Inherent Viral Purpose

[timeparticle]

Would you feel comfortable being injected with a vaccine that contains a substance that has been strongly linked to infertility? Well, if you take the Fluarix swine flu vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline or any of the other swine flu vaccines that contain Polysorbate 80 that is exactly what you will be doing. If you are considering getting the swine flu vaccine, or any other vaccine for that matter, perhaps you should educate yourself about EXACTLY what is in these vaccines before you allow them to be injected into your body.
Perhaps you think that linking the swine flu vaccine with infertility is quite a stretch. Well, let’s take this one step at a time.

#1) Polysorbate 80 is in the Fluarix swine flu vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline according to the CDC. This is confirmed by the CDC in the document below…..
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pin...nt-table-2.pdf

#2) A medical study done in Slovakia injected newborn female rats with Tween 80 (Polysorbate 80). These newborn female rats were injected with Polysorbate 80 at days 4 to 7 after birth. The researchers found that Polysorbate 80 accelerated the maturation of the female rats, damaged the vagina and womb lining, caused significant hormonal changes, severe ovary deformities and ultimately rendered the young female rats infertile.
In fact, Dee Nicholson, the National Communications Director for Freedom in Canadian Health Care is not shy about saying that Polysorbate 80 is “linked to infertility in mice”.

#3) In the package insert for Fluarix, GlaxoSmithKline specifically mentions that they cannot guarantee that their flu vaccine will not damage your fertility: “FLUARIX has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.” Thanks to foolishly passed laws by the U.S. government, you will not be able to sue anyone if it does leave you infertile.

#4) GlaxoSmithKline is not alone in using Polysorbate 80. It is being reported that Novartis is using the adjuvant MF59 in its swine flu vaccine. The MF59 adjuvant contains Tween80 (Polysorbate 80) and squalene among other things.

#5) On the World Intellectual Property Organization, a patent application for a “fertility impairing vaccine”. The University of Georgia Research Foundation is listed as the patent applicant.
In the description section of the patent application, Tween 80 (Polysorbate 80) is listed as a preferred ingredient:
“In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil, in an amount of about 2.5% to about 15%, preferably about 8% to about 12%. In preparing the vaccine it is advantageous to combine a concentrated oily adjuvant composition with an aqueous solution of the antigen, pZP glycoprotein. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin (about 5% to about 15 % wt/vol, preferably about 12% wt/vol) and STDCM (preferably about 25 mg/mL to about 50 mg/mL) in squalene oil. The term % wt/vol means grams per 100 mL of liquid. The aqueous solution containing the isolated pZP glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80 (about 0.2% vol/vol to about 0.8% vol/vol, preferably about 0.4% vol/vol).”
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct

#6) The United Nations is actively seeking ways to limit and control population growth around the globe. An incredibly shocking U.N. population division policy brief from March 2009 asked this very disturbing question:
What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?
You can read this almost unbelievable document here:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/pub...icy_brief1.pdf
The reality is that for the super wealthy global elite and the majority of the social engineers at the United Nations, population control is a major obsession. If you doubt this fact, just read this article:
http://signsofthelastdays.com/archiv...e-global-elite

The truth is that the more people learn about what is in these vaccines, the less likely they are to take them. It is important to do your own research before letting anyone inject anything into your body. Those who blindly trust the government or world health authorities are likely the ones to end up being extremely disappointed in the end.

http://www.infowars.com/polysorbate-...ity-in-humans/

[leskey]

#3) In the package insert for Fluarix, GlaxoSmithKline specifically mentions that they cannot guarantee that their flu vaccine will not damage your fertility: “FLUARIX has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.” Thanks to foolishly passed laws by the U.S. government, you will not be able to sue anyone if it does leave you infertile.

Thanks for keeping us up-to-date, TP.

Democracy inexorably removing our freedom to choose...this is where we're at...

Politicians/public servants who encourage action that can be potentially harmful, should be pulled from out behind their comfortable desks and marched into the streets to be dealt with by those whose interests they have faithfully sworn to represent...for treason (the betrayal of a trust : treachery).

Don't get me started on the removal of any choice about fluoride in the water supply ...

