine myself so that a dead virus cant infect you, on the plus side the live virus that is on the trains, buses, door handles and that has just been sneezed on your face, cant get me, because im in quarantine.

If you really think that The Creator didnt design you well enough to fend off bacteria and viruses effectively

Ah i see, i have asthma (which can give me a risk of breathing complications with the flu, hence i am offered the seasonal flue vaccine here in the UK), and I, *I* am the stupid one for wanting to have a proven vaccine injected into my flesh, you however, are the very clever, intelligent and sensible person by believing that "The Creator" who i presume is "god" has made you, specifically you, so immortal, so indestructible that you don't need a vaccine? Because you are, of course, special. Either that or you intend on smashing the virus into a gelatinous goo with your crucifix. Well good luck with that. I'll be in the doctors office getting vaccinated and you can go out killing the virus with your little bit of cross shaped wood and/or metal. Smart move...

(oh, and if you think god created everything then who do you think created the flu virus? It certainly wasn't me, or my cat...)

While i disagree with the way the virus is harvested from a moral standpoint i cant confirm or deny this is where the ingredients come from. So i cant comment on that.

As for the toxicity of the ingredients perhaps you are correct, but then think of the toxins you are exposed to every day. your computer contains arsenic, mercury, lead etc... Your car runs from fuel which is a poison, gives off toxic and very dangerous fumes which then go all over your food, not to mention fertilizers and pesticides (and don't give me that "organic" crap, it's fed the same water as everything else and grown in fields next to fields where pesticides are used, the water table and cycle gives your organic veg a nice tinge of poison.

Then there's the radiation of every day life... Oh and the fact that organic food is regularly x-rayed to the extent it kills all living things. You probably glow in the dark at this rate....

now, while I don't doubt the lethality of any of the poisons included in the vaccine what I do doubt is how toxic they are in the form and dosage given. One website suggest the h1n1 world deaths stood at 5000 as of late October this year. Wikipedia suggests it is over 8000 at the current time.

Let's get an average of 6-7000 so far.

Now, the known deaths from the vaccine itself stand at only a few hundred i think. I cant find an exact figure but shall we say 300? Now, i know that over 1m doses have been given in the UK, of that i know of 1 confirmed death linked to a possible dodgy batch of the vaccine, let's say, just to help your argument that half of those 300, speculative world wide deaths happened in the UK as a direct result of the jab, 150/1000000=0.015% of those vaccinated died.... Now, if we factor in a guess that another 5 million doses have been given world wide, which really, given the fact that the uk has given 1m is conservative as the us has easilly given a few million and the rest of Europe has easily met, if not exceeded that amount. Factor in the guestimated 300 deaths = 0.006% of those vaccinated died.

Given that i expect the vaccination numbers to be well over 5m and the deaths to about 2-400 (if that, its probably more like < 200) your argument is invalid.

I quote:

The analysis, published in Science, also roughly estimates that the flu has a fatality rate of .4 percent, meaning that it kills 4 people out of every 1,000 infected.

The article is here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
So, the vaccine, if my numbers are even within 50% of their true values (in fact my calculations show that if only 500,000 people were vaccinated and 600 of those died, which i think you'll agree is a massive exaggeration, that's only 0.12% death rate. The virus itself is 0.4%....) then the flue virus is VASTLY more dangerous than the vaccination itself.

Argument flawed.

In fact, to obtain a 0.4% death rate based on the figures of 5m vaccinations the deaths so far would need to be 20,000. They are not. They are much less than 1000, i expect around 100-200 world wide)

So, while the vaccine may not be good for me, given the fact i am in an "at risk" group, in the prime age group for infection (i am 20) and work in a school where swine flu has been confirmed (and we all know schools spread infections better than anywhere else except hospitals) i think my chances of dying from the flu vs my chances of dying from the vaccine suggest strongly i SHOULD be having the jab.

And indeed i will when offered.

Do you have a comeback to this? something that makes sense preferably...



Oh, and might i add that i am not a disbeliever in powers higher than ourselves. I do not believe in anything that you would call "god", in fact you wrongly call them many other things in an attempt to brainwash the early pagans into joining your false religion, despite my belief in the meta-physical i would not, and will not rely on my beliefs to protect me from a virus. That will not work, no matter what. so do not preach to me about how mighty your god(s) are. They are not as mighty as the virus which will kill many on this planet. They are not as mighty as the sharp prick of a needle, nor as mighty as medicines to relieve the symptoms. Let's keep this discussion to scientific facts as we are dealing with a scientific subject. Not a religious one.

