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 is a no, no
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Perseus Books Group Message Boards Forum Index -> Vaccine-A
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Paris
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:36 am    Post subject: Squalene is a no, no Reply with quote

It's very, very interesting that the author wrote the first piece in Vanity Fair in 1998 and then, 7 years later, batches of vaccine were washed up on a UK beach - that all contained squalene - the very substance the US military said was not there.
http://www.avip2001.net/OfficialDocuments_files/MOD_Squalene.htm
"Squalene can generate antibodies which can result in Auto Immune Disease," says Professor Hooper. "So they attack our own bodies with our own immune system and this can effect nerve, it can effect cardiac tissue, it can effect skinů So Squalene is a no, no. It's not been recommended for use in human vaccines, its been tried in a lot of animal experiments.
Back to top
Mark Langenkamp
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:39 pm    Post subject: Squalene Reply with quote

For those of you who are not familiar with this information, Squalene is used in Chiron's MF-59 adjuvant.

The fight to get all of this information out to the public has been a long fight. When researchers made their discoveries they were harrassed by DOD. I know one researcher who had to move his laboratory twice. Getting other researchers to provide peer-review of their research was another daunting task.

Anyway, I find it extremely suspect that at the same time as many of these Squalene studies are finally being published--having recently been peer-reviewed--much of Chiron's Flu vaccine is found to be "contaminated" with a "bacteria". It would be interesting to perform an assay on a sample of these contaminated vaccines to see if they contain Squalene or some other experimental material not yet approved for human use. I would not be shocked to discover that that is the reason for the Flu vaccine's shortage this year.

This remark is purely conjecture on my part.

Or is it?

Mark Langenkamp
Veteran and Patriot
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny, I had the same theory tonight as I watched the news--I even said something about it to my family.

I thought I was the only one who might have such a suspicion, with battling my own autoimmune disorder thanks to 3 doses of a squalene-containing lot # of the anthrax vaccine last year.

Is it a coincidence then, that with news of this book coming out and the great articles in the Wilmington News Journal last Sunday, that we all of a sudden have a flu vaccine shortage? Hmmm.
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply to Paris Reply with quote

Dear Paris: You are not only quite observant, you have a good memory. I discuss the British findings, briefly, in Chapter Twelve, pg 250. A highly regarded British laboratory, Scientific Analyses Ltd. (SAL Ltd.) in Manchester, tested samples of British-made anthrax vaccine for the Granada Television network and found a thirty-six parts per billion concentration of squalene in two lots of the British vaccine. That is a fairly close match for the concentration found in one of the five lots confirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to contain squalene. Lot #FAV 043, according to the FDA, contained forty parts per billion. What is also noteworthy is the specific test used by SAL Ltd. to detect squalene in anthrax vaccine: flame ionization/gas chromatography. This is the same test used by the FDA. Interestingly, a laboratory the U.S. Army sub-contracted to test the vaccine, SRI, used a much less sensitive analysis called liquid chromatography, which would have been incapable of finding squalene in the concentrations present in either the U.S. or British anthrax vaccines. SRI has a long business association with the Department of Defense and an unanswered question is whether SRI deliberately chose to use a test that would invariably fail to find low concentrations squalene in the vaccine and thus allow the U.S. Department of Defense to declare its anthrax vaccine squalene-free, which it did.
Back to top
Paris
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senators from Delaware have written Rumsfeld and they seem to be asking the right questions. Their letter can be seen at http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2004/10/15squalene_letter.html

They ask "As part of resolving this issue, we would like to know the results of the research we understand the Department has done on the effects of squalene in vaccines."

Other artcles in the Delaware News Journal have said that the Army tested a squalene vaccine on humans in Thailand. What on earth does that mean? Were they Thai civilians? Most importantly, what concentrations of squalene did they use in these Thai vaccines? If the concentrations were in the range 10 ppb - 100 ppb, then clearly it is absurd for them to claim that these would not be effective and could be written off as "accidental and harmless impurities". Incidentaly, were the Thai subjects informed volunteers?
Back to top
Guest 1
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:03 pm    Post subject: Squalene in human vaccines Reply with quote

The army (Walter Reed Army Institute for Research) tested DeTox (which contains squalene) in a malarial vaccine experiment in humans several years ago. I believe that J. Chulay and C. Alving (among others) were authors.

