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 

Just Published - New Anthrax Vaccine work with squalene
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
Guest1
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am    Post subject: Just Published - New Anthrax Vaccine work with squalene Reply with quote

The USAMRIID crew is apparently still at it, with more work with squalene-based adjuvant in a new anthrax vaccine. Check out VACCINE, November 15, 2004, volume 23, pages 43 to 47. THe article is "Anthrax Capsule Vaccine Protects Against Experimental Infection." They used Corixa's R-700 adjuvant, and listed SOME of the adjuvant's components, but they "somehow" neglected to mention that squalene was part of the adjuvant. Is the Army still developing squalene-based anthrax vaccines? This article might seem to suggest so. It might also seem to some people that in not mentioning the presence of squalene in their anthrax vaccine, they're actually trying to hide the fact. Comments from Gary M. and others???
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply to Guest1, RE: New Anthrax Vaccine Paper (11/04) Reply with quote

Dear Guest1: Good detective work! You have the makings of an investigator. R-700 is a variation of the Ribi Adjuvant System, and a descendant of the Triple Mix or Tri-Mix squalene emulsion that Fort Detrick used in the original prototypes of the second generation anthrax vaccine. As you know, but others who are just hearing about this thanks to your sharp eye, R-700 contains something called TDM (synthetic trehalose dicorynomycolate) and MPL, another lipid moledule (squalene is a lipid) called monophosphoryl lipid A. Every 0.5 mg vial of this adjuvant contains 44 microliters of squalene.

In the 1990s, the military incorporated Chiron's MF59 squalene emulsion into the new anthrax vaccine; the British used the Ribi Adjuvant System. In addition R-700, the Defense Department is also running trials with another adjuvant called CpG 7909, which is a DNA-based adjuvant (CpG 7909 is a nucleotide) combined with either Chiron's MF59 and PROVAX. Both MF59 and PROVAX are squalene emulsions.

COMMENT: The fact that USAMRIID scientists, at this late date, are finally adding extra anthrax organism components (i.e. capsule antigens) to a new anthrax vaccine tells you this: there are still doubts about the new one. If they are confident that rPA102 will work, then why continue to invest time and money into a new design? Contructing yet another new prototype is a tacit admission by Army scientists that a vaccine based on one protein, protective antigen (PA), is inadequate. Army scientists have known since the early 1960s that a truly effective anthrax vaccine must contain multiple anthrax components. The use of immunostimulants like squalene beginning in the late 1980s was already evidence that Fort Detrick scientists knew that an anthrax vaccine based on protective antigen only will provide less than desirable protection.

The Russians make a live-spore vaccine for humans that is considered 100% effective. French scientists at the Pasteur Institute have come up with a new vaccine that contains whole spores. Scientists at Harvard have developed an alternate anthrax vaccine that contains capsule antigens in addition to PA. Only getting around in 2004 to making an anthrax vaccine with more than PA is outrageous, because Fort Detrick's top scientists said this had to be done as early as 1963-4. A new generation of Army scientists said it again in the 1980s; as did British scientists in the 1980s at Porton Down.

Here's the simple, but highly inconvenient fact that the Army and the FDA still don't want to accept: the only vaccine that'd guarantee good protection against a wide range of anthrax strains is one made from a combination of anthrax cells and spores; attenuated or killed.

Thanks for the information! The first I heard about the USAMRIID crew's new paper and their use of the RAS variation, R-700, was from you!

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
Dan Leggett
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:42 pm    Post subject: squalene concentrations Reply with quote

Gary, You wrote, "Every 0.5 mg vial of this adjuvant contains 44 microliters of squalene." Is this what you meant? 44 microliters of squalene is roughly 30 mg depending of the exact density. I want to understand this, how much of this adjuvant would then be added to a vial of vaccine and what would be the total volume? I assume it is ~0.5 mL. You see what I'm after here. I want to know the putative concentration of squalene in this vaccine. Thanks, Dan

P.S. Hope I'm not being a pest. As a chemist, I have to know these things in order to think about this properly.
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply to Dan Leggett, re: squalene concentrations Reply with quote

Dear Dan: I meant 0.5 mL. Thank you for catching that mistake. Here's another one that I've just caught: I also meant a 44 microliter concentration of squalene and surfactant in a 0.5 mL vaccine dose.

Here's what Corixa Corporation says about its proprietary R-700 adjuvant, which is emulsified in squalene:

Quote:
Each vial of adjuvant contains 0.5 mg of one or more of the following microbial components:

MPL Monophosphoryl Lipid A
TDM Synthetic Trehahose Dimycolate
CWS Cell Wall Skeleton

These components are incorporated into 44 microliters squalene and polysorbate 80. Once reconstituted, this non-viscous oil-in-water emulsion provides an excellent vehicle for delivery [Italics mine]. The emulsion may act through three different functions: 1) The metabolizable oil solubilizes TDM and facilitates binding of antigen to the oil droplets; 2) The oil provides a depot of both adjuvant and antigen at the injection site; 3) Soluble antigens are rendered particulate when they adhere to the oil droplets. In this physical state antigens are more easily phagocytosed and processed during the early stages in the initiation of an immune response.

