kim  jest    siostra  zakonna   Teresa   Forcades-   ma   bogate
informacjie     na   temat   ptasiej    grypy!

mozna   zobatrzyc    rowniez   video  na  You   Tube    po
angielsku!    polecam     sa  bardzo  dobre!

http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d3-Who-is-Catholic-nun-Sr-Teresa-Forcades-and-what-does-she-say-about-H1N1-Human-Rights-info101


http://theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109&Itemid=81&lang=en


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0JqQyl09zQ

http://www.slideshare.net/begabi/teresa-forcades

http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2009/10/annals-of-viral-paranoia-iii.html

On 5 Lis, 12:19, muto2100 <maniek...@gazeta.pl> wrote:

kim  jest    siostra  zakonna   Teresa   Forcades-   ma   bogate
informacjie     na   temat   ptasiej    grypy!

mozna   zobatrzyc    rowniez   video  na  You   Tube    po
angielsku!    polecam     sa  bardzo  dobre!

http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d3-Who-...

http://theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0JqQyl09zQ

http://www.slideshare.net/begabi/teresa-forcades

http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2009/10/annals-of-viral-paranoia-i...

TC: Teresa Forcades has corrected on the subtitles some of the figures
and data quoted in this interview.

My name is Teresa Forcades i Vila. I am a Benedictine nun at the
Montserrat monastery. Before joining the monastery I practiced
medicine for several years.

I'm a physician specializing in internal medicine and I have a phD in
Public Health at Barcelona's University. I carried out the
specialization in the USA, at the State University of NY.

What we call swine flu (A), it's also called, mainly in Catalonia,
"the new flu" this term (the new flu) may lead some people to believe
that the "A" type flu virus is a new virus.

Well, this isn't a new type of virus. "A" type viruses are part of the
yearly common flu... the seasonal flu.

Regarding flu viruses we have, maybe everyone's aware of this, but I
always start with the basics, we have A, B, and C type viruses.

These are the known flu viruses affecting humans. Because the "C"
virus only normally affects a smaller proportion of the population,
it's not used for the manufacturing of the yearly vaccines.

Therefore every year seasonal flu vaccine is a mixture of "A" and "B"
type virus.

Therefore the so-called "new flu," or swine flu, is not new because of
being an "A" type.

Then some could argue that it's new because of the antigens of the A-
H1N1 virus, the hemagglutinin (H) and the neuraminidase (N).

These are surface proteins that could appear to give it the novelty
nature. Well, this isn't the case.

It must be said, these proteins are not providing a novelty nature to
this virus.


Because this same group, A-H1N1, was the same flu virus group that in
1918 caused the terrible pandemic that killed more than 20 million
people worldwide.

It was this same type of virus, and it existed amongst the population
until around the mid 50s.

In 1957 it seems to disappear from what is known as seasonal flu
viruses.

It disappears and reappears in the year 1977.

This can be looked up by any physician or anyone, in the New England
Journal of Medicine, where last month, an article was published about
the history of flu viruses, and I quote the New England Journal of
Medicine as it's the most well known and respected medical journal.

The article confirms as fact that this virus reappeared (the A-H1N1
virus) in 1977 because it had been resynthesized in a lab.


Therefore it came from a lab.

And I say resynthesized but it seems that what happened was that they
went to exhume the body of an Inuit, and Eskimo woman who died from
this flu in 1918, as her body remained under the ice it was possible
to recover from the tissues the necessary elements to produce again,
or to resynthesize this virus.


To recap, this happened in 1977, and according to the New England
Journal of Medicine, this is an established fact.


From 1977, we have then the A-H1N1 flu virus being part of the pool or
mixture of the seasonal flu viruses.

Well, what is then new this year? The novelty is the viral strain S-
OIV.


This year's viral strain (S-OIV) is a strain unknown until now.

And it's this new strain which was first diagnosed on April 17th,
2009.

It seems that's the origin of the first diagnosis with two cases in
California.

These are the first cases on record when we first heard about a new
virus.

Therefore the novelty is just the strain S-OIV.
This is the first scientific fact.

The second important scientific fact to bear in mind is that since it
began on April 17th until September 15th, which is when I last read
the statistics, the figures recorded (now, I'm quoting this figure by
heart, so it may not be exact but I won't be so far off), 137 deaths
worldwide [TC: 137 in Europe, 3,559 deaths worldwide].