DeTox has also been tested in a melanoma vaccine in humans.

There is no such product as "Tri-Mix." This is just a cutesy name that the researchers used for the adjuvant in the protective antigen vaccine that contained monophosphroyl Lipid A (MPL), mycobacterial cell wall skeleton (CWS), and trehalose dimycolate (TDM). It was made by Ribi Immunochem., which is now Corixa, in Hamilton, Montana. The actual name of the product is "RAS," which stands for "Ribi Adjuvant System." Edgar Ribi, who founded Ribi Immunochem - and who later was killed in a plane crash - was a researcher who specialized in endotoxin studies. Endotoxin has immunostimulatory properties, but is also toxic. By removing a phosphoryl group on the Lipid A part of endotoxin, he was able to generate a compound which still stimulated immunity, but was less toxic. I'm not sure, but I think that MPL is still in human experimental studies today.
Back to top
Paris
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"The army (Walter Reed Army Institute for Research) tested DeTox (which contains squalene) in a malarial vaccine experiment in humans several years ago. I believe that J. Chulay and C. Alving (among others) were authors."

It would be useful to know what concentration of squalene was used in the above study. Was it orders of magnitude higher than 10-100 parts per billion? Clearly if it was in the range 10-100 parts per billion then that is exactly the same as was found in batches of the anthrax vaccine.
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply to Guest 1 Reply with quote

Dear Guest 1: I'm going to get a tad more technical here because of your familiarity with some of the scientific literature on the subject. "Tri-Mix" or "Triple Mix" was the U.S. Army designation in the late 1980s for the squalene emulsion adjuvant now sold by Corixa under the commercial name Ribi Adjuvant System or RAS. Scientists at Fort Detrick began working with this emulsion "vehicle" in 1987 (NIH scientists had been working with squalene emulsions since the late 1970s). As I report in Chapter Three of my book, by 1989 - a year before Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm - Army scientists believed they had succeeded in creating a new, faster-acting anthrax vaccine that induced the same amount of immunity in guinea pigs with one shot of the new vaccine as did three shots of the licensed vaccine. The new vaccine was formulated with Tri-Mix adjuvant as well as De-Tox and Syntex Adjuvant Formula I (which were emulsified in either squalene or its more stable, hydrogenated form, squalane). The chief pharmaceutical ingredient in the new vaccine was a more highly purified protective antigen (PA) protein, or fragments or "sub-units" of PA. In parallel research, Fort Detrick also constructed various "chimeras" - genetic engineered hybrid microbes that would biosynthesize protective antigen without any trace of the other two anthrax toxin proteins. Theoretically, this would make the new vaccine less "reactogenic" (less likely to induce unpleasant side effects), but it also made it weaker. Previous data from military scientists in both the United States and Britain had already shown that the immune system responded to a wide array of Bacillus anthracis components: all three toxin proteins (PA, LF and EF), to structures called "epitopes" found on the anthrax capsule, the surface of anthrax vegetative cells and the surface of spores. By design, all of these epitopes were missing from the new vaccine, which was less reactogenic but, predictably, less immunogenic. It required a new and more powerful adjuvant: one of the new generation oil emulsions. Around 1994, Fort Detrick concluded that the non-spore forming Delta Sterne variant of Bacillus anthracis made the most efficient platform for making recombinant protective antigen, now called rPA102. Protective antigen made from this system was emulsified principally with MF59 - an adjuvant made from squalene in water, but without a bacterial component. In 1998, the British scientists at the Center for Applied Microbiological Research at Porton Down adopted the formula for the U.S. "second generation" anthrax vaccine, but added the Ribi Adjuvant System (the old Triple-Mix adjuvant) instead of MF59. According to relatively recent briefings given by Col Arthur Friedlander (U.S. Army, ret.) to senior military officers, Fort Detrick has continued to study the effects of rPA102 when combined with Tri-Mix/RAS, Syntex Adjuvant Formula and MF59. Army scientists are still testing rPA102 with alum (the only vaccine adjuvant licensed in the U.S. for human use), Walter Reed Liposomes (made with cholesterol, and sometimes with squalene and monophosphoryl Lipid A), and QS-21. The NIH-approved clinical trials with rPA102 are with alum only. The anti-squalene antibodies in retired and active duty military personnel are evidence that the Army has been acquiring safety and efficacy data for the new vaccine, combined with squalene emulsion adjuvants, by ethically dubious means. All this, and a lot more, is recounted in the book in much greater detail. Please read the whole book, not just parts of it, to fully understand the basis of the very serious charge that the Department of Defense has been conducting covert medical experiments on troops to "fast track" its new anthrax vaccine.
Back to top
Guest1
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:55 pm    Post subject: Sqyalene is a no no Reply with quote