(Page 2)
Final volume of adjuvant/antigen is 2.0 mL with a concentration of 2% squalene oil (NOTE: Antigen may be incorporated into adjuvant at a concentration of 0.05 mg - 0.25 mg per ML of saline.) If the entire contents of the vial may not be used initially, reconstitute with saline alone to 1.0 mL and mix aliquots 1:1 in saline.


What follows is the concept that I've repeatedly tried to communicate and apparently failed. I will try again.

The amount of squalene used in an adjuvant emulsion added to vaccines like Chiron's Fluad, has nothing, zero, absolumente nada, to do with how much squalene is required to be immunostimulatory.

The question of how much, or more to the point, how little can be immunostimulatory is a completely separate issue.

As Corixa explains above, squalene microdroplets are used as a means to physically engineer an emulsion. In fact, Corixa is a company, unlike Chiron, that has yet to even acknowledge that squalene is an immunostimulant. Corixa says nothing about squalene's immunogenic properties. Instead, Corixa states only what NIH scientists have been saying for decades now: squalene is "metabolizable" (it is when ingested), implying that it is not itself an adjuvant. For Corixa, squalene is merely a "vaccine delivery system" - a "vehicle" or "carrier" for the microbial components considered by Corixa to be its R-700 adjuvant's true immnunostimulatory components.

Chiron Corporation, on the other hand, has created its proprietary MF59 squalene-in-water adjuvant on the express premise that squalene is, in fact, an immunostimulant. However the amount of squalene in MF59 and Chiron's flu vaccine Fluad, made with MF59, have nothing to do with how much squalene is required to be immunostimulatory. Instead, it has to do with how much squalene is required to physically create an emulsion.

The squalene microdroplets literally "carry" a vaccine's antigenic load. Soluble flu particles must be physically conveyed by oil droplets in order to ensure that the intended dose of antigen gets effectively delivered into the body. The squalene microdroplets are the means to do that. Once injected, the oil droplets form a depot (a deposit of antigen) at the injection site that engenders inflammation, which, in turn, recruits antigen processing immune cells to the area. Once, these cells clear the depot, they are tranported through the lymphatic system for presentation to yet other types of immune cells for further processing.

Key to this process is the immune cells' presumed recognition of squalene molecules as a foreign antigen. The solubilized viral of bacterial antigens are conveyed in the droplets, which must themselves attract the attention of immune cells. As it happens, squalene does attract this attention. It does this precisely because the immune system, which under normal circumstances ignores squalene, attacks it when injected.

What the designers of these adjuvant did not count on (because they did not do the necessary research to determine this) is that squalene itself is not only immunostimulatory, it is, itself, an immunogen. In other words, squalene does not merely stimulate immune responses to other molecules, it elicits a response to itself. The immune system thus makes responses that are unique to squalene.

DOD has consistently sewn confusion by asserting, misleadingly, that squalene concentrations in blood, which exceed those in a volume dose of anthrax vaccine, is evidence that it is safe to inject. That assertion is either clever disinformation or, in and of itself, compelling evidence that DOD is so astonishingly oblivious to elementary immunological principles that its scientists should not be allowed to develop vaccines for military personnel, let alone administer them to troops without informed consent.

It has similarly sewn confusion by asserting, again misleadingly, that the microgram concentrations of squalene in Chiron's Fluad vaccine proof that nanogram concentrations are immunologically inert. No, Chiron employs microgram concentrations of squalene in Fluad because that amount of squalene is required to "engineer" an emulsion in which the virus particles are more effectively delivered into body by conjugating them with microdroplets of oil. In other words, the amount of squalene in Fluad has to do with what is required to make an emulsion, not how much is needed for immunostimulus.

The amount of squalene used by Chiron in Fluad has zero bearing on squalene's lowest threshold of biological activity. That threshold has never been established experimentally. Tulane's data is evidence that, at a minimum, the lower threshold in humans is 1-9 ppb.

I maintain that the twofold serial dilution of squalene in anthrax vaccine had to do with a dose ranging and dose escalation study, probably factoring into the desired result (safe immunostimulus) the known characteristics of the immune system, specifically B cell clonal proliferation and antibody amplification through serial boosting.

On the face of it, this was yet another attempt to harness Mother Nature to do science's bidding by manipulating the immune system. But as Dr. Asa has been fond of saying for years, "you cannot build a better mousetrap by ignoring the engineering constraints of the mouse."