Therefore having already gone through the South hemisphere countries,
through what's called Austral Winter, with this new virus, and having
had a lower mortality rate than usual during this period.

The numbers, as I say, are by heart, but from April 17th to September
15th, 137 deaths in Europe and 3,559 worldwide. And I quote them
because, it's important to do so.

There have been lots of declarations, but I'll quote one by a member
of the National Medical Ethics Committee of France, whose name is J.
Dupre. Or for instance, another by the President of the General
Spanish Medical Association, Rodriguez Sendin.

Both prestigious doctors have confirmed that, based on the scientific
data that we have at hand, that this new virus has a lower mortality
rate than the common flu, or than common seasonal viruses.


I'll end this scientific part with an important note, an important
piece of data fully accredited on medial literature, that says that
people older than 60, have already a 33% immunity against this new
virus. These are important objective facts to take into account before
getting into an in-depth assessment.

Next, I'll mention two irregularities that have taken place in the way
or the consequences so far of the discovery of this relatively new
strain.

The irregularities remain, to my understanding and to the
understanding of any objective observer, they've remained unclarified,
and they're too serious to remain unclarified.


Firstly, the investigative journalist Jane Burgermeister, [TC: she
pressed bioterrorism and mass murder attempt charges against the WHO,
the UN, and some CEOs of companies, and governments], a journalist
born in Switzerland with Austrian and Irish citizenship, heard about
what I'm about to tell you now, and she was the one who made the
information available.

Anyone can verify that the information that I'm going to disclose is
accurate and objective.

What happened?

At the end of January 2009, and so before this new flu was the newly
discovered flu, Baxter Pharmaceutical, a USA company with a very
important subsidiary company in Austria, proceeded to distribute from
the Austrian subsidiary company via 4 neighboring European countries
(Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany), to 16 different laboratories,
vaccination material for the flu, which was material for the vaccine
to be administered between February and March to the population of
those countries, for the seasonal flu virus vaccine. This material
weighed 72kg.


Well, I haven't calculated the exact number of doses, but it certainly
means thousands and thousands of doses. So, this was distributed.

And here comes the point when, through one of life's coincidences,
situations or plans are revealed which would have otherwise remained
in the dark.

The Czech Republic company BioTest was one of the recipients of this
material, and one of their lab technicians decided, through his own
initiative, and as something he was qualified to do but not obliged,
to carry out an extra security test with the vaccination material they
received before proceeding to its distribution.


So, before the distribution of this vaccine, what this lab technician
did was to inoculate this vaccine to animals called in Spanish
comadrejas, or hurones (weasels or ferrets), small mammals that have
been used since 1918 to test flu vaccines.

He inoculated these weasels and all of them died. When he observed
these unexpected deaths, and given that the inoculated vaccine
shouldn't have caused the death of the weasels, he immediately raised
the alarm and they began checks to establish what this material
received from Baxter contained, because if its contents was a vaccine,
the death of all the animals was inexplicable.


PART 2:
The results of the analysis showed that in the material delivered by
Baxter to those 16 laboratories, two live viruses coexisted. One was
the bird flu virus that appeared in 2005, and that caused a high
mortality rate but infected just a few people.



The number of deaths worldwide, and I quote by heart, was around 250,
but as far as we know, around 60% of those infected died.

This means that if 250 died worldwide, just around 600 got infected,
whichever the exact number is.

Therefore the mortality rate of this virus is very high, but its
infection rate is minimal.

The virus was mixed with a seasonal flu virus, that, as we all know,
has an extremely low mortality rate, it means lower than 0.01%, but
with a high degree of transmission (i.e. highly contagious).

If you mix these two viruses and then distribute it to thousands of
people, what you're doing is you're maximizing the probabilities for
these two viruses to merge, for them to recombine, and for a new virus
to appear that is both very lethal and very infectious. This is a fact
and has been officially admitted by Baxter, [TC: They have admitted
that the contamination took place, but not that the material was
destined for human use. Claiming protection behind the confidentiality
rights, they haven't disclosed information about its destination]...
that the total of 72kgs of the material contained mix of live bird flu
and seasonal flu viruses. This is a fact.

Could this have happened by chance?

It is extremely unlikely.



And I say this because in science the word "impossible" is something
we never say.

What does it mean, "extremely unlikely"? It means that laboratories
handling these kinds of viruses have bio-security levels in place.


