Either you SNORT it, or you SHOOT it?

On Wednesday; AstraZeneca-Canada, was proud to announce that it’s (MedImmune), ‘LIVE‘ – 2009 SWINE FLU VIRUS loaded (Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine live) FluMist Intranasal vaccine, received approval from the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA; Also Traded as HEALTH CANADA.

AstraZeneca, which bought MedImmune, but let the company keep its name. AstraZeneca is now trying to put some big pharma marketing muscle, behind FluMist. It’s kinda strange to see a big ad for a flu vaccine in the middle of summer. During last flu season, FluMist had $55 million in sales…a drop in the bucket for AstraZeneca.

MedImmune, Inc., today (September 19, 2007) announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the expanded use of FluMist® (Influenza Virus Vaccine Live, Intranasal) in children two to five years of age. FluMist is now approved for immunization against influenza A and B viruses in individuals two to 49 years of age.

According the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)–Each year, up to 60 million Americans get the flu, resulting in complications cause more than 200,000 hospitalizations and approximately 36,000 deaths in the U.S. annually.

Hey, what a great plug by the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce–FluMist® is the first vaccine in CANADA, that is administered as a gentle mist, sprayed into the nose–With the introduction of FluMist, it’s encouraging to see another vaccine option to help reduce the overall burden of seasonal flu.

Even the CBC has joined forces, it seems, and running a little marketing campaign of their own…they decided to you a rather bias poll…damned if you do style–Will having a spray option make you more likely to get vaccinated? Let us know.

Here’s a snap shot, of what’s really behind this big green curtain:

Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal Manufactured by MedImmune, LLC Intranasal Spray Initial U.S. Approval: 2003

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS.

5.1 Risks in Children <24 Months of Age

5.2 Asthma/Recurrent Wheezing

5.3 Guillain-Barré Syndrome

5.4 Altered Immunocompetence

5.5 Medical Conditions Predisposing to Influenza Complications

5.6 Management of Acute Allergic Reactions

5.7 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness–Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal may not protect all individuals receiving the vaccine.

ADVERSE REACTIONS.

6.2 Postmarketing Experience– The following adverse reactions have been identified during postapproval use of FluMist. Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure.

Congenital, familial and genetic disorder: Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome) – Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea – Immune system disorders: Hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylactic reaction, facial edema and urticaria) – Nervous system disorders: Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s Palsy – Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders: Epistaxis-Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders: Rash

DRUG INTERACTIONS.

7.1 Aspirin Therapy

7.2 Antiviral Agents Against Influenza A and/or B–The concurrent use of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist with antiviral agents that are active against influenza A and/or B viruses has not been evaluated.

7.3 Concomitant Inactivated Vaccines–There are no data on the concomitant administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal and seasonal trivalent Influenza Virus Vaccines.

7.4 Concomitant Live Vaccines–There are no data on the concomitant administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine <b>Live</b>, Intranasal and FluMist.

7.5 Intranasal Products–There are no data regarding co-administration of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist with other intranasal preparations.

8.1 Pregnancy.

Pregnancy Category C–Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist. It is not known whether Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity.

8.3 Nursing Mothers.

It is not known whether Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist is excreted in human milk. Therefore, as some viruses are excreted in human milk and additionally, because of the possibility of shedding of vaccine virus and the close proximity of a nursing infant and mother, caution should be exercised if Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal or FluMist is administered to nursing mothers.

12 CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY

12.1 Mechanism of Action–Immune mechanisms conferring protection against influenza following receipt of FluMist vaccine are not fully understood.

13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility.

Neither Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal nor FluMist have been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or potential to impair fertility.

14.5 Transmission Study.

FluMist contains live attenuated influenza viruses that must infect and replicate in cells lining the nasopharynx of the recipient to induce immunity. Vaccine viruses capable of infection and replication can be cultured from nasal secretions obtained from vaccine recipients. The relationship of viral replication in a vaccine recipient and transmission of vaccine viruses to other individuals has not been established.

17.2 Vaccination with a Live Virus Vaccine.

Vaccine recipients or their parents/guardians should be informed by the health care provider that Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal is an attenuated live virus vaccine and has the potential for transmission to immunocompromised household contacts.

ASK YOUR DOCTOR: Is this medication right for me…would you (doctor), take this FluMist® yourself, and or, happily give it to your children?

Thanks CANADA.

The Bitch is Back: Bill C-6 reincarnates as C-36

By Dee Nicholson

Battle-worn health freedom activists waited six months for the shoe to drop, knowing full well that at any moment, their latest nemesis, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act called C-6, might reappear.

