Capsid
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,845
Yes, very strange indeed. I wonder how millions died from influenza in countries where mass vaccination was not undertaken at that time.
By mass vaccination I presume you mean smallpox vaccination? However, variolation had been used for many years before this pandemic.
Zep said:
No, not for influenza. After all, the term had not yet been invented. Nor did anyone know what influenza even was. And they still don't. The "Flu" is just a name for a bunch of symptoms that fit a whole lot of diseases. And the pandemic of 1918 was really bad -- so bad that people may indeed have had a whole bunch of diseases -- diseases which may well have been caused by mass innoculations.
A commentary from one contemporary observer::
"When doctors had tried to suppress the symptoms of the typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid which they named paratyphoid. But when they concocted a stronger and more dangerous vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease which they didn’t have a name for. What should they call it? They didn’t want to tell the people what it really was — their own Frankenstein monster which they had created with their vaccines and suppressive medicines. They wanted to direct the blame away from themselves, so they called it Spanish Influenza. It was certainly not of Spanish origin, and the Spanish people resented the implication that the world-wide scourge of that day should be blamed on them. But the name stuck and American medical doctors and vaccine makers were not suspected of the crime of this widespread devastation — the 1918 Flu Epidemic. It is only in recent years that researchers have been digging up the facts and laying the blame where it belongs..."
"The disease had the characteristics of the black death added to typhoid, diphtheria, pneumonia, smallpox, paralysis and all the diseases the people had been vaccinated with immediately following World War 1. Practically the entire population had been injected "seeded" with a dozen or more diseases — or toxic serums. When all those doctor-made diseases started breaking out all at once it was tragic."
From Swine Flu Expose
by Eleanora I. McBean, Ph.D., N.D.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf1.html
Rouser,
I just went to the link you posted. I didn't even bother reading your snip. And, when I did, the very first sentence in the article from this supposed "authority" on this subject reads thusly:
This is just such a gross oversimplification and false statement, that it's really not worth taking anything else this person says with much seriousness. Still, I find it extremely insightful of your motives that you selective quote from the "lunatic fringe" of medicine. Doctors are bad, unless they happen to be wackos who agree with you.
I didn't bother with the rest of the article or what you quoted. If I'm going to waste my time, I'd rather do it watching re-runs of "The Jeffersons" or playing Windows Solitaire or staring at spots on the wall. All are far more entertaining and informative than what you offer.
-TT
I just went to the link you posted. I didn't even bother reading your snip. And, when I did, the very first sentence in the article from this supposed "authority" on this subject reads thusly:
This is just such a gross oversimplification and false statement, that it's really not worth taking anything else this person says with much seriousness. Still, I find it extremely insightful of your motives that you selective quote from the "lunatic fringe" of medicine. Doctors are bad, unless they happen to be wackos who agree with you.
I didn't bother with the rest of the article or what you quoted. If I'm going to waste my time, I'd rather do it watching re-runs of "The Jeffersons" or playing Windows Solitaire or staring at spots on the wall. All are far more entertaining and informative than what you offer.
-TT
Rouser2 said:
So your 'evidence' from that incredible site (go look, it's great www.whale.to ) is that the typhoid vaccine created some weird disease based on typhoid that doctors called spanish flu to divert attention?
What (apart from it also being a hairy pile of steaming woo poo) has that got to do with your claims about flu and the flu vaccine?
Capsid
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,845
eh? Which vaccines were these then? Immediately means 30-40 years later I suppose?
Or maybe it's caused by the influenza virus
edited for typos
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I noticed, in the last paragraph of the page rouser linked to:
Either McBean PhD ND doesn't know that "infantile paralysis" is in fact a synonym for polio, or she's relying on the ignorance of her perceived audience (which presumably includes people like Rouser).
(italics in original)
Either McBean PhD ND doesn't know that "infantile paralysis" is in fact a synonym for polio, or she's relying on the ignorance of her perceived audience (which presumably includes people like Rouser).
Originally posted by Zep [/i]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
And strangely, this pandemic [the 1918-1919 Spanish influenza pandemic] came just after mass vaccinations came into common practice during WW I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
No, [the vaccinations were] not for influenza.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Oh. Then your point is...??