If i have mis-understood your final paragraph then that is my fault. But referring to the creator and capitalizing the initials of the words leads me to think you are a Christian, or possibly another member of an orthodox religion.


hang on a second, what's that? More evidence on the safety of the job, yes, correct!

See this BBC news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8381597.stm

It is actually about showing facts with images, not the flu vaccine, however, the second graphic asks how much thimerosal is in the flu jab, thimerosal is a preservative containing mercury. The graphic clearly shows than a fillet of salmon has more of this preservative in it than the flu jab. Hence salmon is more mercuric than the flu jab. A tin of tuna contains twice as much thimerosal as the flu jab.

I thank you.

Another edit comes this way...

How exactly can the vaccinated spread the virus? Can you give me a link to a trust-able source on this matter?

The virus that is infected is dead. It cannot spread, mutate or infect anyone. Of course, if you can show me evidence that i am wrong i will gladly accept it as truth.
Edited November 27, 2009 by shadowx (see edit history)

[anwiii 17]

tsk tsk tsk. you make some valid arguements....but only to disprove what was already written. i can write just as much as you can just to disprove what you have written, but i wont.what i will say is this....if we can't count on our bodies for survival, what can we count on? drugs? putting our faith in any drug is the same as putting faith in any god that created us for survival. so now it just boils down to what is more powerfull. god, or drugs.for such a long post, you didn't really put much thought in to it.my PERSONAL belief is that i don't trust ANY drug. NONE!!! drugs are big business. that's all they are. aside from big business, some actually workso for those drugs that work, why are they working? what is the purpose for those drugs to work. what if they make you die or sicker? most importantly, what if they make you live longer? what will one do when they have the opportunity to live longer?what if there was already a purpose in someone's life that doesn't reflect around drugs. what if there are time limits that no drug can ever extend? what would people do if they could be healthier and live longer? would they do the same thing they have always done?people take for granted many things in life. drugs are one. they believe in them over the power they have within their own selves AND their own purpose in life.drugs may save a life as far as living and breathing.....but life is so much more than just living and breathing that NO drug can touch.

[shadowx 0]

I agree with you that life is more than metabolism, i also agree that drugs are big business and the trade is often considered, perhaps rightly, as being evil or immoral. However, let me go back to my asthma, i have a pump which contains a medicine known as "salbutamol" feel free to look it up if you need to put any further imaginary holes in my posts... Imagine i have my hands around your throat and i am sitting on your chest. Try breathing. Fun eh? well that's what an asthma episode is. (i wont call it an attack as i class an attack as being where my pump has no effect on the asthma and i require a much, much stronger dose of steroids to relax my throat muscles.) Now, you may well claim that you dont trust drugs, and sure the medicine probably isnt as good for me as a carrot. But, without the medicine i would be dead now. As a baby i had a severe attack and the doctor told my mum to rush me to hospital, there wasnt time to wait for an ambulance to arrive and take me (ambulances do not carry "nebulizers" (sp) which is what i need when i have an attack) supplying me oxygen may not have helped that much either as the oxygen cant get into my lungs but i digress...) based on this the medicine is a very, very good thing. It saved my life and it frequently saves me hours, if not days of discomfort. A regular attack may not kill me now without the medicine, if it didnt exist i could probably survive one now but it would means hours and hours of severe breathing difficulty followed by many more hours of coughing fits and general discomfort in my chest. Can you now tell me that salbutamol is a bad thing?I am not afraid of death, i believe in an afterlife in which i will be free of all physical bounds. However, that doesnt mean i am in any hurry to leave those i love. To leave the world in which i am happy, to leave a place where i have only experienced such a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of life. To die is not to end, but it it does mean leaving behind any hope of doing those things you dream of. And I am not ready. Your post indicates you would gladly look a cancer sufferer's wife and child in the eye and tell them that they have to die, even though there are drugs to cure the patient you would tell them that you arent going to. That the drugs are bad, and that death is welcome.And that, is disgraceful.

[anwiii 17]

don't EVER! assume what i would tell a cancer victim or their family....as i have already done so. reasons to live go beyond medications and i think you owe me an appology to think i would be so cruel in your assumptions.now....my whole point to my post, was if any medication can make a person live or live longer, WHAT will that person do knowing they have a second chance.most will take our technology for granted. this is a fact. some wont, but the ones who wont and can find meaning and purpose behind it is nothing compared to those who will just live their lives the same....even when something is directly influencing how long they have to live.life isn't about medications and living longer. life is about much much more. it's to fullfill our purpose before our time limits expire as nobody lives forever. if a small child has 0% chance to live but a drug has increased his/her survival rate. ALL THE BETTER for that chance to fullfill the meaning in ones life.but i'm a sicko to believe that death can also hold meaning in life. i wont extend my belief in this thread because it's off topic....but the truth still remains about drugs....they only last a certain period of time before one passes on....hey i didn't make up the rules. there are time limits in life and drugs have no control ov er that.