Last month, their impatience was rewarded, as Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq rose to introduce Bill C-36, complete with the same troublesome, rights-stomping provisions as in its momma. And of course, the same really, really nasty language making Canadians “subject to the dictates of foreign authorities”, the words that allow foreign committees (like trade groups) decide how we’re going to run things.

It’ll be their way, or the highway.

Witness the fact that the 106th US Congress voted to change American corporate tax law, not because it wanted to, but because it was ordered to – by the World Trade Organization. Now, if the WTO can yank the chains of the Yankees that easily, do we really think domestic Canadian laws are any less vulnerable?

There have been ten major trade agreements signed by Canada over the past sixteen years, and there are twelve more pending, including the “Free Trade Area of the Americas”. These trade obligations, signed eagerly by our successive governments, have Canada in shackles, and somehow, hardly anybody’s noticing.

Recently, master filmmaker Kevin P. Miller released a documentary showing Canadians how this has happened, in a dynamic retrospective leading to a dubious future: “A Question of Sovereignty” is now online for viewing at http://vimeo.com/13024940, and every red-blooded Canadian needs to see it, and now. It’s 23 minutes of jaw-dropping wake-up call.
Miller describes the film as “patriotic and sentimental” and I have to admit that it brings an uncomfortable lump to the throat as you watch our sovereignty being hijacked. But it also sets your couch on fire.

Miller’s take: “Quietly, over a period of many years, unconstitutional legislation encompassed in Bills C-51, C-6, and the current Bill C-36, have placed not only basic civil liberties and freedoms at risk, but Canada’s national sovereignty as well. The film shares how entangling alliances with groups like the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, Codex Alimentarius, the United States and even multinational corporate interests have become so powerful that they literally threaten to make elected officials in Parliament irrelevant.”

I have to thank Kevin for saving me a whole lot of time explaining what’s going on, and let the film speak for itself, because it does. And it’s going to play an important role in how Canadian health freedom fighters will be approaching the nascent battle against Bill C-36, while proving especially valuable in rousing more Canadians from their sleepwalking state.

Take a moment to absorb the very real danger of Canada’s virtual absorption into a global trade network that hovers over this nation right now. Piece by piece, department by department, our self-rule is being eroded by obligations to committees where our vote doesn’t matter. For example, at the World Trade Organization, Canada is one out of nearly 200 nations. One. None of the other members really give a rat’s behind what we want. Worse yet, if we insist on doing our own thing, we face sanctions, in some cases cross-industry trade sanctions of millions per day, or quitting and being viewed as anathema by all the other suckers in the group.

So, no sovereignty, no health freedom. No freedom guaranteed at all. That candle is going out, bit by bit, as the trade groups meet and decide what the whole group will do, and if our laws conflict, too bad, so sad for our laws. And our self-rule.

Meanwhile, there are massive collisions set to happen. All these contracts with all sorts of terms, and what happens when they start to need enforcing? Gridlock. And what do you need when you have gridlock? A traffic cop. Do you see the platform for global government being “necessitated into existence” by the ongoing commitments of our governments, no matter which party was in power? Commitments to trading. To profit. Not to people. To share wealth, meaning spread what we have across the whole slice of bread while they retain the loaf. This is what Harper meant at the G8 when he spoke of “shared prosperity”.

And those were the exact words used by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth at the UN this past week.

Bill C-36 swings the doors to Canada wide open to outside domination by foreign authorities that we will never vote for and who could not care less what we want. These are the same foreign authorities waiting, butter knife in hand, to spread the wealth, which really means to bring the world equal-opportunity poverty.

Without sovereignty, we have nothing, and Bill C-36 takes away a sizeable chunk of it with Codex looming, as well as a big pact with the EU, where the food regulations are just as bad as Codex already. You need to understand the depth and breadth of what Codex will do, and how our government is absolutely committed to going there. (See www.thenhf.com for full details on Codex, and read constitutional lawyer and health freedom advocate Shawn Buckley’s analysis of Bill C-36 at www.nhppa.org)|

Bear in mind that Health Canada, with C-36, is asking to be granted police and judicial powers, the right to be judge, jury and executioner at will, to impose fines and imprisonment, without recourse to courts or recompense. But we’re supposed to be satisfied by the fact that they promise to call a judge for a warrant? These are the powers that Leona Aglukkaq says are necessary for her agency to “protect Canadians against hazardous consumer products”.

The posts at www.canadiansforhealthfreedom.org show what sort of “protection” Canadians got from their government when Health Canada foisted that particular hazardous product on the population. Bear in mind, they did so at the advice of whom? The same WHO that’s been exposed as being in a huge conflict of interest beneficial to Big Pharma for its re-jigging of the very definition of a pandemic in order to declare one, on the advice of people connected to Big Pharma, which made a gazillion dollars feeding the toxic stuff to people around the world, from which many people suffered severe health problems. People like the ones on that page.

