Alex Jones should interview Devin! He has interviewed also Dave Mustaine and Matthew Bellamy. I´m sure Devin´s views of life and universe would widen even more.

There are "conspiracy theories" and then there are real information out there. Cut the alien/reptoid crap already. Just gives a bad reputation for the truth seekers, NOT "conspiracy theorists".

I wonder what Devin´s view is for 911.

Um, suffering through the H1N1 flu develops a much stronger immunity than any vaccine. You know that, right?

Where'd you get that from?
Not saying it isn't true, as I honestly wouldn't know either way, but I've never heard that before and I'm curious.

Not sure where to go for an good authoritative source for this (there's some stuff here), but that's the case for pretty much all diseases for which there is a vaccine.

The vaccines are based on the idea that being exposed to a weakened form of the virus trains your immunity system to fight it. So, if you instead manage to beat the full version of the virus, your immunity system is already battle-tested and ready to take it on any time

Yes it's true that you develop immunity to the virus after having suffered through it once but there's no guarantee you won't catch it again because viruses mutate and your immune system might not recognise it as the same virus. But you'll atleast be safe from it for a while after, maybe even years. Atleast that's what i've understood . But hey, i'm no doctor so don't bust my balls about it if i'm wrong!

The vaccines are based on the idea that being exposed to a weakened form of the virus trains your immunity system to fight it. So, if you instead manage to beat the full version of the virus, your immunity system is already battle-tested and ready to take it on any time

Yes it's true that you develop immunity to the virus after having suffered through it once but there's no guarantee you won't catch it again because viruses mutate and your immune system might not recognise it as the same virus. But you'll atleast be safe from it for a while after, maybe even years. Atleast that's what i've understood . But hey, i'm no doctor so don't bust my balls about it if i'm wrong!

They mutate, yeah, and there's also different ones in the wild all the time. So if you've had a serious flu during this season there's maybe a 50-50 chance that it was the H1N1, or some other random flu. There are naturally tests that can be done to determine if it is H1N1 or not, but those take time and money so I think most people don't bother.

My impression of the immunity is that by suffering the disease you are immune for life to that particular strand. If and when it mutates a bit it would be possible to catch it again. (I'm also not a doctor but tried to pay attention in biology class...10 years ago )

Now, if you can find a paper from a peer-reviewed academic journal, that isn't discredited, and shows a proven link

This is something I wanted to get back to: peer-reviewed academic journals. Yes, they are the most reliable and authoritative source of information. Unfortunately, they are never the most up-to-date source, since it usually takes at least a full year from when a paper is submitted until it is published. So, for that reason I don't think there can be many serious journal articles about the H1N1 epidemic released yet. I would imagine that some journals and authors have attempted to "cash in" on the hype about H1N1 and published whatever bullshit studies as fast as possible. There's a lot of crap in the scientific community, and not everything is reliable

(I have some experience with academic journals, from a different field.)

I'm not saying that if something is in a peer reviewed academic journal, that means it's true, or that something has to be in one in order to be true. However, the alternative, of just plain making shit up with no scientific basis for your arguments, (or parroting the views of loudmouths on blogs with an agenda) is an even worse way to determine what is true.

I guess what I'm getting at, is that people need to realise that just because there are two sides to an argument, it does not mean that both sides of the argument have equal weight.

Is it possible that when someday this virus wil start to mutate into new forms, we will have another vaccination after another ?

I guess what I'm getting at, is that people need to realise that just because there are two sides to an argument, it does not mean that both sides of the argument have equal weight.

This is a great way of putting it

My point was that the process of academic journals is really slow (which sucks), so asking for journal articles about a current issue is not realistic.

Even worse would be claiming that something "is not true because there are no articles proving it", which I've seen in online discussions occasionally.

[Keeker]

Is it possible that when someday this virus wil start to mutate into new forms, we will have another vaccination after another ?

That's what happens more or less every year or so with ordinary flu vaccines. They bring out new ones to match the most prevalent strain of flu in the population I think. But this virus could as easily mutate into a less nasty disease as a worse one.

See that ladies?

Now about face, the lot of you! For the good of all our health!

That's what happens more or less every year or so with ordinary flu vaccines. They bring out new ones to match the most prevalent strain of flu in the population I think. But this virus could as easily mutate into a less nasty disease as a worse one.

That'll be awesome if the flu will end killing toll and mutate into something normal for us.

Future will tell... Thanks for that answer !

Why do conspiracy theorists feel the need to bring every crackpot theory under one banner.

It can't just be freemasons, it has to be jew controlled reptilian freemasons in league with illuminati greys.

There may well be more going on than meets the eye, but you are never going to convince people if you feel the need to connect every crazy theory that is spouted on the internet into one cohesive super theory.

On topic: I paid for the H1N1 vaccine through my work and never bothered to go to the medical centre. There is $8 I'll never see again. If I were in a high risk category I wouldn't think twice about getting it.

