I've heard it all so far.

Carbon nanotubes genetically marked to target cancer cells which, once bonded, are heated by IR radiation which causes the cells to die.

A cheap industrial chemical easily manufactured when dosed in to cancer cells causes them to reactivate the genetic 'flag' which causes the bodies immune system to destroy them.

etc etc

These annoucements are, sad to say, a dime a dozen. Until the theory and promising animal trials convert to successful human trials, we are stuck with what we currently have.

Which sucks, I'd like to know where some of these promising treatments ended up. Funny how all mention of them tends to disappear weeks after they make it on to a news show...

The problem with that is that your immune system is built against the things you already had. Such as the normal flu/influenza, cold, etc. The swine flu is new and thus your immune system won't really know how to handle it, no matter how many times you've been sick as a child.

I get sick maybe once a year if that. I'm with RS, if you get sick a lot as a child, your immune system is a fucking ox. I'd let it pick the H1N1 up by its pointed NetRunner ears and body slam it all over my nuts.

>> ^kceaton1:
He is giving an opinion on his show that could kill people.

His opinion isn't going to kill anyone and you ought not to be fear mongering. Just because someone is wrong doesn't mean they should be kept from voicing their opinion.

Some people might take Bill's stance as their own and not get vaccinated. A fraction of those people might get sick with the flu. A fraction of that fraction might become seriously ill and even die as a result. That is still their own fault for taking medical advice from a comedian.

For my part, I won't be getting vaccinated. It's not that I don't believe they work or any such thing, I just tend to respond badly to a lot of medicines and the like and so I take as few of them as I can. I am more likely to take a nap than an aspirin for a headache. I will let my immune system do its thing and if that's not enough, so be it. Natural selection... if I can't hack it then I don't deserve to be here.

^ It's a good thing here in Ontario I don't pay a damn thing for any vaccinations I choose to get.

Operative word there: "Choose".

I'm a diabetic with a compromised immune system, and if medical science has developed a vaccine that can help minimize any risk of me catching any sort of flu, or ailment, sign me up. Right now I'm knee-deep in a cold that just hit me like a ton of bricks today at work (happens like that, and I hate it) and I'm a little worried because I can't really afford to be sick right now, and most of the cold/flu remedies at the local pharmacy are rather bad for diabetics to take.

Why so worried? I start a new, very high-profile job at the company I work for on Monday. Week one is Quality Assurance and Food Safety Supervisor Training. Showing up with a cold for that... Not a good idea.

> going to refuse getting various shots that will keep you alive.

LOL @ swine flu vaccine keeping me alive, you're a real sucker !!! drink it up, dude, enjoy that vaccine it was MADE FOR people like YOU ! We'll take our chances with diseases and our immune systems in my house. ( and we've already done the swine flu anyway )

p.s. people usually live to be about 85 in my family and 90 in my wifes family and most of them dont take any of your "life extending" pharmaceuticals at all.

So remember kiddies, eat those pills, drink those cocktails, accept your injections! The medical industry may be wholly profit driven on your symptoms and despair, but you can rest easy they're doing the best they can for their stockholders.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I've long held the belief that we try way too hard to keep everyone alive and that it will eventually kill us.
We rely more and more on medicine to keep us healthy rather than our own immune systems. Look at the people around you and ask yourself how many of them could survive in the wild like an animal. People who should have been filtered out by natural selection are living long enough to reproduce, creating new generations of people who couldn't survive on their own. A species should get stronger and better adapted the longer it exists. We're moving backwards, getting fatter, weaker, lazier and stupider with each generation. We've relieved ourselves of all pressure to evolve.
On the other hand, we're putting a lot of evolutionary pressure on viruses and they're damn good at evolving. At some point we will force the emergence of something that spreads too fast and kills too quickly and we won't be able to create a cure soon enough.


When that happens, I'm hopping a jet back home, then blowing up the runway. Nice to know y'all.

I've long held the belief that we try way too hard to keep everyone alive and that it will eventually kill us.