This is the same Health Canada that is asking for quasi-judicial powers, to “protect Canadians from hazardous products”.

Remember Leona Aglukkaq, cajoling the Senate with portents of babies dying from faulty crib and playpen designs, if Bill C-6 didn’t pass? She’s trotted that one out already again for its doppelganger, C-36.

Now, unfortunately for Aglukkaq, there are actual dead babies which would today in all likelihood be alive, were it not for Health Canada’s following of foreign “suggestions” in the promotion of the largely-untested H1N1 vaccine to Canadians, with the full expectation of “collateral damage”. And this Minister wants us to believe that this agency could be trusted with police and judicial powers? This Minister wants us to believe that the agency honors the rights of Canadians, after the shameful raid against Dr. Eldon Dahl last year, holding his family at gunpoint for 11 hours because he sold some vitamins in a sting operation by the health police? Dahl had what looked to him like the G20 security force bash in his front door. This protects Canadians, how? In my humble opinion, it doesn’t.

Instead, it endangers the very fabric of our nation.

Thankfully, there is a new army being assembled against Health Canada’s assault on our sovereign right to health freedom, with the establishment of The National Health Federation (Canada). Its parent organization, the NHF (www.thenhf.com), is the world’s largest and oldest health freedom organization, with branches in nine nations and membership in thirty countries, and is a recognized International Non-Governmental Organization.

The move gives Canada, for the first time, standing as delegates to Codex Alimentarius with the right to speak to the committee, and to Canadians, the ability to speak truth to power. In addition, the organization’s international scope means that we speak with the voices of twenty-nine other nations behind us, sharing the same concerns. That’s more votes than Canada has at the WTO.

I am honored to be one of three Co-Executive Directors of the new NHF Canada, and am gleefully sharpening my teeth. My partners in crime are both heroines in health freedom: Marilyn Nelson, founder of Freedom of Choice in Health Care and veteran of decades of skirmishes with ministers of health; and Candace Hill, nutritionist, passionate educator, and master instigator of stuff happening. With us will be many of the health warriors from Canadians for Health Freedom who barraged the Senate last year with a demand they couldn’t refuse.

Bill C-36, the bitch, is back. We think that calls for neutering.

(View this article in Agora Magazine July 2010)

Would you let this fox run your hen house?

Bill C-6 has reincarnated as Bill C-36, with pretty much the only change being that there is no more warrantless search and seizure, though Health Canada moved a clause from the Criminal Code so they could get warrants by phone and fax… a process normally reserved for emergency situations with threats to life and limb… over baby cribs?

And I’ve got some lovely oceanfront property in Saskatchewan I’d like to sell them….

This is the same agency that foisted an untested and toxic vaccine on the entire country, and bearing witness to just how toxic are the scads of Canadians who have posted on our H1N1 Vaccine Adverse event reporting page.

While HC told them that the vaccine was safe, understated some risk factors and misled on others (eg. “squalene is a substance found naturally in the body”… true, but it doesn’t get there by injection, which makes the body allergic to its own squalene, causing all sorts of the symptoms listed on that page…), and promoted the vaccine across the country on that basis, now this same agency asks for expanded police powers to “protect Canadians from unsafe products”???

Now, after all the damage has been done (though the “pandemic” remains in effect), we find that there was egregious conflict of interest in the WHO’s pandemic declaration, which was lapped up by that great “protector” of Canadians, Health Canada, and served up on a platter as something where the “slight risks” were overwhelmed by the “benefits” of the vaccine (those being the reaping of humungous profits by vaccine manufacturers).

I received this in my email today. It’s not the first I’ve heard of it, but it really spells it out well. One of our team at CHF sent it to me from a subscription she has… get a load of this:

Hi folks, this is from today’s posting from Health Sciences Institute (HSI) newsletter, to which I have a subscription:

Dear Reader,

“This is one I would definitely like to see called in front of Judge Judy.

The Defendant: Dr. Margaret Chan, director of the World Health Organization (WHO). Dr. Chan recently observed the one-year anniversary of the H1N1 pandemic by announcing that H1N1 is still considered a pandemic.

Of course, this isn’t an old fashioned pandemic where people all over the world witness widespread disease, suffering, and hideous death rates.

No, this is a 21st century pandemic. Call it Pandemic Lite.

So how do you lighten up a pandemic? No problem. About a year ago, WHO officials simply changed the definition of pandemic. No explanation–they just changed it.