[shadowx 0]

I simply stated that your post suggested medicine was a bad thing, and given the situation of a patient with 100% chance of death in the very near future that, based on your argument, you would say that medicine should not be given to avoid death.Life is an experience, nothing more nothing less. Anything that can extend that experience should be used. The only issue of if/when to prescribe medicine is, in my eyes, down to the patient or if there is insufficient medicine to go around then one must decide who to give it to.A good example is organ replacements. Should an alcoholic be given a new liver, if he/she is only going to drink even more alcohol and trash that liver too? Or should it instead go to someone who was born with a natural liver defect and who will not abuse it? I think the answer is fairly clear, and i think we all agree on it. But to say an alcoholic, or anyone else, should not be given that second chance would be immoral. I dont know if that's what you are saying or not.But based on the flu vaccine i think everyone should be offered it, stocks permitting. And if the individual wants to decline it then that is their right. But based on the scientific evidence (and the original topic before we both took it elsewhere) the vaccine is safer than the virus itself.All facts support that.

[anwiii 17]

all facts support that....yes...just like all facts support the fountain of youth will give eternal life. fact is, you don't know what the facts are. you only know what the doctors tell you and from your own experiences with your asthma. but even when your living within your own experiences, do you really know you're fate and what the doctors are prescribing? no! you are relying on meds. something different than what you were born with. such faith in something when you had no faith in your own self or body without the meds. ever try it? no. because you had more faith in the man made drugs we can offer you that are keeping you alive.

so maybe these drugs are real. what are YOU going to do about it? what is everyone else going to do about it? if nothing, then the arificial implants are worthless.

i didn't really want to bring this up....but with your reasoning, i have to. i have a sister who took a recent vaccination...and she's getting worse. either she's getting worse because she doesn't have what the vaccination was to give, or the vaccination just made her symptoms worse.

i see your point is saving more lives than not. but what if the wrong people are dying.....believing. i mean...your stats only go so far. you also have to take in to consideration who you're saving and who is dying on an idividual basis. are you doing that? no.

all you pointed out is that certain drugs saved YOUR life and not even mentioning how it has changed your life.

But based on the flu vaccine i think everyone should be offered it, stocks permitting. And if the individual wants to decline it then that is their right. But based on the scientific evidence (and the original topic before we both took it elsewhere) the vaccine is safer than the virus itself.
All facts support that.

[shadowx 0]

Well, i dont trust my own body to sustain me in a comfortable state without the medicine (which i only take when needed, not on a regular basis) because my body has a fault. I dont know all the facts about asthma works but i know that the muscles in my throat almost "panic" and stiffen up, imagine giving your arm an electric shock. It goes completely stiff and the muscles contracting have the side effect of swelling. If that happens in a muscular tube such as the throat then the space in the tube decreases, hindering air flow. That's just a defect my body has. Perhaps the medicine is slowly killing me, but it's still giving me a longer life than i wouldve had without it and a much more comfortable experience. From my understanding it isnt doing me any harm but as you have suggested or hinted at, i dont actually know what is in it and the effects on the body, all i know is it relieves symptoms, the drug companies can easily lie, and probably do, but it's still better than not having it in my case. Other cases may be different. I have heard of someone being diagnosed with diabetes, before the diagnosis they were fine, but shortly after treatment begun they became blind along with other side effects. I do believe that in some cases the treatment is worse than the ailment. But at the same time one cant condemn science for trying to solve defects in the human body. Perhaps healthy people taking medicine is a bad idea. I personally would only take medicine to prevent or cure something and only if the effects were supported by evidence. As for how the medicine has changed my life... It's hard to say, because as you mentioned i havent been without it except when i was very young. Back when i was a baby, probably less than a year old i obviously didnt have the medicine as the doctors basically told my mum it wasnt asthma. Apparently i had breathing difficulties and coughing fits and not sleeping etc... and eventually i had an attack where my lips went blue etc... from lack of oxygen in my blood. So it is safe to assume that without the medicine that the hospital gave me, and subsequently i was prescribed, i would be dead. Now, although I am not afraid of death and i believe my spirit (i) would live on it would be a waste. My family would be distraught, and who knows, perhaps in the future i will save a life, or rescue someone, or even just change someones life for the better, and if i had not been given treatment and drugs that would never have happened. It's like being shown the most amazing thing in the world and then being whisked away before you get a chance to experience it. With the vaccine the results are largely unpredictable, but those being offered it have a higher chance of mortality or great discomfort, danger, stress and worry if they caught the flu, perhaps the health conditions also give them a higher chance of vaccine death but at the end of the day it is all chance. If i gave you two numbers and one of them had a 1% chance of winning the lottery, and the other had a 10% chance, which would you choose? its obvious. Even though it is all chance it is more sensible to choose the option which favours your well being. There is no 0.00% chance in the flu. There is a 0.4% chance of death from the flu or a 0.001% chance of dying from the vaccine. Im going with the vaccine!! And the same goes for most medicines. All medicines that simply treat, rather than cure, are based on chance. A small chance of it getting worse, and usually a much larger chance of it helping you. Faced with the odds you simply have to go with the better chance. I am sorry to hear about your sister, and i truly hope for all involved that she gets better soon.