We rely more and more on medicine to keep us healthy rather than our own immune systems. Look at the people around you and ask yourself how many of them could survive in the wild like an animal. People who should have been filtered out by natural selection are living long enough to reproduce, creating new generations of people who couldn't survive on their own. A species should get stronger and better adapted the longer it exists. We're moving backwards, getting fatter, weaker, lazier and stupider with each generation. We've relieved ourselves of all pressure to evolve.

On the other hand, we're putting a lot of evolutionary pressure on viruses and they're damn good at evolving. At some point we will force the emergence of something that spreads too fast and kills too quickly and we won't be able to create a cure soon enough.

Yeah but thats how "science" works. Most of what the lady says is probably pretty solid, and based on evidence...but science doesn't just stop with observations and data - the whole point of science is the hypothesis - a "guess" based on observations and data. Maybe her hypothesis is wrong, but its our job to disprove it - and you don't do that by calling it "retarded."

I'll summarize the facts, and you can draw your own conclusions (hypothesis):

1. WHO gives funds, support and cover to labs such as the CDC to bio-prospect for pathogens, bio-engineer them to make them more deadly, and also patent them.

2. WHO has been actively searching for ways to weaken the immune system.

3. WHO gives deadly bio-engineered pathogens to companies such as Baxter in Austria, so that Baxter could use those viruses to deliberately, systematically contaminate vaccine material.

4.If the contamination of the 72 kilos had not been detection on time by a lab technician in the Czech Republic, millions of people would have caught the “bird flu” from the injections.

5. WHO orders a compulsory vaccines for all 194 countries, following “recommendations” by an advisory vaccine group on which executives of Baxter also sit.

6. WHO awards Baxter, Novartis, Sanofi and other companies lucrative contracts to supply those vaccines.

7. Under special pandemic plans enacted around the world… including the USA in 2005, national governments are to be dissolved in the event of a pandemic emergency Governments will be replaced by special committees answerable to the WHO and EU in Europe and to the WHO and UN in North America.

8. The Model Emergency Health Powers Act makes it a criminal offense for Americans to refuse the vaccine.

So far, nobody has refuted ANY of these claims. Maybe the "total picture" is incorrect, but all the pieces certainly seem to be correct. Whether the WHO is trying to dominate the world or not, looking at that list, pretty much all of them look pretty fucked up to me.

>> ^direpickle:
And furthermore the crazy part of the original story is not "omg someone screwed up and the vaccine is contaminated!" It's: "The WHO secretly controls the world is and is going to dissolve all of the world governments by purposefully infecting everyone with murderous (not contaminated) vaccines. (And also all of the governments consented to this four years ago by putting through seeeeecret directives)."

Okay, so I skimmed the WHO documents. I'm a physicist and not a doctor/virologist/biologist, but the "WHO - Documents: (proving they want to turn vaccines into killers)" really just seem to be papers that say: "This is how viruses act. This is how the human body responds to them. We should investigate these aspects of it." I don't see anything scary there. Maybe she's flying off the handle about the part where it talks about antigens killing infected cells?

--oh, actually, re-reading what you posted above it looks like the evidence of killer-vaccines seems to be research into weakening immune systems. I think it's pretty well-known that the immune response can be dangerous, sometimes. Every anti-inflammatory, every antihistamine, etc. is getting in the way of your immune system. In fact, the bit I mentioned above (from memo 1) talks about how sometimes the antigen killing the infected cell can maybe be a good thing, suggesting that in other cases it may be a bad thing. And so it'd be pretty obvious to want to be able to control it.

I don't see any mention of the WHO in NSPD-51 (and even that link above was fear-mongering about that being used to cancel the 2008 election. And now they're using it to fear-monger about dissolving the US government to cede it to the WHO? Come on).

I'm going to call crackpot.

Edit: Corrected a couple typos. There are probably more. Tired.

