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 

Squalene truth

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



Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:56 am    Post subject: Squalene truth Reply with quote

Here is what the World Health Organization has to say about squalene.
What is known about the safety of squalene in vaccines?
•Twenty two million doses of Chiron's influenza vaccine (FLUAD) have been administered safely since 1997. This vaccine contains about 10mg of squalene per dose. No severe adverse events have been associated with the vaccine. Some mild local reactogenicity has been observed.
•Clinical studies on squalene-containing vaccines have been done in infants and neonates without evidence of safety concerns.
Why do some people think squalene in vaccines carries a risk?
•A few people have tried to link the health problems of Gulf War veterans to the possible presence of squalene in the vaccines these soldiers received.
•One published report suggested that some veterans who received anthrax vaccines developed anti-squalene antibodies and these antibodies caused disabilities.
•It is now known that squalene was not added to the vaccines administered to these veterans, and technical deficiencies in the report suggesting an association have been published.
What is the relevance of anti-squalene antibodies and are these linked to squalene in vaccines?
•Most adults, whether or not they have received vaccines containing squalene, have antibodies against squalene.
•In one clinical trial, immunization with the licensed flu vaccine containing squalene did not affect the frequency or titer of anti-squalene antibodies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhanby



Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:01 am    Post subject: Credentials? Reply with quote

Are you a medical doctor?

My PCM states that I probably have a jacked up immune system because of my vaccinations!

BTW, where did you get this information from? The CDC? Do you really think they're going to reveal the number of people who have DROPPED dead or got sick after the shot?

How many shots have you had and what is your expertise?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Touscents



Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:25 am    Post subject: dhanby Reply with quote

dhanby, The real information is published. It is not secret. There are no real scandals involving the human anthrax vaccine. It does not have any squalene added to it. I have received 15 anthrax shots, including annual boosters. I feel fine. Here is a web site with the real ingredients of the anthrax vaccine: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/536545/Anthrax-Vaccine-Adsorbed-Biothrax-package-insert
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhanby



Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:30 am    Post subject: Docstoc is so credible....sure Reply with quote

Source:

http://www.novaccine.com/vaccine-ingredients/results.asp?sc=27Squalene:C30H50, an Adjuvant


Too dangerous for human use, Squalene is not licensed for use in the United States. Oil adjuvants like squalene have been ordinarily used to inflict diseases in animals – for experimentation and study. According to anthrax vaccine expert Gary Matsumoto and other reliable sources, the ...more

Too dangerous for human use, Squalene is not licensed for use in the United States. Oil adjuvants like squalene have been ordinarily used to inflict diseases in animals – for experimentation and study. According to anthrax vaccine expert Gary Matsumoto and other reliable sources, the US military used an unlicensed, experimental anthrax vaccination laced with squalene, with disastrous consequences,
including Gulf War Sydrome.

Squalene is a natural organic compound originally obtained for commercial purposes primarily from shark liver oil, though botanic sources (primarily vegetable oils) are used as well, including amaranth seed, rice bran, wheat germ, and olives. (wikipedia.org)

An adjuvant using squalene is Novartis' proprietary adjuvant MF59, which is added to influenza vaccines. GlaxoSmithKline's squalene adjuvant is AS03.


Chemical descriptions:
Unites States National Library of Medicine: PubChem
http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=638072

Toxicity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed&term=%22Squalene%2ftoxicity%22[Mesh%20Terms%3anoexp

Adverse effects:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed&term=%22Squalene%2fadverse%20effects%22[Mesh%20Terms%3anoexp


Must read:
Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A; The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers – and Why GI's Are Only the First Victims. Basic Books, 2004.