[labelwench]

All information that I have posted taken from the site at this link, as an aid to this discussion. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-polysorbate-80.htm LW

There has been some controversy over the potential health risks of Polysorbate 80. The primary concern involves injection of the chemical into the body. A study in 1993 showed that injection of Polysorbate 80 into baby female rats resulted in malformed reproductive organs. Years later, reports of this study caused many to question the safety of Polysorbate 80 used in flu vaccines for the H1N1 virus.
Related topics Span 80

The chemical has also been linked to anaphylactic shock, though not conclusively. There is also a risk of allergic reaction. No studies where the Polysorbate 80 was administered orally, however, have found any health risk, and no risks have been found in studies using human subjects.

Polysorbate 80, also known as polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate or Tween™ 80, is an amber-colored, viscous liquid with a slightly bitter taste. It is used primarily as an emulsifier in food products, cosmetics, vitamins, medicines, and vaccines. The product is a derivative of sorbitol and oleic acid, and is manufactured worldwide.

Emulsifiers help bind ingredients together and keep them from separating, most commonly with oil and water. It is also a surfactant – a substance which reduces the surface tension of a liquid – which results in an easier, smoother spread. Frequently, it is used in ice cream and frozen desserts to resist melting. Polysorbate 80 is also used as an emulsifier and surfactant in products such as shortening, condiments, chewing gum, dietary foods, and whipped dessert toppings, as well as a host of cosmetic creams and lotions.

Polysorbate 80 is also used as a solubilizer, meaning that it aids in dissolving ingredients that would not otherwise dissolve or that would not fully dissolve. As a solubilizer, it is found in pickled foods, gelatin desserts, liquid soaps, bath gels, and vitamins. It also can be found in many medications.

The liquid also can be used with yeast and cottage cheese as a defoamer. It is used as a wetting agent in the cleaning and preparation of some foods, such as poultry. By contrast, it can be used in products not intended for consumption such as herbicides.

In the 1980s, Polysorbate 80 was put forward as a potential cure for baldness, and was initially well received; however, in 1986, a lengthy hearing involving manufacturers, the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the US Postal Service, a court ruling prevented manufacturers from making anti-baldness claims. Since that time, it may still be purchased as a hair and scalp treatment, provided there are no hair growth claims.

[timeparticle]

I started this thread introducing the theory that viruses have an important purpose in our biosphere and how they interact with our bodies, as they upgrade through bio-chemical data. Here is a viewpoint about bacteria with the same idea. Be careful which bacteria you call bad....

For years I just sort of assumed that cells were self-reproducing blobs of protein. Maybe you did too. Turns out they’re way smarter than that. You will be amazed at this video. Dr. Bonnie Bassler from Princeton University presents a beautiful TED talk on how bacteria communicate with each other by forming words out of simple molecules.

Video:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/bl...gent-bacteria/

[timeparticle]

She says she gritted her teeth when Lucy was 2 months old and the pediatrician jabbed the 11-pound, six-ounce infant’s thigh with a half-millilitre cocktail of germs aimed at stimulating her immune system to fight off five diseases. As he injected the second needle, she recalls shuddering at the thought of all those bacteria and virus particles being blasted into her shrieking child before she was old enough to pop her first tooth.

Following those first shots, Lucy was miserable for days — sleeping fitfully, constipated, getting a bad cold. Same thing happened after her next shots at four and six months. Fussiness, fever and pain at the injection site are not uncommon side effects, but the physician said Lucy’s cold and constipation were unrelated. Still, it made Silverthorne uneasy. Lucy hasn’t been immunized since.

http://www.thespec.com/living/health...h-from-parents
__________________________________________________ ____________

We are traveling down a dangerous path with vaccines....

[timeparticle]

(NaturalNews) In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

You can watch this yourself at:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A...

Reducing the world population through vaccines

This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.

So what does it mean when Bill Gates says "if we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?"

Clearly, this statement implies that vaccines are a method of population reduction. So is "health care," which all NaturalNews readers already know to be more of a "sick care" system that actually harms more people than it helps.

Perhaps that's the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?

Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A...

How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?

Let's conduct a mental experiment on this issue. If vaccines are to be used to reduce world population, they obviously need to be accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise the population reduction effort wouldn't be very effective.

And in order for them to be accepted by the majority of the people, they obviously can't just kill people outright. If everybody started dropping dead within 24 hours of receiving the flu shot, the danger of vaccines would become obvious rather quickly and the vaccines would be recalled.