Average pounds per year of Sugar Consumption
1700: 4 lbs
1800: 18 lbs
1900: 90 lbs
2000: 145 lbs
2009: 156 lbs

Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Dementia, etc. were all virtually nonexistent several hundred years ago. Life expectancy figures you've likely heard where people only lived to be 35, etc. are complete B.S. High infant mortality rates, accidents, and infectious disease dramatically skew the life expectancy downward. Those subsets of the population not affected by these outside factors lived to be in excess of 80-100 years old without any incidence of cancer, heart disease, diabetes - the so called "diseases of civilization." Here is a table of ages of deaths for a population of Inuit from the Moravian Church in Labrador
and the Russian Church in Alaska, 1822-1836:

Aleuts, Unalaska district
Died ages 1-4 -- 92
Died ages 4-7 -- 17
Died ages 7-15 -- 41
Died ages 15-25 -- 41
Died ages 25-45 -- 103
Died ages 45-55 -- 66
Died ages 55-60 -- 29
Died ages 60-65 -- 22
Died ages 65-70 -- 24
Died ages 70-75 -- 23
Died ages 75-80 -- 11
Died ages 80-90 -- 20
Died ages 90-100 -- 2

People who lived in the jesus damn Artic 200 years ago, had zero access to fruits or vegetables and subsisted on a diet of 100% meat (fish, seals, whales, etc.) for their entire lives. 25% of them lived to be over 60 years old, with some living past 90...in a freaking igloo!

In one study of terminally ill patients, patients who were so close to dying that any treatment (including no treatment) was deemed ethical, an intervention method consisting of the complete removal sugar from their diets (think about what most hospital diets consist of for a second) was introduced. Those patients living past the first week (most were so far gone, they died before the study could even start) had their tumors either regress enough to be surgically treated, or experienced full remission. Patients who were previously given less than a week to live were now cancer-free simply by removing sugar from their diets.

Cancer cells have been shown in many studies ( including this one http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=296896) to have a disproportionally higher number of insulin receptor cells. Cancerous cells are "successful" mutations from an evolutionary perspective in that they lead to massive cell propagation. However, most cancerous cells have no method of internal cell metabolism, and must subsist and grow almost exclusively on energy supplied by blood glucose (hence the elevated receptor count). Essentially, cancerous cells are "parasites." By removing all sources of glucose from the body, and entering a state of ketosis, where acetone bodys supply energy to the cells as opposed to glucose, the cancer cells starve; dying or slowing growth to the point where the body's immune system can sucessfully remove them.

Long story short, you wanna live to be 100, stop drinking so much f*ing soda.

>> ^deathcow:
I am sure he is left with something his immune system took out in the end.

Probably, but it's also possible that the cyst lining remained (having only removed the "gunk" that the cyst produces) and it would eventually fill up again, especially if it's actually a "cyst" and not just an abscess.
Even if it were an abscess (the diagnosis of which is supported by the apparent odor), it could still recur if nothing was left in the incision to allow it to drain.

>> ^EndAll:
...it's not just fluid, I think - it looked like a clump under the skin with bits being broken off with the pressure applied.. so it's more viscous and cheese-like...


This is Keratin - a semi-solid material consisting principally of sebum and dead skin cells.
They mention how badly it smells which suggests to me that it is probably infected, but given it's size I agree with deathcow that his immune system will handle this fine.

Well, points for her eventual success. She should have worked her way from the far periphery of the abcess to the center to begin with. I am sure he is left with something his immune system took out in the end. If you ever need to do this, you can start by filling a small cup up with the super cold liquid from a canned air can and using that as a surface anesthetic.

Oh and "zit", "boil" and "abscess" are all terms relative to size. Most zits, be it face, back, or scalp acne are mild staph infections. When the skin traps oil on its own you tend to get cysts. They tend not to swell quite as much and when you purge them its more like oil or a waxy clump. When its a combination of natural skin oils and staphococci bacteria, a mild infection or zit results. If the immune system is unable to deal with the infection in its own, you tend to get boils and abcesses. Go bad skin and cosmetology school!( half of skincare class was recognizing common problems and knowing when to say "sory, you'll need to talk to a doctor about that.")