Present in these vaccines:
Anthrax (experimental, used on military personnel)


a.k.a.
2,6,10,15,19,23-hexamethyl-2,6,10,14,18,22-tetracosahexaene, MF59

AND for good measure:
1. "Autoimmunity induced by adjuvant hydrocarbon oil components of vaccine."
"Abstract: Adjuvant oils such as Bayol F (Incomplete Freund’s adjuvant: IFA) and squalene (MF59) have been used in human and veterinary vaccines despite poor understanding of their mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, the potential of adjuvant hydrocarbon oils to induce autoimmunity has implications in the use of oil adjuvants in human and veterinary vaccines as well as basic research."
Kuroda, et al, Science Direct; Volume 58, Issue 5, Pages 325-337 -- 6/1/2004


2. "Autoimmunity induced by adjuvant hydrocarbon oil components of vaccine."
"We have reported that a single intraperitoneal injection of the adjuvant oils pristane, IFA or squalene induces lupus-related autoantibodies… the potential of adjuvant hydrocarbon oils to induce autoimmunity has implications in the use of oil adjuvants in human and veterinary vaccines as well as basic research."
Kuroda Y, et al, Biomed Pharmacother;58(5):325-37 -- 6/1/2004

Unfortunately people like you are uninformed and have little real knowledge. Until you get shot up with these poisons please stop saying they're safe and healthy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhanby



Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:36 am    Post subject: Why are pet vaccines deadly? Reply with quote

http://www.vaccinesuncensored.org/pets.php

Just wondering why I witnessed a dog nearly die a month ago from a routine set of vaccines? It is not uncommon for dogs and cats to die from routine shots! Why are we poisoning us and our pets?

Apparently the FDA never approved squalene. Just in case you needed to know....
http://healthfreedoms.org/2009/08/06/more-on-the-adjuvant-squalene/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Touscents



Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary Matsumoto is a journalist. He is not a scientist, much less an anthrax expert. Squalene is not added to the anthrax vaccine. The ingredients of the anthrax vaccine are available online. Squalene is in fact a ubiquitous molecule. If we tested your skin for it, it would probably come up positive. I am not saying that I know it is safe as a vaccine adjuvant. As Gary pointed out, it is an ingredient in the Ribi adjuvant that is commonly used in experimental vaccines given to rodents and rabbits. Again, Bruce Ivins and others used that adjuvant only in basic science experiments in rodents. He did not make vaccines for use in people or even in pets. He was a basic researcher.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhanby



Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:51 am    Post subject: Huh? Reply with quote

And it's clear you are not a qualified physician either!

I wish you would objectively look at facts instead of opinions...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Touscents



Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:19 pm    Post subject: Danby Reply with quote

Danby, why do you keep trash talking?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhanby



Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:36 pm    Post subject: Trash talking? Reply with quote

How am I trash talking?

You are biased and tell me that I am not a medical doctor and my sources are garbage and that only your sources are legitimate.

How is this possible?

From my point of view, you are trash talking. I am just pointing out the obvious. I think that Gary M. has uncovered a plethora of knowledge and this is an area where we openly discuss our points of view...or you can say what you would like but I cannot.

Is this an accurate portrayal or I am way off?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Touscents



Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:20 am    Post subject: dbanby Reply with quote

This is trash part of your trash talk: "I wish you would objectively look at facts instead of opinions..." I have been referring to peer-reviewed statements from scientists, while you have been referring to non-peer reviewed, often false statements from non-scientists. I never said you weren't a doctor. Are you saying you are?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhanby



Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:38 am    Post subject: Peer reviewed doesn't make it true! Reply with quote

You have some really big denial issues...

I am objectively looking at issues and you have already admitted your bias! Perhaps you're like the typical liberal democrat or atheist who denies any truth just because you're unwilling to see the truth or another side to the truth!

Just because you've read "peer reviewd" articles doesn't make it right or true. So, it's obvious that you're unwilling to listen to other doctors who do believe that vaccines are indeed deadly or have little to no value for the human race in general.

My point is this, just because you happen to believe one part of science doesn't make sense when there are opposing viewpoints. This debate is pointless because your worldview is opposed to any open discussions regarding the truth behind vaccinations.

