As we have seen with Climategate (and with the ACORN expose), the US Press does not report on stories it does not like; perhaps that is why we have not seen headlines about what this Benedictine nun, who is a medical doctor, specializing in internal medicine, is saying. [English Subtitles]
Stick with this first video, as Sr. Terese Forcades, OSB, begins with her credentials and some flu/virus basics. It ends with a bang. Then move on to video two:
In video two, Sister talks about irregularities in the vaccine, then explores the “second irregularity” at about 5 minutes in…and it certainly seems rather startlingly irregular.
Video 3: Looking at political fall-out from these irregularities:
You can watch all 6 videos of Sister’s talk, which is very systematic, serious and level-headed, here
I saw this weeks ago and think she’s onto something. I was skeptical at first but then googled some of her claims and she’s not lying or distorting the truth.
The interesting thing is that the pharmaceutical company has NEVER to my knowledge, properly explained how the vaccine became contaminated.
AFter the vaccine fiasco in the Philippines in the 1990′s I don’t trust these widespread vaccinations. My girls did not get the cervical cancer vaccine.
I simply don’t trust these people.
Well worth watching the whole thing. Now that the news is reporting about some kind of dangerous mutation of the H1N1, it makes you wonder if Plan A was foiled by that Czech lab worker.
Yes, see the whole thing. It’ll take 45 minutes, but it’s absolutely worth it.
Thought-provoking not only in terms of health care but in terms of political control and even terrorism. If contamination can happen accidentally-and she believes the odds were next to nil–then it can happen on purpose. Also, without the possibility of legal recourse, there is no mechanism to encourage the pharma companies to provide better security, supervision and quality control–none. And who the devil is the WHO to exercise political control over our country without our knowledge or consent? It’s a slippery slope.
Her bottom line? Avoid getting the H1N1 shot.
I think I’ll follow the good Sister’s advice and not get a swine flu shot.
Another scheme to rid the world of human population. What kind of crazy people do we have running this world and dictating what shots we will or will not have?
Thankfully our government is too incompetent to compete in this game and can’t get the vaccine out to the population before the “pandemic” ends.
Thanks for showing this.
This sounds like a huge story! Has the mainstream media picked up on it yet? (Other than the “mutation” thing?)
I’m sorry, but I find some apples and oranges being mixed in this report. Go back to the bird flu outbreak when China was not reporting anything to the WHO and infections were being found in places like Canada. I suspect that the change in pandemic definition goes back to this, not to a swine flu cover-up. Remember the quarantines and the slaughters of birds in Asia. Prompt and decisive action probably saved many lives.
Next, remember when the swine flu was first reported. There were deaths in Mexico, and no one knew what was happening. As cases started cropping up elsewhere, WHO and CDC were trying to get information about what they were up against. To get info, you have to alert people so that potential cases are reported. Only then can you assess infectiousness and mortality. You also have to factor in mutation rates for the virus. As it spreads widely through different populations with different immunities and exposure to other viruses, you could have get a mutated and far more dangerous virus. It is the job of WHO and CDC to anticipate such potential dangers.
These elements are separate from the contamination of the viral strains sent to companies for vaccine production. They are also separate from the discussion about the methods used to produce vaccine and the tests required to ensure its effectiveness and safety. As to recommending (or in some cases requiring) who should be vaccinated, you can’t recommend until you have watched the spread of the infection and determined the method of spread and those most at risk.
Obviously, the company that produced the viral strains screwed up. Whether there were other screw-ups can only be determined if you look at each step in the chain. Mixing them all into some conspirative hodgepodge doesn’t help.
As to whether any single person should be vaccinated, I would suggest looking at your own lifestyle. If you are likely to come in contact with infected people, you may decide differently from a person who works at home. Just try to follow the latest information and assess yor own risks, but don’t panic.
One last thing, if I were planning some sort of bioterror attack, I would not go through secure labs and doctor-administered vaccines to do it. Contaminating various elements of the food chain would like create more uncertainty and panic. It would also be easier to do and harder to track. Bioterror is not high on my list of factors to consider in deciding whether to be vaccinated.
I watched the third of the posted videos, so perhaps am not qualified to comment, but if the third is typical, then I do not think I would bother watching the others. Sister’s views about international law strike me as completely inaccurate. Whatever the treaties, the WHO does not have the ability to force domestic policy in UN member countries. It does not have the legal authority to give orders. It is conceivable, under various domestic public health laws, that a vaccination could be made mandatory. However, there would be an enormous outcry among the citizenry, many of whom are skeptical about vaccinations and many of whom would have constitutionally protected rights to refuse. Governments will not risk this, at least not in Canada and the U.S. without a dire and obvious disaster. Finally, her comments about the seasonal flu vaccine and the H1N1 vaccine make no sense. Seasonal flu vaccines are produced every year based on a “guess” about which flus will be prevalent; there is lots of lead time and the vaccines are produced as a matter of routine. H1N1 was a special order which had to be prepared out of the normal run of things and, even acting before we were aware of the mortality rate (which we are much more aware of now), had to be rushed into production in a separate order. The vaccine is administered in one dose and while some allergic reactions have been reported, there do not seem to be any more than for the normal vaccine. Mortality rates are not as high as feared for this wave of H1H1, although the fact is that they seem to strike children hardest. Still, they are significant, and rates of serious hospitalization are also significant. Based on the inaccuracies in Sister’s third comment here, I am not likely to spend the time to watch them all.
Some people wonder who are the people who sit as czars that Obama annointed. Some of these folks advocate population control. I think it is time to control the population of Washington DC.