If all these vaccines are just to implant mind control and obedience surely everyone will go to get it because the last time they were vaccinated will tell them too.

If they are putting mind control stuff in there make mine a double, I struggle to control it so good luck to you multidimensional overlords.

hmmm i dunno personally i wouldn't mind resisting the NWO with a rusty bolt action rifle and some dodgy IEDs
maybe i could encounter some hot woman that will make me her sex slave till this shit blows over!

No one is claiming that 100% of people that refuse to take the vaccine will die. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. Not even the black death was able to infect/kill 100% of those that came in contact with it. Those that refuse to take the vaccine do have a higher probability of dying than those that don't, but they're not all going to die. Similarly, those that refuse to get vaccinated have a higher probability of suffering complications from being infected with flu, than they would to suffer an adverse reaction to a vaccine.

It's nothing to do with trusting the government. Like global warming deniers, the anti-vaccine movement have absolutely no scientific basis for their arguments, and have to fall back on conspiracy theories, misunderstanding and misreprentation of genuine evidence, and sometimes outright dishonesty.

I think what makes most anti-h1n1 people nervous is not the lack of evidence on the "vaccinations are evil" side it's the absolute lack of clinical studies done on the drug that is near being forced on us. Simply reading the fact sheet from GSK (the makers of the $$ er I mean drug) will tell you that they did not sufficiently test the drug before it's release and we're expected to be the guinea pigs.

Here's a great document (see section 6 for clinical trials) that says while we didn't sufficiently test this vaccine, here are some possible side effects from a different vaccine:

http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_influenza_a_h1n1.pdf

I also suppose it was a coincidence that GSK's sales of vaccines were up 30% {http://www.gsk.com/investors/quarterly_results.htm} (883 million UKPS or 1.4 BILLION USD) in 4th quarter 2009 to return the company to profitability after losing business to generic (read - affordable) drugs.

My mother-in-law had a respiratory reaction 10 days after recieving the shot. She was in intensive care for 3 weeks and 3 months later, can still not function without an oxygen tank. She was immunized by her University. We were told to visit her in hazmat suits for our goodbyes.

But I'm not a doctor so I guess I'm an idiot. Actually, if I was a doctor, at least I could be making money off of this. http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=2121

[Octillus]

No one is claiming that 100% of people that refuse to take the vaccine will die. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. Not even the black death was able to infect/kill 100% of those that came in contact with it. Those that refuse to take the vaccine do have a higher probability of dying than those that don't, but they're not all going to die. Similarly, those that refuse to get vaccinated have a higher probability of suffering complications from being infected with flu, than they would to suffer an adverse reaction to a vaccine.

It's nothing to do with trusting the government. Like global warming deniers, the anti-vaccine movement have absolutely no scientific basis for their arguments, and have to fall back on conspiracy theories, misunderstanding and misreprentation of genuine evidence, and sometimes outright dishonesty.

I think what makes most anti-h1n1 people nervous is not the lack of evidence on the "vaccinations are evil" side it's the absolute lack of clinical studies done on the drug that is near being forced on us. Simply reading the fact sheet from GSK (the makers of the $$ er I mean drug) will tell you that they did not sufficiently test the drug before it's release and we're expected to be the guinea pigs.

I'm pretty much among this camp, despite already surviving the flu de swine. I have NO problems with vaccines at all, but the fact of the matter was that regardless of the noble intent and necessity of how quickly this vaccine needed to be produced, none of my other vaccinations that I've received were developed and distributed within half of a year. While I agree that by virtue of it being for the flu that these things will be more rapid and different, I'd rather not deal with compulsory inoculation until I absolutely have to.

I think what makes most anti-h1n1 people nervous is not the lack of evidence on the "vaccinations are evil" side it's the absolute lack of clinical studies done on the drug that is near being forced on us. Simply reading the fact sheet from GSK (the makers of the $$ er I mean drug) will tell you that they did not sufficiently test the drug before it's release and we're expected to be the guinea pigs.

This flu jab has been tested as much as the routine annual flu jab - it is not possible to have a flu vaccine that goes through the same rigorous degree of testing as other vaccines simply because it has to be produced in relation to this years illness. Flu vaccines are all prepared much the same way: the flu virus is injected into hens eggs, grown and then killed before used to make the vaccine. When injected the body mounts an immune response to the dead virus and thus prepares you for the flu ahead. There is testing done but it looks at whether or not individuals mount a response to the vaccine not whether or not its safe. The test of whether it is safe to inject the basic vaccine has been done long since. Every year thousands of people have the flu jab. Many will tell you it gave them the flu (but sitting in a waiting room full of people with coughs doesn't apparently, just the jab).

Why did you have to wear Hazmat suits to visit your mother-in-law if she was dying of a reaction to the vaccine? Had she developed something that was contagious through clothing and skin? I must say I am impressed by the lengths the medical facility went to for you though, Level A Hazmat suits (which is what you would have needed to protect against biological agents) don't leave change out of $10,000 and are, in situations like that, a single use only deal.