I have never said I was a doctor but I am also not a dummy! You even said I was "crazy" when I said that aborted fetal tissues were used to harvest vaccinations, yet it is TRUE! So, perhaps you are just wilfully ignorant on any truths. I am going to stick to my original hypothesis and believe that squalene is a malicious weapon against mankind and should NOT be used in vaccines. It makes people sterile and the unintended consequences far outweigh the benfits. Just because your WHO (globalist) source wants to practice eugenics or population control doesn't make it right for the American population! Nor does it mean that they practice "safe medicine"! From my perspective, you're just like the rest of the progressives in America. And, yet you still haven't said whether or not you have EVER been vaccinated like a military member is....so maybe ONE shot at a time spread out over someone's life isn't dangerous; however, mixing 10 shots before a deployment CANNOT be safe. I don't care what your sources say, I know first-hand how fatal and ruthless this concoction really is.....and all you have are peer reviewed articles Smile That's hilarious!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhanby



Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What science exactly has been done to measure the safety of vaccines?

Please provide it here.

Also, here is a link where I found this information: http://www.naturalnews.com/027258_vaccines_flu_vaccine.html

(NaturalNews) Vaccine mythology remains rampant in both western medicine and the mainstream media. To hear the vaccination zealots say it, vaccines are backed by "good science," they've been "proven effective" and they're "perfectly safe."

Oh really? Where's all that good science? As it turns out, there's isn't any. Flu vaccines (including swine flu vaccines) are based entirely on a vaccine mythology that assumes all vaccines work and no vaccines can be scientifically questioned. Anyone who dares question the safety or effectiveness of vaccines is immediately branded a danger to public health and marginalized in the scientific community.

Here are ten questions vaccine-pushing doctors and health authorities absolutely refuse to answer:

#1) Where are the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies proving flu vaccines are both safe and effective?

Answer: There aren't any. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...)


#2) Where, then, is the so-called "science" backing the idea that flu vaccines work at all?

Answer: Other than "cohort studies," there isn't any. And the cohort studies have been thoroughly debunked. Scientifically speaking, there isn't a scrap of honest evidence showing flu vaccines work at all.


#3) How can methyl mercury (Thimerosal, a preservative used in flu vaccines) be safe for injecting into the human body when mercury is an extremely toxic heavy metal?

Answer: It isn't safe at all. Methyl mercury is a poison. Along with vaccine adjuvants, it explains why so many people suffer autism or other debilitating neurological side effects after being vaccinated.


#4) Why do reports keep surfacing of children and teens suffering debilitating neurological disorders, brain swelling, seizures and even death following flu vaccines or HPV vaccines?

Answer: Because vaccines are dangerous. The vaccine industry routinely dismisses all such accounts -- no matter how many are reported -- as "coincidence."


#5) Why don't doctors recommend vitamin D for flu protection, especially when vitamin D activates the immune response far better than a vaccine? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_V...)

Answer: Because vitamin D can't be patented and sold as "medicine." You can make it yourself. If you want more vitamin D, you don't even need a doctor, and doctors tend not to recommend things that put them out of business.


#6) If human beings need flu vaccines to survive, then how did humans survive through all of Earth's history?

Answer: Human genetic code is already wired to automatically defend you against invading microorganisms (as long as you have vitamin D). (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_V...)


#7) If the flu vaccine offers protection against the flu, then why are the people who often catch the flu the very same people who were vaccinated against it?

Answer: Because those most vulnerable to influenza infections are the very same people who have a poor adaptive response to the vaccines and don't build antibodies. In other words flu vaccines only "work" on people who don't need them. (And even building antibodies doesn't equate to real-world protection from the flu, by the way.)


#Cool If the flu vaccine really works, then why was there no huge increase in flu death rates in 2004, the year when flu vaccines were in short supply and vaccination rates dropped by 40%? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...)

Answer: There was no change in the death rate. You could drop vaccination rates to zero percent and you'd still see no change in the number of people dying from the flu. That's because flu vaccines simply don't work.


#9) How can flu vaccines reduce mortality by 50% (as is claimed) when only about 10% of winter deaths are related to the flu in the first place?

They can't. The 50% statistic is an example of quack medical marketing. If I have a room full of 100 people, then I take the 50 healthiest people and hand them a candy bar, I can't then scientifically claim that "candy bars make people healthy." That's essentially the same logic behind the "50% reduction in mortality" claim of flu vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...).