A good drug preferably has some measurable effect in the nanogram and femtogram ranges. Current pharmaceutical testing for efficacy, especially with organic molecules like hormones, always test in these ranges. It's de rigeur.

But that does not mean you employ those concentrations when you bring a drug to market.

Both the amount of squalene in blood, which is a truly debatable point, and the amount of squalene used in commercially prepared adjuvant emulsions, are, in fact, irrelevant in this discussion. You cannot extrapolate any meaningful conclusion on squalene's lower limit of safety from either sets of data. To establish a lower limit of safety, you have to expressly test for that; preferably, in animals first. Chiron didn't do that; neither did the Army or the NIH before allowing squalene to be jabbed into the arms of human beings. If they did, they didn't publish their data.

Squalene's licensure of Fluad for the elderly (the mean age for human subjects in Phase 1, II and III clinical trials in Italy was 71+ years) in Europe does not prove that Fluad safe to use here any more than Vioxx's licensure in the U.S. proved it was safe to use even here, let alone anywhere else.

As I reported in VACCINE A, the British health authorities licensed an oil emulsion called Incomplete Freund's Adjuvant in the 1960s. It was administered to 900,000 British citizens before being yanked from the market. It was administered to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in a series of clinical trials in the 50s and 60s, but then never licensed.

By the way, none of the squalene emulsion adjuvants, which have been in development for nearly a quarter century, have thus far been proven safe. In fact, Dutch government scientists have recommended against their use (including TiterMax, MF59 and Ribi Adjuvant system) in animals because their effects are too inhumane. On these grounds alone, I would say the squalene concentrations in these adjuvants are moot; and, for the reasons I enumerated above, this question is irrelevant to the discussion on whether nanogram concentrations of squalene are safe.

Tulane's data is evidence that they are not safe. Chiron itself has published data showing that it has achieved immunostimulus in mice with a 200 nanomolar concentration (approximately 80 ppb) squalene. The FDA found an 83 ppb concentration of squalene in anthrax vaccine lot #FAV 047. U.S. military personnel immunized with vaccine from FAV 047 have developed anti-squalene antibodies and autoimmune disease.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
Dan Leggett
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:08 pm    Post subject: squalene concentrations in vaccine Reply with quote

Gary, I think you missed the point of my post and it was not cleared up by your response or the quote from Corixa. So let me try again. I'm not talking about dose-response, you've convinced me on that. I'm trying to find out how much squalene is actually being added to each vial of vaccine. If you add 44 uL of squalene to a 0.5mL vial of vaccine, the concentration of squalene is roughly 60 mg/mL or 60 parts per thousand. This is a million times the dose you found when analyzing the vials. That means there is either another dilution, which has not yet been mentioned, or the vials contain a million times more squalene than showed by analysis. I'm simply trying to resolve this discrepency.
Regards,
Dan
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply to Dan Leggett, RE: squalene concentrations in vaccine Reply with quote

Dear Dan: No, I did not miss the point of your post. I think I understood you perfectly.

You started off by asking me about a typographical error in my response to Guest1. I explained that I meant to type 0.5 mL, not 0.5 mg. Then you wanted to know how much squalene is incorporated into "a vial of vaccine."

I can only offer an imprecise, speculative answer to this question for two reasons: one, the adjuvant, which is the subject of this message string, is Corixa Corporation's R-700 squalene-in-water emulsion. R-700 is experimental. Hence, when discussing R-700, it is impossible to say how much squalene is in "a vial vaccine." There are no licensed vaccines that contain R-700.

And, arguably, there are no viable prototype vaccine's that contain it either. Guest1 informed us about an experimental anthrax immunization mixed with R-700. But this prototype immunization does not yet exist as fully fledged vaccine. It is nothing more than a series of ad hoc concoctions made with varaible contents at a Fort Detrick lab bench for experiments with mice. There is nothing ready for clinical trials. Which brings me to the second reason I cannot answer this question with any certainty.

FORT DETRICK'S ANTHRAX CAPSULE VACCINE: Because this prototype vaccine was made expressly for an experiment with mice - a mammal which is a fraction of the size of a human being - it was not administered in the standard 0.5 mL doses that are normally given to humans. When I skimmed the Fort Detrick paper on USAMRIID's prototype capsule antigen vaccine, I did not see a clearly delineated volume dose for mice either. One group of mice, for instance, received immunizations of 100 micrograms of purified capsule antigen, plus 33 micrograms of protective antigen, which were administered with Ribi R-700 adjuvant, which, in turn, was mixed into 0.2 ml. of phosphate buffered saline. Besides, what was given to a mouse, will not be given to a human being. The dosage will inevitably change.

Fort Detrick's scientists do not specify how much adjuvant (microbial subunits + squalene and surfactant) is mixed into 0.2 ml. of phosphate buffered saline. Its scientists, somewhat conspicuously I think, neglected to mention that R-700 is a squalene emulsion. Hence, the best information I could offer, which is available to anyone who peforms a quick search on Corixa's website, is Corixa's own description of the contents of its R-700 adjuvant.