Bio-security Level 3 is the highest, and the one that must be applied
in this laboratory.

It means that if we talk in a science context about probability, based
on known facts, the probability that this may have happened by chance
is extremely low.


Not only this: how can we explain the mixing of two different live
viruses?


But also because the flu vaccine, as we all know, is a vaccine made
with attenuated viruses.

"Attenuated" means that the virus must go through a radiation
procedure.

These viruses found in the Czech Republic and in the whole Baxter
material hadn't been attenuated. It is important to be clear about how
unlikely it is for an accident to occur under these circumstances.

In any case, this has happened and it's under investigation.


This journalist, Burgermeister, has pressed charges, not only against
Baxter, but also against the WHO (World Health Organization), she has
also pressed charges against governments of important countries,
because it seems that, with the information at hand, it's more
probable to think in terms of malicious intent, rather than think that
there have been a series of chance events almost impossible to
conceive.

But, and I insist, it's very important to separate objective facts
from those which haven't been proven yet.

I think that the good thing about this video, about this information
we are facilitating, is that it may reach the wider public, the more
people the better, about the existence of plans from a World Elite
that wants part of the population to disappear, or even much of the
population... that when hearing all this they say, "but... where's all
this coming from? This is science fiction. I've never heard about
this..." I know that there are people who have been studying this for
a while. But I wish that my message reached someone who says..."Look I
don't know anything about that stuff, but I've just heard that there
was a laboratory that delivered a contaminated vaccine, and that,
interestingly, (I haven't mentioned this but it's a fact), it's one of
the laboratories in charge of making flu vaccines this year."

Well, this fact alone makes it justifiable to myself to think that
until such time as an explanation is given about why this
contamination took place, I won't wish it on me, on my child, nor on
anyone close to me.

I don't know if I've been clear enough about this point. Because I
think it's important to make it clear.

I'd like to get to the second irregularity because there's a second
one even more scandalous than this first one. The second irregularity
happened as follows:


What I said about Baxter happened in February. I've also said that on
April 17th we had the first diagnosis of the new flu. Well, on April
29th, twelve days after those two first cases were discovered, WHO's
Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan, (the World Health Organization
depends on the United Nations), made a public appearance and announced
a Level 5 Worldwide state of alert for the prevention of a pandemic.
What does this mean? Level 5 is quite a high level, after 5 there is
only Level 6 left. Level 6 means the pandemic is already happening.
One month and a half later, on June 11 2009, Dr. Margaret Chan
announces Level 6, the maximum level of health alert.
We then have a global pandemic of the A-H1N1 flu virus.

How could Dr. Chan and the whole World Health Organization already
declare a pandemic, taking into account that this virus has a
mortality rate lower than the yearly virus?

Then, how come there isn't a pandemic every year, if the yearly virus
is worse than this new virus?


Well, the answer is quite simple.

The answer is that this year, in the month of May, the WHO changed the
definition of "pandemic" from its then current definition of an
infection by an infectious agent simultaneously present in different
countries at the same time and with a significant mortality ratio to
the proportion of the infected population.



They removed from the definition, this mortality characteristic.

Therefore the new definition went to describe the pandemic as a
simultaneous infection present in various countries and carrying an
infectious agent showing any novelty characteristic, thus leaving us
unable to know the type of immunity present within the population.
This is a definition I'm quoting from the British Medical Journal.

So I insist that all this information I'm giving doesn't come from the
alternative press, for whom I have great respect, but I think it's
important to know that all this information comes from the most
prestigious magazines, and absolutely "mainstream" as they say in
English.


So this amended definition is from May 2009.

If the mortality requirement disappears from the definition of
pandemic, as I said, then we should ask ourselves, what prevents the
annual common flu from being declared a pandemic? The answer is, with
this definition, nothing prevents it.


With this definition, what we are seeing now, with this investment...
and I'll get now into the political consequences, which is in fact
where I wanted to get to... all that is happening now that seems to be
justifiable because of its exceptional nature, under the new
definition, it wouldn't present anything exceptional about it.


So this would be the situation year after year, and this is just with
the flu, not to mention other diseases with the same characteristics.

One may say, "wait a minute, isn't it true that this virus is less
lethal, that it presents a lower mortality rate than the annual flu
virus, and this fact can be read everywhere, everybody says so, even
our health minister here, they admit this is the case.

