Mamouzellos Bachelor of Pharmacy University of South Australia talks about Swine Flu

[Guest guest]

Mamouzellos Bachelor of PharmacyUniversity of South Australia says :   

  The Australian Government has used $100 million dollars of our money to buy a swine flu vaccine that some experts believe is several times more dangerous than the swine flu itself.

  Swine

flu has killed between 2000 and 3000 people worldwide. The regular flu

kills 40 000 people plus, every year, in North America alone. Does

freaking out about the swine flu make sense? No, not really.  Swine

flu vaccines were created about 5 months ago. They have not been

thoroughly tested. Most medicines take about 6 years to develop and

test. The way it goes is that a drug company finds a potentially useful

drug, tries it in the lab for a few months, then tries it on a few

animals for a few months, then tries it on lots of animals for a few

months, then tries it on small groups of healthy humans for a year or

2, then tries it on small groups of sick humans for a year or 2, then

finally tries it on large groups of healthy and unhealthy humans for a

few years, and then, finally, it is released to the public.  Swine

flu vaccines were not tested in this way. They were created in a lab,

underwent very limited testing, and have now been mass produced, and

purchased, by the government, without regular testing. They bought 21

million doses – enough for pretty much the entire aussie public.  The

drug companies that make swine flu vaccines are so unsure of human

safety, that some have applied a special exemption from governments

around the world, to sidestep the drug testing/drug responsibility

protocols, so that in case it doesn't work, or makes people sick,

people can't sue them. Does that sound like a safe drug? no.  If

you're a pregnant mother in Australia about to take Panvax (the one

that is being provided by government) ask your doctor this – why would

you take Panvax, when it contains Neomycin and Polymyxin B Sulfate

– both of which exhibit positive risk to unborn children – so as to

avoid what? A mild flu, that kills 95% fewer people than the regular

flu? Does that make sense? Is that an appropriate health decision,

balancing out the needs of the mother and child?  If you read

the label on the vaccine, it lets you know that a possible side effect

is Guillan-Bairre syndrome. In short, that means you turn into a

vegetable. There are approximately 5000 people in the US (so far,

according to various reports) that have developed this condition as a

result of vaccines. If you keep reading the label, it says that one of

the ingredients is thimerosol – a compound that is 50% mercury. When

mercury reaches your brain, it attaches to your brain cells, and causes brain damage.

Brain damage? To avoid the flu? Another ingredient is squalene. When

squalene enters your body, it tricks your immune system into attacking

your own cells – which means you develop autoimmune diseases, like diabetes, multiple sclerosis, asthma, skin disorders, gastrointestinal disorders,

and a bunch of diseases that we don't have a name for yet, because what

we are doing is creating them, by using stuff like squalene.  I

am a qualified pharmacist, and so really know what I'm on about in

regards to drugs, but I'm a regular guy, just like you. This group is

me voicing my opinion, based on my own research. What freaks me out is

that the vaccine seems a lot worse than the disease, and not only that,

the actual drug company that made it is so unsure of their product that

they want a legal exemption in case it makes us all turn into

vegetables, or otherwise makes us sick.  I don't know about

you, but Id rather take my chances with the swine flu, that kills 95%

less people than the regular flu does, than risk turning into a

vegetable, or getting brain damage, or an autoimmune disease

like multiple sclerosis. And not just that – what person in the

government spent a hundred million bucks on this drug without testing

it, or asking if we wanted to be injected with this stuff?  Like

I said, Im a pharmacist. I'm highly trained in critical analysis, and

assessing drug efficacy in humans – and let me say this straight – I am

so bloody worried about this vaccine that if anyone came near my family

with it, I would look around for a weapon and let them know that if

they tried jabbing anyone that I loved with it, they would be beaten to

within an inch of their bloody lives.  Ask the logical

questions – why does the drug company want an exemption? Why were 21

million doses ordered without doing a proper assessment? Is " fast

tracking " a drug that might hurt millions of people a responsible

decision? Why are we so upset about a flu that kills 95% less than

regular flu? Does this make sense?   Hope you're all well,   Mamouzellos Bachelor of PharmacyUniversity of South Australia 

     Subject: Ingredients to Swine Flu Vaccines

           . mercola.com/ sites/articles/ archive/2001/ 03/07/vaccine- ingredients. aspx " target=_blank><>

  According to the above site, done by a Medical Doctor, this is what is in the " Swine-Flu " Vaccine:aluminum hydroxide

 aluminum phosphate ammonium sulfate amphotericin B animal tissues: pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain,  dog kidney, monkey kidney,  chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg

 calf (bovine) serum betapropiolactone fetal bovine serum formaldehyde formalin  gelatin  glycerol human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)

 hydrolized gelatin  monosodium glutamate (MSG) neomycin neomycin sulfate phenol20red indicator phenoxyethanol (antifreeze) potassium diphosphate potassium monophosphate polymyxin B polysorbate 20

 polysorbate 80 porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein residual MRC5 proteins sorbitol  sucrose thimerosal (mercury)tri(n)butylphosphat e,

 VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells washed sheep red blood cells