Thus, if vaccines are to be used as an effective population reduction effort, there are really only three ways in which they might theoretically be "effective" from the point of view of those who wish to reduce world population:

#1) They might kill people slowly in a way that's unnoticeable, taking effect over perhaps 10 - 30 years by accelerating degenerative diseases.

#2) They might reduce fertility and therefore dramatically lower birth rates around the world, thereby reducing the world population over successive generations. This "soft kill" method might seem more acceptable to scientists who want to see the world population fall but don't quite have the stomach to outright kill people with conventional medicine. There is already evidence that vaccines may promote miscarriages (http://www.naturalnews.com/027512_v...).

#3) They might increase the death rate from a future pandemic. Theoretically, widespread vaccination efforts could be followed by a deliberate release of a highly virulent flu strain with a high fatality rate. This "bioweapon" approach could kill millions of people whose immune systems have been weakened by previous vaccine injections.

This is a known side effect of some vaccines, by the way. A study documenting this was published in PLoS. Read the story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028538_s...

Here's the study title and citation: Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus?
Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000259

The short answer is yes, seasonal flu vaccines do cause increased susceptibility to the H1N1 pandemic virus. In other words, seasonal flu vaccines could set up the population for a "hard kill" pandemic that could wipe out a significant portion of the global population (perhaps 10 to 15 percent, as Bill Gates suggested).

Conveniently, their deaths could be blamed on the pandemic, thereby diverting blame from those who were really responsible for the plot. As yet another beneficial side effect for the global population killers, the widespread deaths could be used as a fear tool to urge more people to get vaccinated yet again, and the entire cycle could be repeated until world population was brought down to whatever manageable level was desired... all in the name of health care!

The more people around the world are vaccinated before the release of the "hard kill" pandemic virus, the more powerful the effect of this approach.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccine programs targeting people all over the world. One such program is researching the development of "sweat-triggered vaccines" that could use specially-coated nano-materials to deliver vaccines to people without using injections.

More interestingly, his foundation has also invested millions in sterilization technologies that have been called a "temporary castration" solution. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028887_v...)

It seems that the actions of the Gates foundation are entirely consistent with the formula for CO2 reduction that Bill Gates eluded to in his TED conference speech: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

By reducing birth rates (through sterilization technologies) and increasing vaccine penetration throughout the world population (by using sweat-triggered nano-vaccines), his stated goal of reducing the world population by 10 to 15 percent could be reached within just a few years.

Who will be left alive? The smart people

The interesting thing about all this is that this campaign to reduce global population through vaccines will obviously not impact people who consciously avoid vaccines. And those people, by and large, tend to be the more intelligent, capable people who actually have an improved ability to move human civilization forward with thoughtful consideration.

I can only imagine that those people designing this vaccine-induced population control measure might be sitting around a table chuckling to themselves and saying, "It's only the stupid people that are going to be killed off anyway, so this is actually helping the future of humankind!" (Their words, not mine.)

In a weird world government kind of way, this effort might actually be based on some distorted vision of philanthropy where some of the most powerful people in the world quite literally believe the way to save humanity is to kill off as many of the gullible people as possible. Vaccines are, in effect, an "evil genius" kind of way to conduct an IQ test on the population at large: If you go get vaccinated every flu season, you're not too bright and probably don't engage the kind of strong mental faculties that humanity will no doubt need if it is to face a future where it is now all but obvious we are not alone in the universe.

If humanity is to save itself from its own destruction and compete as an uplifted species in our universe, killing off the least intelligent members of society (or making them infertile) may appear to the world controllers to be a perfectly reasonable approach. I disagree with that approach, but it may be precisely what they are thinking.


continued...

[timeparticle]

In any case, choosing to receive a seasonal flu shot is undoubtedly an admission that you have failed some sort of universal IQ test, whether or not this is the intention of world influencers such as Bill Gates. More importantly, it is also a betrayal of your own biology, because it indicates you don't believe in the ability of your own immune system to protect you even from mild infections.

Perhaps the world vaccine conspirators figure that if people are willing to betray themselves anyway, it's not much different for governments and institutions to betray them as well. In other words, if you don't even care enough about your own health to take care of your health, why should any government care about protecting your health, either?