Well, if this is the case, how can it be that a pandemic has been
declared, bearing in mind the serious political consequences which
we'll talk about now.

So this is simply what I'm putting together.

Perhaps the new piece of information that I'm giving is this (and I
insist it's from the British Medical Journal): that the definition of
a pandemic has changed, but this can be seen by anyone, by asking WHO
to send you the pandemic definitions for 2008 and 2009, and there you
can see that this change exists.


It can also be read on their website, etc.

In the document that I'm disseminating, I also quote an article from
an American journal, where they explain that after visiting the WHO
website they commented, "listen, here it says that high mortality is a
pre-requisite for a pandemic, and here nobody dies."

They told them, wait a minute, and they changed the definition on the
web.

This article has been quoted and it's from CNN, which is not a source
under suspicion in this sense.


PART 3:
Therefore the WHO irregularity seems even more serious to me, because
it's equally objective, clear and easy to verify, and it brings us
closer to the possible real consequences.

So it's not just about elaborating on possible intentions or who did
what.

As you see, I've stopped there, because I like to distinguish between
what I can prove from what I cannot, but about what's already
happening now because of this definition.

To end this part on the irregularities, in the USA, due to the 11th
June 2009 pandemic declaration because of the new virus, this same
month the USA declares a Public Health National Emergency, [TC: on
April 26, 2009], which also carries political consequences, and this
emergency declaration was possible in the USA, having at the time, in
the month of April, twenty cases of infection and zero deaths.


With twenty cases of infection, all of them documented, I won't get
into the documentation as I don't wish to drag on, but it's also
important to know that the documentation is not so reliable, it's not
so simple, and also it's not being carried out now.

It was in June or July 2009 when WHO said to stop verifying with lab
tests who had swine flu or not. In the U.K. for instance, they do it
through a phone consultation where the person reports the flu
symptoms, then they note down swine flu.


This is the way it is done now.

Therefore when they say there are 12,000 or 13,000 cases, whichever
number they say now, it's very important to be aware of the way that
these figures are worked out.

Once again, these are objective facts that can be verified on the
official web, WHO, and I'm quoting by heart but I think it was in July
2009, said that there was no need to verify every case in the
laboratory, therefore we're assuming that every flu is a case, and in
some countries (in many others they don't even do this), in some
countries they're making surveys based on "we had 100 and 50 were
swine flu cases, so we assume that the rest are also that way", but
this is a generalization, lacking sufficient data, at least on the
ones that I've seen in the books, and these are the irregularities.


Now I'll move on to the third part, which focuses on the political
consequences of a pandemic declaration.


Well, it's as simple as this: WHO is an International Organization
that normally issues recommendations.

Then it's assumed that each sovereign country applies or not the
recommendations following its own criteria, its own circumstances, and
its own internal research.

In 2005 this changed, allowing an exception precisely in case of a
pandemic.


Now, in case of a pandemic, WHO doesn't make recommendations, it give
orders.

This means that the countries (again, this is a verifiable and
objective fact) in the case of a pandemic, the countries... and a
pandemic is something very serious... a pandemic is, well, as in the
old definition, is a real serious threat to the health of the whole
population, and that justifies this medical emergency, at least within
the context of the old definition, not in the one that we have now.


Therefore with the present definition, well, the title has remained
the same, global pandemic, but its contents have totally changed,
because the significant mortality rate doesn't exist.

But the political consequences remain because of the heading.

There the law says, "In case of a pandemic..." or the internal rules,
or WHO's regulations, within their treaties and agreements with the
member countries.

So from 2005, when faced with a pandemic, WHO doesn't recommend but
orders member countries which actions to take.

That's why we hear from the authorities in Catalonia and the whole of
Spain, "We're awaiting WHO's recommendations..."

Perhaps that's a manner of speech, but it's not just that they are
waiting for them because they think it's the right thing to do, but
because they have to abide by them, not as a recommendation but as an
order from the moment that it's issued.

Well, you may ask, what terrible thing may arrive?

Well, the mandatory vaccination.

This is the most important point to me.

It is very important to spread this information so that even if the
vaccination is offered on a voluntary basis, the larger number of
people who know about the circumstances surrounding this vaccine and
all the facts that we're telling, the better, so that each one of us
can make an informed decision.


The point we're going to talk about now is slightly different, its
about the real possibility that this vaccine was issued, or
distributed, or announced as a mandatory vaccine.