In the last video Sr. Terese Forcades really backs away from tinfoil hat style conspiracies.
She seems to be emphasizing the need for all to question authority, not just take for granted that the powers that be know what is good for us. The redefining of terms, etc. should always be fodder for discussion.
Her anecdote at the end regarding actions by the Catalonian government to quash debate on genetically engineered foods is a good one. The dictatorial actions of a self styled “elite” acting for the common good is something all countries run the risk of.
What I got from this series of videos was justification of the adage, “Question authority”. I believe Sister’s aim was to further that mindset.
[Well yes. She is doing exactly that. She's not just "tinfoil-hatting" it. But she is doing that while taking a great deal of time to provide information with which people should question authority on a particular issue. Hard to ignore that. Admin]
I tend to agree with those skeptical of the sister’s comments. In addition, I would point out that she is somewhat contraversial in general, a follower of libertation theology, and tends to see conspiracies everywhere.
I am not an authority on public health, nor do I have any specialized training in medicine or epidemiology.
So I get my information from many sources, newspapers, magazines, blogs, and so forth.
Which is to say, I am like most of the people writing here.
Skepticism of governments is well placed; especially governments acting in concert with private moneyed interests.
However, there is also a notion being accepted here that I take issue with- ” the US Press does not report on stories it does not like”
The Press is indeed flawed, and follows a her mentality, and we could write books on its failures.
But to ascribe malice to what is better explained by stupidity is the error here. To see a vast conspiracy to suppress unfavorable stories is the very definition of tin-foil hattery.
The idea that this Sister is somehow in possession of a private truth, a knowledge overlooked or suppressed by all the officials of the CDC, various state and local public health organizations, independent medical centers and doctors….she alone has stumbled upon the truth? This again is the essence of grassy knoll imaginations.
Why should we trade naive faith in the CDC for a naive faith in a woman we don’t personally know?
Wouldn’t it be just as possible (or just as ludicrous) to ascribe a dark malevolence to the Sister’s position, to see her as representing some Dan Brown type effort to expose the world to the deadly virus?
The strength of the scientific method is in corroboration; one test or view does not make a consensus. Until her point of view is cross cheked and corroborated by her sicentific peers, it remains one woman’s unsubstantiated opinion.
Here’s some info on Therese Forcades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Forcades
Teresa Forcades is a controversial Benedictine nun who espouses feminism as a form of Liberation Theology, does not agree with the Catholic Church’s stand on abortion, and, during the height of the Swine Flu/H1N1 pandemic, claims that the flu vaccine was rushed into research and production, and lacks proper scientific basis for public use.
Re Pastorius’s mentioning the wikipedia article -
Just because one is objectively wrong about some things, does not mean he or she is wrong about others (especially those which take prudential judgement). She may be a better epidemiologist than she is a catechist. I do like her habit, though. That’s always a good sign.
The concerns need to be examined on their merits. The changes to the pandemic definition should be reviewed (that was surprising to me). Also, the concern about “orders” from WHO – those claiming that international law doesn’t work that way doesn’t dismiss the concern. If a state decides that recommendations will be treated as orders under force of law – then the practical result is that it’s an order.
I too have concerns about it’s rushing, about GBS caused by excessive exposure to the FLU (and 3 doses – here in the US for young children… A bit concerning).
Do inactivated viruses have traces of live viruses? I don’t know, I”ll have to check. But I do know that flu mist is live, and early on, the only swine flu vaccine available was the flu mist version.
This isn’t the forum to discuss the technicalities, but if there’ anything that gives me pause, it’s the politicization of the Flu. If anything, someone’s getting rich off of this. And when people get rich, oftentimes it’s done on the graves of others.
Bottom line: if the Obama regime is pushing it, I’m suspicious, to say the least.
“Do inactivated viruses have traces of live viruses? I don’t know, I”ll have to check.”
The reason for the long lead time for creating flu vaccines is that they discovered that incubating the virus in a fertilized duck egg kills the virus after a certain period of time, while still leaving the antigens hemagglutinin and neuraminidase intact. (The antigens are what your body’s immune system responds to.) So there’s no live virus parts in there. Flu mist, as you noted, has bits & pieces of live virus, and is not recommended for immune-suppressed people or children under two.
IIRC, an immunity to an H1N1 virus will usually provide partial protection to a new variant, which is why they think they’re not seeing many deaths in the 65+ age range. (It’s been a good thirty or forty years since the last H1N1 strain.) They’re disturbed at the death rate in the young adult age range; a young lady at my parents’ church died this spring from H1N1.
My in-laws have had to deal with a number of immune-suppressed individuals, so I tend to push vaccination a bit harder than average. At one point, sniffles could have killed my husband’s niece.
I think they’re pushing the vaccine hard because of the fear that a mutation could push this flu into the highly deadly range, and the more people that are vaccinated while it’s still relatively benign, the less chance a deadly variant has to spread. FWIW, I’m vaccinated and my toddler got the first dose (they’re out so he hasn’t gotten a booster.)
A good read about a flu epidemic and its likely effects is Doomsday Book, by Connie Willis. Her daughter is an epidemiologist (and her readership is highly analytical), so I’m apt to trust her information even though it’s fiction.
First, she assumes that this will be eventually used for human consumption. This is incorrect, as was proven when the serum was tested first. We don’t know all of the facts in this case and neither does she.
Second, she assumes the rate of infection based on one particular mutation. She should consider the pandemic of 1918 and how quickly it spread from one country to another. Therefore you should not base projections on the virus’ current rate of transmission. BTW the swine flu is the same virus as 1918, just in a different mutation.