George Mamouzellos Bachelor of Pharmacy University of South Australia speaks about the Swine Flu Vaccine

George Mamouzellos
 Bachelor of Pharmacy
University 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,
 George Mamouzellos
 Bachelor of Pharmacy
University of South Australia




Subject: Ingredients to Swine Flu Vaccines

    http://articles. 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
 fetal bovine serum
 human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)
 hydrolized gelatin
 monosodium glutamate (MSG)
 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
 thimerosal (mercury)tri(n)butylphosphat e,
 VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells
 washed sheep red blood cells

No votes yet

The Gathering Spot is a PEERS empowerment website
"Dedicated to the greatest good of all who share our beautiful world"