The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index The Perseus Books Group Message Boards
Book discussion forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

does the 50 million doses of bad flue vaccine from Chiron

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index -> Vaccine-A
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
naga1
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:32 am    Post subject: does the 50 million doses of bad flue vaccine from Chiron Reply with quote

have any possible connection with vaccine-A? They both it appears
use squalene (mf-59?). the symtoms of a bad reaction to a flue vaccine are very much the same as GWS. Chiron is involved with both situations.

The press has never explained what was wrong with the flue vaccine--Is it possible that the rate of bad reactions to this flue vaccine exceeded normal amounts and they pulled it because of high amounts of SQUALENE!

PLEASE REPLY--WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM GARY MATSUMOTO

ps: YOUR BOOK GETS ********** STARS
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply to Naga1, RE: Chiron Flu Vaccine Reply with quote

Dear Naga1: Thank you for reading the book and for taking the time to inquire about Chiron's contaminated flu vaccine. Chiron makes a flu vaccine licensed for use in America called Fluvirin, and three more licensed for use in Europe: Agrippal S1, Begrivac and Fluad. It is Fluad that contains the squalene emulsion, MF59. The quarantined flu vaccine (made in an FDA-licensed plant in Liverpool, England) was Fluvirin. The contaminant, according to press reports, was a ubiquitous bacterium called Serratia marcescens, which the U.S. Army formerly used as a biological warfare simulant for tularemia. Serratia grows in colonies with pinkish hue and is associated with urinary tract infections, wound infections and some pneumonias (most pneumonias are caused pneumococcal germs).

There is a slightly worrisome connection with Fluad in this story; at least I hope it is slight. The other week, someone who contributes to this forum watched a congressional hearing on C-Span about the flu vaccine shortage. This contributor told me that he saw Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) questioning the acting FDA commissioner, Lester M. Crawford, about stockpiles of another flu vaccine in Europe that could make up for the flu vaccine shortfall here. Crawford said there was another vaccine available, but that it was only meant for people 65 years of age, or older. Crawford reportedly asserted that this particular flu vaccine could only be introduced into the United States as an IND (Investigational New Drug), which, as I understand it, would limit its use to clinical trials with human volunteers.

Although, Crawford did not mention Fluad by name, this vaccine was licensed in Italy after clinical trials with elderly patients, and was licensed for use throughout the EEU this past summer. If I am not mistaken, it has already been tested in clinical trials with elderly patients in St. Louis. Here is the reference:

Frey S, Poland G, Percell S, Podda A {St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO}, Comparison of the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccine and a non-adjuvanted influenza vaccine in non-elderly adults, Vaccine, 2003 Oct1;21(27-30): pgs. 4234-7.

If there is any attempt to introduce Fluad into the U.S. flu vaccine supply, some big alarm bells should go off.

The licensing of the MF59-adjuvanted Fluad in Europe has been repeatedly cited by DOD officials as proof that squalene is safe. In VACCINE A, I challenge the parameters of the Italian clinicial trials that concluded Fluad was safe for elderly patients (the average age in at least one trial was 71.5). Just because something is licensed overseas does not mean it's safe to use here, and vice versa. Consider Vioxx. It was licensed here. Did that make it safe for Europeans? No; it did not. FDA licensing did not even make Vioxx safe for use in America.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
Trebor
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:14 am    Post subject: AVIP's MF59 Justification Reply with quote

Very Happy It's quite interesting when you scroll down to the bottom of AVIP's "Facts on Squalene" link http://www.anthrax.mil/resource/qna/qaAll.asp?cID=109. At the very very very bottom of the page are 8 references under the title "Related to Influenza and Other Vaccines with MF59 Adjuvant (which contains squalene as one component of the adjuvant)".

Here we see AVIP's last ditch effort to justify squalene's presence (just in case) it's in AVA. Here we also see the Merck/Vioxx problem. Upon looking at all 8 of these references AVIP gives in PubMed, you'll find vividly 4 of the 8 were done by CHIRON Employees themselves. If you dig a little deeper, you'll find 2 more in addition to the four under a scientist named "Podda A". Podda apparently is an employee of Chiron also so that makes AVIP's MF59 references appear even less objective--6 out of their 8 references on MF59 being safely used are RIFE with Chiron employees. Now we can't summarily dismiss this as not good research--we can't be cynics assuming the worst can we? Not always--but it does "beg the question". You see the problem really get's exposed when many of these DoD references are shredded to pieces with Gary's research on pages 210-214. Here you'll see problems with the age groups, the duration of the studies and the "definition" these studies use as an "adverse" reaction--it's ludicrous! DoD is a master of misinformation--we have people who do this everyday where I work--Misinformation is good when it's for the enemy--bad when it's for a self-licking ice cream cone. It may taste good for itself, but it's disgusting when others see it.

So you could say AVIP is putting up a smokescreen here for the folks who have better things to do than dig up every little detail of every reference. That's probably why they put it at the bottom of the webpage. It's a psychological thing AVIP's saying: If you're not really convinced, then we'll resort to justifying that squalene is safe anyway with these 8 references. The problem is their off point. Nonetheless, the mere fact that AVIP/Grabenstein uses these 8 references shows they're really not trying hard to convince investigators such as Gary that MF59 is safe--Who they're really trying to convince folks like us (us military out there). And why the heck is AVIP/Grabenstein even remotely interested in saying MF59 is ok? That it's been used in the FLUAD vaccine?

I know I personally wouldn't go to such lengths. Would you? MF59 is off point. Let's think about this. If you knew "good and well" that squalene was artificially brought into the 1999 FDA tests by fingerprints, why try to say it's safe when it's injected (by means of references to the 8 FLUAD/MF59 studies)? It would be moot. If you were AVIP wouldn't you "pursue" the fingerprint theory--and pursue it hard? Wouldn't you substantiate your fingerprint assertion with facts, details, processes, and description. Wouldn't you devote a whole webpage on this idea instead of a single line or two here and there. Wouldn't you want to dig up some historical references that show the same event happened before [show where scientists have found squalene in "trace" amounts" before, like a lawyer uses caselaw). This isn't done by AVIP. Fingerprints: it's their soundbite. It's one sentence that Grabenstein uses to ward off the Denver Post saying, "We don't believe there was squalene in the lots; we believe the tester left a little bit of his own fingerprints behind http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2535720,00.html." So goes AVIP's "many shallow propositions". They're easy to do. They're weak. They're down AND the're looking for a sucker. We all know this as damage control. Cover all paths, be vague, very broad and seem very knowledgeable--For you military guys and gals don't fall for it.

So the adage still holds true: "The devil's in the details". . . for AVIP's case that is. Don't let AVIP tempt you to think otherwise Wink
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index -> Vaccine-A All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP