Will there be swine flu autism babies in 2-4 years? (re: Swine Flu as vehicle for martial law, etc (was: This is scary!)

[Guest guest]

http://www.new-fields.com/ISFC/brochure.pdfhttp://www.infowars.com/preparing-for-martial-law-international-swine-flu-conference-to-be-held-in-washington/ Yeah, but consider where the source is.  I'm not saying there isn't something fishy (or 'piggy' rather..) about this swine flu - there certainly is.  But given that the WHO has declared it 'pandemic' (based on spread potential, not on lethality, or even on potential letality), I would expect the US to make such plans just in case.   If nothing else, it's another thing for the Congresscritters and such to waste our tax money on (as well as giving money to the IACC for doing nothing..  Buying planes the Pentagon neither wants nor needs..  Paying for bridges to nowhere and airports for only 5 or so people a day..  [i should live there..]) But there certainly is something fishy about this.  For one, given that everyone is so scared about the flu - any flu - wouldn't you think they'd have picked apart every single gene in the flu virus, figured out what it does, and so could calculate with some certainty (maybe) what the spread potential, letality potential, and mutation potential for a new virus is?  Unless of course they don't want to do so..  Because they know what the answer is already (sound like autism, anyone?)  But that is getting a bit to conspiratorial for me. But it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next 0.5-2 years..  Unless - if the autoimmune potential of squalene adjuvants IS high..  Any autoimmunities that are caused or influenced by them may take years to show up. But I wonder - given that the number of flu shots for pregnant mothers this time around is going to be 3 (1 for normal flu, 2 for swine flu - Mercola says there's one more for something else)..  In about 2-4 years are we going to see a big bolus of "swine flu autism" cases?  And what happens if that does happen (especially if the bolus is too big to easily pass off as a "statistical blip")? I just think "they" (whatever they're intentions are - to just sell flu vaccine, to cull population, to "boost confidence in the vaccine programm/fear of the alternative", etc) are taking a HUGE risk here.  If this backfires..  You know it will be all over the internet faster than..  well..  swine flu..  If there is a big number of cases they will probably be "born on the spectrum" cases from prenatal immunologic/mercury/squalene poisoning, with probably some number of regressive cases from kids with weakened immune/detox systems. And my feeling is that if there IS a large number, there is no way "they" will be able to cover it up - short of doing what a certain [sic] not-so-democratic country did to two innocent young women journalists recently (GO CLINTON!!  LOL!)..  I think if it's big enough it might even be able to "crack" the mainstream media.  Maybe.. That raises the question:  Assume that eventually all this "autism stuff" will hit mainstream medicine - DAN!, vaccines (once we get titanium-alloy-clad evidence!), the autism "epidemic" (what I call "a hell of a lot of sick kids who are going to be a hell of a problem" - only that doesn't fit on a tee-shirt), etc.  What happens when it does?  Mainstream medicine is not going to get out of this alive (I'd settle for them not getting out of it neurotypical though.." - if only because they ignored a obvious public-health and economic menace for 20-40 years - if anyone had bother to look. That will mean scrutiny should come not only from medical people, but also from economists, health care reform people, politicians, policy people, etc.  It's rather easy to make medical argument that "autism isn't really that bad" - they're doing that now.  It's much harder to make an economic argument saying that - given that these kids are going to be noticed..  Probably when they turn 18 and the government will have to notice them.  Unless Congress changes the rules for Medicaid elegibility..  In which case I think Jefferson would get what he says every generation needs!Jim

[Guest guest]

Isn't interesting CDC has never figured out what caused the failure of the swine

flu vaccine in the late 70's to cause sudden death, and many to have Gullian

Barre. And the swine Flu has mutated in Brazil,

therefore making the current swine flu vaccine, not affective.

In EOHarm , Jim Witte wrote:

>

>

> > http://www.new-fields.com/ISFC/brochure.pdf

> > http://www.infowars.com/preparing-for-martial-law-international-

> > swine-flu-conference-to-be-held-in-washington/

> Yeah, but consider where the source is. I'm not saying there isn't

> something fishy (or 'piggy' rather..) about this swine flu - there

> certainly is. But given that the WHO has declared it

> 'pandemic' (based on spread potential, not on lethality, or even on

> potential letality), I would expect the US to make such plans just in

> case. If nothing else, it's another thing for the Congresscritters

> and such to waste our tax money on (as well as giving money to the

> IACC for doing nothing.. Buying planes the Pentagon neither wants

> nor needs.. Paying for bridges to nowhere and airports for only 5 or

> so people a day.. [i should live there..])

>

> But there certainly is something fishy about this. For one, given

> that everyone is so scared about the flu - any flu - wouldn't you

> think they'd have picked apart every single gene in the flu virus,

> figured out what it does, and so could calculate with some certainty

> (maybe) what the spread potential, letality potential, and mutation

> potential for a new virus is? Unless of course they don't want to do

> so.. Because they know what the answer is already (sound like

> autism, anyone?) But that is getting a bit to conspiratorial for me.

>

> But it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next

> 0.5-2 years.. Unless - if the autoimmune potential of squalene

> adjuvants IS high.. Any autoimmunities that are caused or influenced

> by them may take years to show up.

>

> But I wonder - given that the number of flu shots for pregnant

> mothers this time around is going to be 3 (1 for normal flu, 2 for

> swine flu - Mercola says there's one more for something else).. In

> about 2-4 years are we going to see a big bolus of " swine flu autism "

> cases? And what happens if that does happen (especially if the bolus

> is too big to easily pass off as a " statistical blip " )?

>

> I just think " they " (whatever they're intentions are - to just sell

> flu vaccine, to cull population, to " boost confidence in the vaccine

> programm/fear of the alternative " , etc) are taking a HUGE risk here.

> If this backfires.. You know it will be all over the internet faster

> than.. well.. swine flu.. If there is a big number of cases they

> will probably be " born on the spectrum " cases from prenatal

> immunologic/mercury/squalene poisoning, with probably some number of

> regressive cases from kids with weakened immune/detox systems.

>

> And my feeling is that if there IS a large number, there is no way

> " they " will be able to cover it up - short of doing what a certain

> [sic] not-so-democratic country did to two innocent young women

> journalists recently (GO CLINTON!! LOL!).. I think if it's big

> enough it might even be able to " crack " the mainstream media. Maybe..

>

> That raises the question: Assume that eventually all this " autism

> stuff " will hit mainstream medicine - DAN!, vaccines (once we get

> titanium-alloy-clad evidence!), the autism " epidemic " (what I call " a

> hell of a lot of sick kids who are going to be a hell of a problem " -

> only that doesn't fit on a tee-shirt), etc. What happens when it

> does? Mainstream medicine is not going to get out of this alive (I'd

> settle for them not getting out of it neurotypical though.. " - if

> only because they ignored a obvious public-health and economic menace

> for 20-40 years - if anyone had bother to look.

>

> That will mean scrutiny should come not only from medical people,

> but also from economists, health care reform people, politicians,

> policy people, etc. It's rather easy to make medical argument that

> " autism isn't really that bad " - they're doing that now. It's much

> harder to make an economic argument saying that - given that these

> kids are going to be noticed.. Probably when they turn 18 and the

> government will have to notice them. Unless Congress changes the

> rules for Medicaid elegibility.. In which case I think Jefferson

> would get what he says every generation needs!

>

> Jim

>