I think the concentration of the oil in the Army melanoma vaccine was pretty substantial, but the information is probably in the publication, which I don't have. (I think it could be looked up online.)

ANother note, the company, SRI, that did the army's testing for squalene - they made the news recently when they allegedly - now get this, if you can believe it - sent the AMes strain (THE LETTER STRAIN) of anthrax out to a research institute on the west coast. It was supposed to be killed bacteria, but the place that got it claimed the strain was really alive and killed mice. We'll see how this one goes.

Also, Bruce Ivins had ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS as a vaccine developer or immunologist when he was working on a vaccine for anthrax. You would think that the military would at least hire competent people to work on products that might go into soldiers. It's known that he used experimental products from several corporations - I wonder if anyone has looked to see if Kickbacks (under the table payments of money) might have occurred. It wouldn't be the first time that somebody working for the military, or even the government, profitted personally at the expense of the public, or, in this case, the soldiers.
Back to top
cfrerich



Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:56 am    Post subject: Bruce Ivins suicide Reply with quote

Scary stuff. It's horrific to think that someone who is educated, inteligent & supposibly working on something for the good of mankind (anthrax vaccine) would be capable of commiting mass murder using their own expertise to commit the crime. He not only created fear throughout our country, he exposed many US & UK military soldiers to dangerous anthrax vaccines and untold risk.
From the above post, it is equally scary that the government oversight allowed him to work in such a capacity if he made incompetant mistakes(?) like sending live anthrax to a research facility and was incompetant for the position he was in .
..."Bruce Ivins had ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS... "

Scary scary stuff. Too bad he killed himself before being forced to answer questions about what he likely did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Touscents



Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:46 am    Post subject: Ribi Reply with quote

Bruce Ivins was a basic research scientist, who tested novel vaccines on animals. None of his formulations ever went into people. I do not believe the army put vaccines with Ribi adjuvants, such as Tri-Mix, into people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhanby



Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:03 am    Post subject: Really? Reply with quote

Touscents

Unless you have PROOF of your thoughts please keep them internally. You don't know what the military does to its people!
Are you in the service?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Touscents



Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:52 am    Post subject: dhanby Reply with quote

dhanby, I knew Bruce Ivins and read every paper he wrote on anthrax. How is that for evidence. His papers have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that are available online. Have you read them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhanby



Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:19 am    Post subject: If it's so 'safe' why have so many died from it? Reply with quote

Touscents
You cannot just 'know' people and read their papers to believe that they're telling us the truth. Look at Obama and his ludacrous budget that inflates the deficit instead of reducing it.
I have taken over 10 shots and want to know why I had adverse reactions? How come others died and according to a GAO was due to a "bad strain" or batch that killed several hundred military men and women!
You can't just believe an article. If that were true, I guess the internet would contain 100% credible sources!
The bottom line is that the uniuntended consequences of these vaccines are unknown and should be further studied before we just stick everyone. In this case the ends do not justify the means.
Also, I wonder why Bill Gates and other progressives have been taped staating that they want to control the population using vaccines! And, on the last note, want to know why NONE of the upper levels of the government took the anthrax shots but the military was mandated to? If it's that safe...why not? Hmmmm there must be more to this story! Just sayin...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Touscents



Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I admit that I am biased because I tend to believe the experts, and most of them have some kind of connection to the government. There is quite a bit published by scientists about the side effects of the anthrax vaccine. There are many reviews of the vaccine published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Here is a link to the package insert for the vaccine, and it does state information about side effects. http://www.emergentbiosolutions.com/pdf/emergent_biothrax_us.pdf These side effects are almost always minor. However, I have not seen that GAO report you spoke of. Please provide a link.
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
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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