And how can it be possible that I'm forced to have, or accept a
vaccine that I don't wish to have?

Well, the reasoning is quite clear.

If we are in a global pandemic situation, although in the present
situation it doesn't qualify, it seems that there's a risk that if a
person doesn't take the shot, this may put other people's health at
risk.

Therefore the countries are under obligation to ensure that the law is
obeyed.

If this is the law, what would this mean?

Well, the same as usual: fine or prison.

Talking about fines, it seems that in Massachusetts, a document has
already been made public in preparation for a possible mandatory
vaccination.

If this was the case, the fine would be $1 per day, or could reach up
to $1,000 per day.

So the thing works this way: You say, "no I don't want to get
vaccinated" -Oh, OK.


Then look, $1,000 daily from civil service, for every day you don't
get the vaccine.

This is a way.

Other ways that are happening already now, but this without the
general law of obligatory nature, there are companies that say to
their workers, "if you don't take the shot, I fire you".

There are open lawsuits in different countries, in the US, in the UK,
in France, because there are people who have already faced this
dilemma, and that have tried to refuse, in some cases in private
companies, where there's no collective labour agreement, in the US for
instance, this has already made people lose their job for refusing to
accept this vaccine.

And you may say, "but there's no vaccine yet", Not yet, but the one
that is already in distribution, because here in the monastery, we
already have it, and it already exists, is the one for the seasonal
flu.

This has been delivered sooner, because the WHO has recommended to
give the seasonal one and then, in most cases, in two doses, the new
flu one.


And now I'm going to talk about this.

What may happen to a person who refuses to get this vaccine?

If the vaccine is not mandatory, and by now it is not in any country,
then nothing happens.

You say no, and sign a document if necessary, and the same for your
children, they don't get it and no problem.

If the vaccine was mandatory, as I said, fine or prison, as it is what
must be done in a country, if this is a law, it must be obeyed, if not
this would be a joke.


Let's see.

Facing this, this daily $1000 fine, or facing the possibility of a
prison sentence, one would say, "let's not exaggerate, I got the
vaccine every year, or not me but my father has, or I know people who
get it, so we simply get it this year and it's alright look a
disaster, they're making money, as always, as happened with the
papilloma.

But what can I say, I'm not paying $1000 a day, or I'm not risking
going into prison".

Facing this possible answer, it is important to know three factors
that makes the vaccine of the swine flu, of this year's flu, to be
different to every year's vaccine.

I mean, this argument of it being the same as every year's vaccine,
but this time it's for the swine flu virus.

Well, when we take it, we've been fooled once again, by politicians or
whoever, but it's not going to be the last time.

Three novelties, that this vaccine has, in contrast with the vaccine
of every year.

Why is this vaccine not going to be the same as every year?


The first novelty is,
I have already said it, because WHO recommends most of the
pharmaceutical companies that are producing this vaccine, recommend it
to be given in two doses.

This is a novelty.
Nobody has ever heard before that flu vaccines come in two doses.

Normally it's given once and that's all, next year you take it again,
but it's never given in two doses.

This year it comes in two doses, and also, as I said, WHO has already
recommended, in fact, the vaccine delivery has already arrived at
senior care homes, monasteries and other places, so that everybody
takes the vaccine for the seasonal virus.

If the WHO's recommendations are followed this year, those who follow
them, will end up receiving three flu vaccinations: the seasonal one,
and the first and second doses for the swine flu.
I've also heard that some laboratories produce it with just one, but
most of them have announced it will be a vaccine in two doses.

That way, the possibility of secondary effects is multiplied by three,
and these vaccines do have secondary effects.

But this is theoretical.

In practice, nobody knows what could happen, because it's never been
done before.


Because no one has ever before received three doses of the virus,
three shots with live viruses of the flu, and from different types,
one after the other, in the middle of a supposed pandemic or flu
season.

This is the first novelty, this is new.

***********************************8

hope that helps process the volume of info more readily-this is very
serious and I will not take any of their "cures"

Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 11/4/2009 at 11:56 PM
*************************************There is an evil tendency
underlying all our technology - the tendency to do what is reasonable
even when it isn't any good.
- Robert Pirsig



There is little gain in attempting to change external conditions, you
must first change the core of inner beliefs, naturally outer
conditions will change accordingly.
BECOME it to achieve it.

Wisdom strengthened the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the
city. Ecclesiastes 7:19