That the so-called Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 may have in fact been several diseases caused by mass innoculations for those diseases. Get it now???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
And strangely, this pandemic [the 1918-1919 Spanish influenza pandemic] came just after mass vaccinations came into common practice during WW I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
No, [the vaccinations were] not for influenza.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Oh. Then your point is...??
That the so-called Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 may have in fact been several diseases caused by mass innoculations for those diseases. Get it now???
Oh. So the scientists in 1918/19 couldn't distinguish between influenza and any other diseases, nor even between those other diseases either. They didn't have microscopes or anything scientific like that, and the symptoms of all diseases then were identical and thus indistinguishable. So the doctors just decided to CALL whatever disease(s) that were happening "influenza" to try and fool everyone.Rouser2 said:
Is that what you are saying, Rouser?
Rouser2 said:
Yeah, we get it. You don't like facts.
The 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic was not caused by, as the ridiculous assertion put forth by your so-called source attempts to state, "mass innoculations" for other diseases.
Here's the proof:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=15547
Who am I to believe? Some crackpot naturopath half-off her rocker or the National Institutes of Health in the U.S.?
Hmmm... tough choice.
-TT
ThirdTwin said:
Well now, anyone who challenges the Medical Establishment is by definition a "crackpot" thus allowing no further thinking. Perhaps the study is onto something; perhaps not. I note that the primary cause of death was not the flu virus...
"The majority of individuals died of secondary acute bacterial pneumonia, the most common cause of death in the 1918 pandemic (10); most of the samples taken from these individuals were not analyzed further, because they were extremely unlikely to retain influenza virus,'
Thus, though this was the major cause of death, they apparently retained no virus. Also of note is the apparent fact that the early severe cases were military -- we can infer, innoculated with all manner of stuff prior to contracting the disease.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
These idiotic claims about the Spanish flu are hilarious, yet sad.
I know why Whale is used in the website address, that site has whoppers that go beyond fish tales, they tell a whale of a tale every time. The conspiracy theories have me laughing and angry at the same time.
Rouser, when are going to get that crackpot theories and crap alternatives are nothing against the actual facts and effectiveness of real medical care?
Your groping for arguments is seriously failing. Can't you let reality sink in for once? Look at your tactic for gosh sakes. Really sad.
Rouser2 said:
Rouser,
There's really no point arguing with you when you don't even have a basic understanding of pathophysiology. Secondary bacterial invasion occurs in the natural course of the influenza disease. I'm not going to try to explain to you why because you will simply go on some harangue or tirade about how I've been spoonfed bad information in medical school, but suffice it to say that the way the body eliminates viruses is by the immune system's activations towards it's own cell line. Yes, the immune system - when human cells are invaded by a virus - attacks and destroys its own cells before the virus can replicate and proliferate. This then leaves the denuded endothelial surfaces prone to bacterial superinfection in the intervening time between when the normal tissue architecture is broken down by this process and is repaired by the various systems that restore us to our health.
This is not new information, nor is it poorly understood - except by people such as yourself and your naturopath source who have no real medical training.
Furthermore, exhumed patients were found to have the viral RNA. Your source's ideas are therefore, by defintion, crackpot and are no more supportable scientifically (or otherwise) than any other conspiracy theory which happens to fall outside the realm of reasonable conjecture.
-TT
Capsid
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,845
OK let's think twice about this as Rouser suggests. Vaccines were not available during WWI, only the smallpox vaccine. I'm not sure if the troops even got this either. What was given to them was serum therapy for tetanus arising from wound infections. The serum was of equine origin and administered in hospitals ie not prophylactically. Horse serum does run the risk of immediate or delayed allergic reactions. This might explain the deaths reported in the article from the whale website (IF the US soldiers were given serum therapy).
So was influenza virus infected horse serum the cause of the 1981 pandemic? Well influenza pandemics have been associated with concurrent disease in horses. The 1918 outbreak occurred simultaneously in the USA and Europe (where serum therapy would have been used) but also Africa (where serum therapy was not likely to be used?), but the virus was H1N1 related to swine influenza not horse. Yet we know that the virus can jump across species and become more virulent.
So an interesting concept or is it flawed? I could not confirm if the virus is spread by blood/serum, but I don't see why not. Does anyone have thoughts on this?