As you ponder this, also consider something else: The U.S. is going broke due to sick-care costs which are rising dramatically under the new federal health care reform guidelines. Can you guess the fastest and easiest way to reduce those health care costs? If you guessed, "unleash a hard-kill pandemic that takes out a significant portion of the weak or sick people" then you guessed right. Sadly, killing off those most vulnerable to sickness could save the U.S. government literally billions of dollars in sick-care expenditures. Plus, it would save Social Security yet more billions by avoiding ongoing monthly payouts. (Again, I am completely against such an approach because I value human life, but I also know we live in a world where the people in charge have little or no respect for human life and will readily sacrifice human lives to achieve their aims.)

As far as Bill Gates goes, consider his statement in the context of what we've discussed here: "The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

It suddenly seems to make a lot of sense when you understand that reducing the population reduces CO2 emissions, and using more vaccines on more people increases the death rate of the population.

My advice? Try to avoid being among those 10 to 15 percent who get culled through global vaccine programs. You will not only save your life, you'll also pass the "universal IQ test" which determines whether you're smart enough to know that injecting your body with chemicals and viral fragments in order to stop "seasonal flu" is a foolish endeavor.

Be healthy and wise, and you'll survive the world depopulation effort that victimizes conventional thinkers who don't have the intelligence to question what they're being told to do by their own corrupt governments.

__________________________________________________ ______

Since Gates areas of expertise has been technology, I would venture to say that he would like to use high biotech advances in vaccines to alter human fertility. I don't believe he would say what he says in the video if he were planning to slaughter millions via outright poisons in the vaccine. His thinking is more along the lines of eugenics.

[labelwench]

The margin of human error that I have encountered in my life to date, has quite erradicated any blind trust that I may have previously been conditioned toward.

Vaccinations may prove effective in the case of bacterial infections, such as tetanus, where the progress of disease may prove fatal, and so for that reason, I will take the gamble for myself and my horses, as puncture wounds are a risk and the bacteria is ubiquitous.

For viruses, I do not have any confidence in the lasting efficiency of such vaccination and the risks associated with quality control and allergic reations are too great, IMO.

It is good that you raise awareness of these issues for too many people have become accustomed to allowing others to think for and make decisions for them.

All risks should be assessed before individual decisions are made, and in some cases, the risk may be worth taking (malaria, perhaps?), but more questions should certainly be asked.

Sadly, I suspect that this may be another of those 'fear-based' industries, where a reasonable concern has been inflated entirely out of proportion.

Then again, nature might well decide that the easiest way to get rid of an 'experiment gone bad' might be to throw something at us to control our numbers. Unlikely that such would claim all, though, as our immune system has proven highly adaptable.

I am the devil's advocate, every wanting to view both sides from a volatile center.

[timeparticle]

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=82...F06CFFF630A3FC



"Decade of vaccines", says Gates. The video says these vaccines will save the lives of millions of children in the poorest countries. So, if he were saving the lives of so many, how could these vaccines curb population numbers? According to this video, he is helping to increase population numbers.... unless there is a hidden agenda. Both videos seem to be contradicting each other, but maybe not. The new injections may be redesigning the human body so these poor children may not have a future family.

[Mikal]

Gates is very involved in Population Control Programs. Who says they have to kill you through vaccines, they can just as you say inject the right kind of chemicals to insure sterility. I'm sure this is why they targeted a vaccine program under the guise of beating uterine cancer and rolled it out to young teens. I received a report from a medical doctor clearly stating that in the future all these young vacinated girls may have tremendous problems in their attempts to create and have a family of children.

I am also considering that those who fell for the 'vaccinate all pregnant mothers for H1N1' were being setup for spontaneous abortion of the growing fetus.
Here in Canada, one of the girls I work with lost her coming grandson. A perfectly healthy, developing baby with a strong heartbeat and very active in the womb...suddenly at the 7th month point quickly died in the womb.
This lady sat with a team of doctors at our biggest hospital who told her...'babies dying suddenly in the 7th month is an epidemic now crossing Canada and U.S.' They said the statistics hospitals and doctors were collecting and sharing were startling in the face of a healthy baby suddenly dying in the womb. Leaves one to wonder if the whole idea of vaccinating pregnant mothers was an agenda of population control..

Regards Mikal