Before May 2009, the definition read like this: “An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

The revised definition removed those last seven words: “with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

Judge Judy? Your take on this? “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!”

It’s raining.

Once the definition of pandemic was dramatically watered down, H1N1 was ready for prime time. And just a few weeks later, WHO made the announcement: H1N1 was officially a pandemic.

Now, one year later, we have Plaintiff Number One: The Council of Europe.

In a recent report, the CoE accused WHO of vastly overrating the seriousness of the pandemic, adding that WHO’s handling of H1N1 caused a “waste of large sums of public money, and unjustified scares and fears about the health risks faced by the European public.”

Plaintiff Number Two is the British Medical Journal. A recent BMJ investigation revealed that several experts who advised WHO in planning for an H1N1 pandemic just happened to have financial and professional ties to Roche and GlaxoSmithKline–two drug companies that stood to make huge profits from sales of antiviral drugs in the event of a flu pandemic.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., experts are predicting that H1N1 is going to be around for awhile.

One microbiologist told HealthDay News that the “new” H1N1 strain will become the “seasonal H1N1 virus.” Call it Seasonal Flu Plus. Just like the garden variety flu, seasonal H1N1 will arrive around Labor Day, linger past St. Patrick’s Day, and will help sell a boatload of seasonal vaccines in between.

So I guess it’s official. Thanks to WHO, H1N1 might not be an actual pandemic but it is a hugely successful worldwide franchise!

You don’t need Judge Judy to tell you we’ve all been scammed. “

What do YOU think? Should Health Canada be allowed ANY police powers, given that they participated up to their well-fed arses in this scheme? Should Bill C-36 be allowed to pass, to let this rogue agency use its influence to damage even more of us?

Or should we stand together and point our collective fingers at this fraud upon the people, to make sure that Health Canada is denied?

Personally, I hope the victims listed here, as well as those to whom the word spreads, are able to file a massive class action suit, to win justice for themselves and their damaged loved ones, over the dead body of Bill C-36!

WHO Appoints H1N1 Cover-Up Committee

(Original HERE)

By James Corbett

Global Research, April 13, 2010
The Corbett Report

Reports that the WHO is appointing an ‘independent’ committee to investigate its own conduct in the H1N1 panic of 2009 has been tempered by the fact that one of the committee’s members, John Mackenzie, was in fact one of the advisors who urged the WHO to declare a pandemic in the first place. He also has ties to vaccine manufacturers, making him part of the very charge being investigated: that the WHO relied on advisers with a financial interest in declaring a pandemic regardless of the facts on the ground.

Evidence continues to mount that the WHO declared a pandemic for the relatively mild H1N1 outbreak last year in order to trigger billions of dollars of automatic vaccine contracts for the benefit of WHO advisers with connections to Big Pharma. In the face of growing opposition and a loss of credibility due to the conflicts of interests among key WHO advisors, WHO Director Margaret Chan called Monday for a “frank, critical, transparent, credible and independent review of our performance” before entering a closed-door meeting with the “independent experts.” No photographers were allowed inside and press was allowed only occasional access to the meeting.

Hopes for a genuinely independent investigation into the scandal were quickly dashed, however, when it was discovered that one of the group’s members, Professor John Mackenzie of Curtin University in Australia, was a member of the very panel that advised the WHO to declare the H1N1 pandemic. In fact, Mackenzie is already on record with his assessment of his own actions: “I think we did everything right,” he told Der Spiegel earlier this year.

Clues to the likely findings and recommendations of the group in Geneva can be derived from other comments Mackenzie made to the German paper: “The system of pandemic levels needs to be revised,” he was quoted as saying. “We need to fine-tune phase 6 so that the severity of the disease is also taken into account.” Analysts are expecting the review to find that the WHO was a victim of fog of war and loose definitions for a pandemic and that no individual will be held responsible for the billions of dollars that have been spent around the world on vaccines that governments are now giving away and may ultimately have to throw out.

Also at issue is why the WHO changed its definition of a pandemic virus just as it was considering whether the emerging swine flu may fit that criteria. A definition available on the website before the panic specifically listed “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” as a criterion for declaring a pandemic. By April, the definition had been changed to specifically allow for “mild” pandemics.