A further note, influenza A and B viruses were not isolated until 1933 and 1940 respectively although a filterable agent had been identified as early as 1901.
Source of my information is mostly Topley & Wilson's Microbiology and Microbial Infections, Ninth Edition
So was influenza virus infected horse serum the cause of the 1981 pandemic? Well influenza pandemics have been associated with concurrent disease in horses. The 1918 outbreak occurred simultaneously in the USA and Europe (where serum therapy would have been used) but also Africa (where serum therapy was not likely to be used?), but the virus was H1N1 related to swine influenza not horse. Yet we know that the virus can jump across species and become more virulent.
So an interesting concept or is it flawed? I could not confirm if the virus is spread by blood/serum, but I don't see why not. Does anyone have thoughts on this?
A further note, influenza A and B viruses were not isolated until 1933 and 1940 respectively although a filterable agent had been identified as early as 1901.
Source of my information is mostly Topley & Wilson's Microbiology and Microbial Infections, Ninth Edition
ThirdTwin said:
And how. It is senseless arguing with somebody whose primary line of attack is that we are all fed nonsense by the BBG (big bad government). It assumes we have no ability to discern credible information based on our own studies.
Athon
Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]
>>Furthermore, exhumed patients were found to have the viral RNA. Your source's ideas are therefore, by defintion, crackpot and are no more supportable scientifically (or otherwise) than any other conspiracy theory which happens to fall outside the realm of reasonable conjecture.
So where then did the victims pick up the viral RNA??? Is it just possible, possible they picked it up from innoculations? Yes or no? Or perhaps from other innoculated people? Be honest. That's just how polio has been spread in many cases during the past 50 years -- from people who had been vaccinated. And note, the "mild" caes of Spanish Flu reported in the Spring of 1918. And how does anyone really know what substances were in all those mass innoculations given at that point in time? Moreover, my "crackpot" source confirms that many of the Flu patients had symptoms of pneunomia the same as your source. Does that make your source a crackpot too???? And I just don't know how one can be sure that the alleged pneumonia was a secondary infection if there was no evidence of the primary infection found in the majority of exhumed victims.
>>Furthermore, exhumed patients were found to have the viral RNA. Your source's ideas are therefore, by defintion, crackpot and are no more supportable scientifically (or otherwise) than any other conspiracy theory which happens to fall outside the realm of reasonable conjecture.
So where then did the victims pick up the viral RNA??? Is it just possible, possible they picked it up from innoculations? Yes or no? Or perhaps from other innoculated people? Be honest. That's just how polio has been spread in many cases during the past 50 years -- from people who had been vaccinated. And note, the "mild" caes of Spanish Flu reported in the Spring of 1918. And how does anyone really know what substances were in all those mass innoculations given at that point in time? Moreover, my "crackpot" source confirms that many of the Flu patients had symptoms of pneunomia the same as your source. Does that make your source a crackpot too???? And I just don't know how one can be sure that the alleged pneumonia was a secondary infection if there was no evidence of the primary infection found in the majority of exhumed victims.
Originally posted by Capsid [/i]
>>OK let's think twice about this as Rouser suggests. Vaccines were not available during WWI, only the smallpox vaccine. I'm not sure if the troops even got this either. What was given to them was serum therapy for tetanus arising from wound infections.
Vaccines were indeed available and anti-typhoid vaccinations were required.
"Vaccination now topped the Army's hierarchy of anti-typhoid weapons. In June 1911, the War Department designated such prophylaxis as compulsory for all troops entering federal service."
http://www.med.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/typhoid/panel12.html
>>OK let's think twice about this as Rouser suggests. Vaccines were not available during WWI, only the smallpox vaccine. I'm not sure if the troops even got this either. What was given to them was serum therapy for tetanus arising from wound infections.
Vaccines were indeed available and anti-typhoid vaccinations were required.
"Vaccination now topped the Army's hierarchy of anti-typhoid weapons. In June 1911, the War Department designated such prophylaxis as compulsory for all troops entering federal service."
http://www.med.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/typhoid/panel12.html
Rouser2 said:
Are you seriously interested in answers to these questions? Because, I can answer every single one of them without some silly, half-baked, crackpot theory not supported by anything other than wild conjecture. Or, is this just more rhetorical posturing? Please tell me before I waste my time.
-TT