#10) If flu vaccines work so well, then why are drug makers and health authorities so reluctant to subject them to scientific scrutiny with randomized, placebo-controlled studies?

Answer: Although they claim such studies would be "unethical," what's far more unethical is to keep injecting hundreds of millions of people every year with useless, harmful vaccines that aren't backed by a shred of honest evidence.


Vaccine voodoo?
The vaccine industry is about making money, not actually offering immune protection against the flu. Whether people get the flu or not is irrelevant to the bottom-line profits of the drug companies. What matters most is that people continue to take the flu shots, and making that happen depends entirely on pushing the vaccine mythology that infects the minds of doctors and health authorities today.

There was a time when all "good" doctors believed in bloodletting. Sickness was caused by evil spirits, they thought, and releasing pints of blood from the patient would clear the evil spirits and accelerate healing. Any doctor who questioned the science behind bloodletting was called a "denier." All the "good" doctors said, "We know bloodletting works, so we don't need science to back it up."

Today, you hear the exact same thing about vaccines. "We know they work," doctors claim, "so we don't need any real science to back it up." Anyone who questions the safety of flu vaccines (or H1N1 vaccines) is branded a "denier." Anyone who asks for solid scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of vaccines is called a troublemaker. They don't need any evidence. They already know vaccines work.

With that being the case, why bother calling it medicine at all? Why not just call it VOODOO? Why not accompany vaccines with the wave of a magic wand and some shamanic chanting? Maybe doctors should tell their patients to cross their fingers before being injected with a vaccine because "that makes it work better."

Seriously. Everything that doctors accuse "quacks" of doing with homeopathy, or herbs, or energy medicine is now being done by the doctors themselves when it comes to vaccines. They are following the exact same "quackery" they accuse other of pursuing.

This brings me to an important observation about modern medicine: MY quackery is okay, but YOUR quackery isn't!

That's the attitude of vaccine-pushing doctors and health authorities. As long as the quackery is widely agreed upon by the medical masses, then to heck with actual scientific evidence.

Quackery only needs good company, not good science, to be accepted as true.


Why natural medicine is inherently safer
Of course, these vaccine devotees might say, well, you don't have any good evidence to support your anti-viral herbs, or your medicinal teas, or your vitamin D nutrition either. But in saying that, they miss the whole point: Foods, herbs and nutrition are all natural, biocompatible healing elements that have been part of the human experience for as long as humans have roamed this planet. A chemical injection with a sharp needle that pierces the skin, on the other hand, is extremely interventionist. It's unnatural and in many ways quite radical. As such, it demands a higher burden of scientific proof than something that human beings have evolved with over time.

Foods, herbs and natural medicines have been around for millions of years. Vaccines have existed for less than a hundred years, and routine season flu vaccinations have really only been pushed hard for less than twenty years. They have no track record of success. They aren't natural, they aren't compatible with human biology, and they contain extremely toxic substances that clearly do not belong in the human body.

Given such extremes, the burden of proof for both safety and efficacy of vaccines falls onto those who would advocate them. And yet, to this day, no such proof has been offered... or is even pursued. There isn't even a plan in place to someday find out if flu vaccines really work. The whole plan is to just pursue "business as usual" and keep injecting people whether it really works or not.

Vaccine needles would be far more honest if they were shaped like question marks.

Flu vaccines are the voodoo of modern medicine.

Seriously. You would have the same level of protection from the flu if you brought your own personal voodoo doll to the clinic and had them inject that with the vaccine instead of you!

That's an interesting idea, actually. We could really reduce national health care costs if we just administered western medicines to our voodoo dolls instead of our actual bodies. Got cancer? Just poison your voodoo doll with chemotherapy. Side effects are almost non-existent. Need heart bypass surgery? Just have them operate on the doll (it's far less complicated). Want some protection from the winter flu? Just vaccinate the doll. It's quick and painless.

The results would be no worse than what people are experiencing right now. In fact, in most cases they might actually be better.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/027258_vaccines_flu_vaccine.html#ixzz1FsC2vgOU
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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