[anwiii 17]

i hope my sister gets better too, but that's unlikely in my belief and knowing my sister. you say you don't really know how the drug changed your life like if you were born the way you are. i believe that is wrong to say. you have had a lot of time to think about it, haven't you.i see your original point you had to make against the original poster. i really do and i admire you for reasons you will never know(that is a fact).to lose 100 to save 300 would be nice....unless other fact present themselve in who are we actually saving compared to who we are actually losing.life is more than what your arguement stated. i also know that my observation wasn't the intent of the original post(which i agree with and disagree with at the same time)so should we get the shots? or should we ignore them....i think the answer is different for different people.no matter what the choice...the original question will be "what do i have to gain". they can take the drug and become more sick.....or they can take the drug and survive a virus.according to your view...whatever saves more people is the right choice. when i can argue that and look at ALL the possibilities that nobody will ever prove.although i am for some meds to allow a life to survive, i am also for the carrot that people can eat instead of the synthetic drugs that offer less than any natural resource available. until people do their own research instead of listening to doctors, there will be no answers to that area in which *I* believe. so in the meantime, people will rely on the meds that can kill them as easily as if they didn't take them at all.

[shadowx 0]

I do think nature has a lot to provide in both natural remedies and the bodies ability to fight off disease and overcome faults. My asthma for example is curing itself as i "grow out of it" and that is the body's ability to cope with faults and overcome them. It is a remarkable organism. But it does need help in some cases. I would prefer a proven natural remedy (for example it was recently proven that a Brazillian mint tea is as effective as synthetic drugs at getting rid of pain, so if i had a choice i would take the tea) however, some things nature cannot overcome on its own, or it can only do so very, very rarely, things like HIV, AIDS, cancer, malaria etc... all these things need scientific help from drugs which have very little if any basis in nature. Some will require genetic modification and other controversial treatments. But we have to face facts, if it helps someone live a better life, it helps them live longer, regardless of what they do with their extra life, we should provide it. (unless of course they are going to kill people etc.. and need drugs to be able to do so).It is not up to us to decide who lives and dies, when someone dies or how. As a human race we should band together, against discomfort, pain and poor health. join our hearts, minds, brains and bodies and unite in a common cause to beat infection, disease etc... Now im not saying we should develop immortality, i still think the human body is quite capable of death without infection or disease in the same way a car will stop working without interference when it begins to rust and wear out, but we should help those in need with whatever means we have provided they want the helpIm not sure where the " to lose 100 to save 300 would be nice" comes from, if you are referencing my post then i can say it wasnt my intention to suggest that. I was trying to give example data to show how the vaccine is safer than the virus.But if you werent referencing me and its a new statement then it is a tough one to discuss. If you are the poor farmer with little scientific knowledge and a poor gene pool then survival of the fittest tells me i should forsake you and choose someone more "useful" to the human race, but in your eyes everyone should have an equal chance.If you are however the intelligent scientist you would argue that intelligence, good genes etc.. are more important to the human race which, scientifically they are. But does that mean we have to leave behind our morals?I would argue not. This comes down to the animal experiment debate too, is it fair to torture 100 apes to save 1 million humans? As a human you could say certainly. But as an ape being tortured you would beg and plead for mercy... The argument is largely subjective.My personal opinion: I dont know. I simply dont.

[anwiii 17]

about about all the medication given to people where the people given the medication feel like guinae pigs? it's a FACT that doctors prescribe medications daily and they themselves don't even know what the results will be.so...given THAT fact, is it worth to test on people that will suffer just to save a few? or even just save those that don't have any effect on the medication given?meds are tricky and affect different people differently. they are also not natural in the direct sense.you found a drug that works for ya. i'm glad. but for every drug or vaccine you can name that works, i can give one that doesn't and is still prescribed today.it will never be about what works. it will be about what works and doesn't work at the same time. that's why i stated 100 to save 300.so for you as an example. without medical research, you would have died as a child. you wouldn't be here to talk about your own condition. or would you....you don't know because you haven't tested it.....but let's say you wouldn't. compare your life to those where the meds DIDN'T work or had a reverse affect.society benefits from those who die or get more sick because we will continue to improve on the meds to where they can be more beneficial to more people.so my question is....where's the end to it? meds are not the fountain of youth. we will eventually die. but the meds allow us to live longer at the expense of others. that's exactly what it boils down to. alot of people have a reverse effect on medication where if they didn't take it, they would have lived longer.so basically, we can live longer without the meds, we can live longer with the meds. we can die sooner with the meds, and we can die sooner without the meds. so what's the answer? to save more lives with the meds? because i can start a whole new thread in why what is wrong rather than be off topic here and talk about it....

[shadowx 0]

It's an interesting debate when you put it that way, it is true that sometimes medical trials go horribly wrong, and with relevance to the h1n1 vaccine it was in fact fast tracked through approval to get it out as fast as possible. The seasonal flu vaccine is the same as they cant predict the next viral strain so they must wait until they see it and then make the vaccine, so in a way those that get the vaccine are indeed test subjects.It's a very hard subject to discuss objectively because it is so, so subjective to the point of view you have. From a purely scientific view, taking away all compassion and morals it is right to send 100 to their deaths to save 101 or more, assuming the entire 201 people were going to die or be at risk. This gives the human race the best chance of survival. Life, in its simplest form is simply survival, when look at from a cold, scientific way we are hear to have sex, make kids and die. Simple as. WHY the human race is so desperate to survive is the mystery. A species doesnt have a will, or a concious (according to science) with which to decide it wants to survive. A species as a group of organisms cannot decide or choose anything, it is down to the individual organism to be given that will to live. The root of the will to live is unknown, some attribute it to a spirit or soul. Others to chemicals in the brain. This is what makes it scientifically right to kill 100 to save 101+ morally however perhaps we, as a race, should accept our demise. We cause such harm and sadness, perhaps it is our time to perish. And thus accepting that we should not test medicines on anyone, but instead wait for the eventide to take us away. (I know the word "eventide" is the wrong one to use, but i had a massive urge to use it, so lets go with the flow!). You could argue that we should fight together, not fight each other in our race to achieve a disease free existence. Given the rate of computer technology i do think that within our lifetimes it will be possible to simulate the effects of any given drug or treatment on a cellular level purely within a computer simulation with 100% (or 99.9%) accuracy, in my mind that is good enough to warrant rolling the treatment out. I would of course feel differently if the 0.1% error margin was me or someone i loved... I accept there is a need to make medical technology finite, it's just a hard decision to accept that you may get some horrific disease just in an effort not to chase the fountain of youth. It raises the question of immortality. If offered an injection to give you immortality. Completely impervious to everything, bullets, knives etc... and even suicide and of course disease and old age. Would you accept it? Or would you rather die?It's such a difficult choice... On the one hand immortality, how amazing. Swimming to the bottom of the ocean for days and weeks on end with no danger of suffocation or crushing. Fires, would be harmless, floods just an inconvenience and war would be futile! But would you really want it? What happens in 50 billion years when the sun envelopes the earth? If humankind hasnt left the planet then what? an eternity floating around in the blinding brightness of the sun. But could you really say no? I dont know if i could.

[Parubilla 0]

Well, I think medicines are a great invention, I don?t know if I??m going to live longer taking them or not, but I can?t live without them for sure, for example, I?m at work with a huge headache, I can tell you that after hours with the headache at some point is going to pass, but those hours I?m going to be cranky and unproductive and unable to concentrate on my work, so if I can take a pill to get rid of the headache in half an hour I would take it without thinking, off course you have to be carefull on the amount of medicine you take, because of the side effects. With the H1n1 vaccine If I?m sick with the virus and that?s the only solution then I?m going to take the vaccine no matter how much killing ingredients has, you can?t tell by yourself if your body is ready to fight the virus by itself, I?m sure a lot of the young people who die because of the virus thought they were perfectly fine, until they found out the body is not as strong as you think. So I?m pro medicine pro vaccines, there?s a reason why they invented they.

[shadowx 0]

A vaccine cannot cure an illness, so if you get the flu then have the vaccine it will have absolutely no effect, it may even be a bad idea. It will only *prevent* illness or lessen the effects when you eventually get it. Imagine it as putting a shield around your body. A shield will do no good if the attacker is already behind your defences.I too am pro medicine but it is true that there need to be limits, at least morally, on what is acceptable and right.