The cover-up committee is being formed ahead of the final report of the ongoing Council of Europe investigation into the scandal. Just last month, the Council released a draft report of its investigation into the affair, delivering a blistering critique of the WHO and its motives for declaring the H1N1 pandemic:

Some members of these advisory bodies evidently have professional links to certain pharmaceutical groups – notably through receiving extensive research grants from the big pharmaceutical groups – so that the neutrality of their advice could be contested. To date, WHO has failed to provide convincing evidence to counter these allegations and the organisation has not published the relevant declarations of interest taking such a reserved position, the Organisation has joined other bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), which likewise, have still not published such documents. -“The handling of the H1N1 pandemic: more transparency needed”

The Council of Europe committee inquiry was spearheaded by Wolfgang Wodarg, the former chair of the Council’s health committee who made waves last year for saying that the WHO faked the pandemic to make money for vaccine manufacturers. The committee is expected to be quite critical of the WHO, leading many to speculate that the WHO-sanctioned group in Geneva is an attempt to get ahead of the damage and issue a limited hangout on the issue.

The independent group is expected to finish its meeting on Wednesday. No word yet if they will address the fact that flu vaccines actually increase the risk of contracting H1N1, or what the effect might be if a vaccine-pushing WHO ignores this information.

The H1N1 panic started last March, with the WHO estimating as many as two billion infections and millions of deaths. Newly released data shows that the 2009 flu season was actually much less deadly than the regular flu season.

DeeSpeak>:

If the foregoing isn’t enough to get you steamed, take a peek at our H1N1 Vaccine Adverse Reaction reporting page, and see a tiny piece of the suffering the WHO and our government were willing to cause, to secure profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Then consider that our government actually indemnified vaccine manufacturers against liability for damages from said vaccines.

Then add that the government had people sign waivers, affirming “informed consent” prior to administration of the shot, in a feeble attempt to indemnify itself from said liabilities!

To all those who have reported adverse reactions to the vaccine and have experienced a diminished quality of life since then, I say, call a lawyer now! The waivers were, according to information given me by a professor of law, a top liability expert, “not worth the paper they shouldn’t have been written on.”    I suggest someone go for a class action suit on contingency, recognizing there is a lot of monetary compensation due people who have suffered, and continue to suffer, as you all are.

Our government took liability for vaccine damage? Time they put their money where their mouth is.

We wish you all the best of luck, and please keep reporting here.

MEANWHILE, I MUST REPEAT OUR URGENT APPEAL FOR YOUR SUPPORT…. THE BATTLE FOR OUR HEALTH FREEDOM IS FAR FROM OVER AND WE ARE RUNNING ON FUMES….

PLEASE!  SEND WHATEVER YOU CAN AFFORD, EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS!   (Scroll Down for Donation Info)

IF 500 PEOPLE SEND ONLY $10 PER MONTH, WE CAN MAKE ALL EXPENSES AND BRING OUR FIGHT TO OTTAWA… PLEASE CONSIDER HELPING US TO HELP YOU!

THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO HAVE DONATED … NOW COULD YOU PLEASE CLONE YOURSELVES?  WE NEED YOU ALL TO HELP!!

2009 $wine Flu $camdemic…latest news.

Nursing Home Test; ‘Didn’t find’ proof immunization stops virus.
Tom Blackwell, National Post – March 11, 2010

A new Canadian-led study has added to a simmering scientific dispute over flu-shot campaigns, concluding that immunizing nursing-home workers does nothing to cut the number of confirmed influenza cases among the homes’ elderly residents.

Coming at the end of the largest flu-vaccination campaign in Canadian history, the review of previous studies calls for stepped-up research into alternative, lower-tech ways to combat the virus, such as improved hand washing.

In media interviews last year, Dr. Jefferson was quoted as saying he “can’t see any reason” for vaccinating anyone against flu — arguing the shots did nothing to save lives — and that most influenza-vaccine studies are “rubbish.”

Read more: Flu shots for nursing home workers futile: study

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17;2:CD005187.
Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, UCMC, #1707-1632 14th Avenue, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, T2M 1N7.

Some Health Care Workers (HCWs) remain unvaccinated because they do not perceive risk, doubt vaccine efficacy and are concerned about side effects.

We conclude there is no evidence that vaccinating HCWs prevents influenza in elderly residents in Long Term Care Facilities (LTCFs).

Read more: Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who work with the elderly.

U.S.News & World Report – April 6, 2010
The traditional seasonal flu vaccine may have increased the risk of infection with pandemic H1N1 swine flu, according to the results of four new studies by Canadian researchers.

In one study, the researchers used an ongoing sentinel monitoring system to assess the frequency of prior
vaccination with the seasonal flu vaccine in people diagnosed with H1N1 swine flu in 2009 compared to people without swine flu. The researchers found that seasonal flu vaccination was associated with a 68 percent
increased risk of getting swine flu.

Read more: Did ‘Regular’ Flu Shot Up Risks for H1N1 Flu?