CHIRON'S INFLUENZA VACCINE WITH SQUALENE: Chiron's influenza vaccine for the elderly, Fluad is emulsified in Chiron's proprietary squalene-in-water adjuvant, MF59. Here's what the Italians (who were the first to licensed Fluad) say about its contents:

Quote:
Antigeni di superficie (emagglutinina e neuraminidasi)* del virus dell’influenza, dei ceppi:
A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1) – ceppo equivalente (A/New Caledonia/20/99 IVR-116) 15 microgrammi**
A/Moscow/10/99 (H3N2) – ceppo equivalente (A/Panama/2007/99 RESVIR 17) 15 microgrammi**
B/Hong Kong/330/2001– ceppo equivalente (B/Shangdong/7/97) 15 microgrammi**

Per ogni dose da 0,5 ml
*coltivati in uova e adiuvati con MF59C.1
**emagglutinina

Adiuvante: MF59C.1 è un adiuvante esclusivo (Brevetto EP 0 399 843 B1): 9,75 mg di squalene [Highlighting and italics mine]; 1,175 mg di polisorbato 80; 1,175 mg di sorbitan trioleato; 0,66 mg di citrato di sodio; 0,04 mg di acido citrico ed acqua per preparazioni iniettabili.

Il vaccino è conforme alle raccomandazioni dell’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità (per l’Emisfero Nord) ed alle decisioni dell’Unione Europea per la stagione 2002/2003.

Per gli eccipienti vedere la Sezione 6.1



Note that the Italian package insert for Fluad states 9.75 miligrams of squalene in 0.5 mL of Fluad.

N.B. I did not analyze any vials of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed, aka BioThrax; the FDA did. The FDA found nanogram concentrations of squalene in BioThrax, which is a million times less than the concentrations Chiron used in its dose ranging study for its pre-licensing prototype of Fluad.

As I explained earlier, this information is irrelevant to this particular discussion. The fact that Italy licensed Fluad with MF59 after clinical trials in the elderly, does not prove squalene is safe in nanogram quantities, or any other quantity for that matter, for people of all ages. Some people might assume that licensing is proof of safety, but the Vioxx debacle is evidence to the contrary.

It seems to me that the data you seek would be meaningful only to someone who is trying to argue, as DOD has repeatedly done, that the larger, milligram quantities of squalene in Fluad is evidence that the nanogram quantities of squalene in anthrax vaccine are safe. I have explained, at length, why this is fuzzy thinking. If you have other reasons for seeking this information, then could you please explain those reasons because they are not obvious to me?

I reiterate, Chiron does not use milligram quantities of squalene for immunostimulatory efficacy. It uses milligram quantities to engineer a viable emulsion vehicle to deliver the target antigens in the vaccine. DOD has consistently conflated the two (milligram quantities of oil to make an emulsion is not proof that nanogram quantities of oil are biological inert); hence my scepticism concerning your pursuit of this particular factoid.

If you accept, as you say, that nanogram doses of squalene in certain lots of anthrax vaccine have induced pathogenic responses that are expressly autoimmune, why concern yourself with how much squalene is in the Army's prototype capsule antigen vaccine, or how much squalene is in Fluad?

Tulane's data is consistent with the data from animal experiments conducted by respected laboratories on four continents. All of these animal experiments demonstate the toxicity of injected squalene or squalene emulsions; not some of these experiments, all of them. Tulane's data, not Chiron's, is also consistent with everything we know about the toxic effects of oil-based adjuvants. Since 1916 no scientist anywhere has created an oil adjuvant that has proven safe enough for human use ... with one alleged exception: Chiron's MF59. Italy's data on Fluad with MF59 is a remarkable, if not unbelievable, exception to the rule. The onus, I believe, is on Italy and Chiron, not me, to explain the discrepancy.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
Dan Leggett
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:25 pm    Post subject: squalene in vaccines Reply with quote

Dear Gary,
I was not trying to make an argument for the safety of MF59 in ppb quantities based on the "apparent" concentrations of squalene in other vaccine preparations such as Fluad. That never even occurred to me, so I think your reading that into my post was, with all due respect, a bit paranoid. I am trying to resolve the apparent discrepency in the amounts of squalene added to vaccines as adjuvants. It appears, based on my understanding of the data you presented in your last two posts, that Fluad should contain a million times more squalene than found in the U.S. anthrax vaccines that were used to innoculate Gulf War troops. I just wondered if that was true or not. Have any vials of Fluad been analyzed? It's a purely scientific question at this point. We shouldn't judge the data or any implications that might be drawn a priori.
Regards,
Dan
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply to Dan Leggett, RE: squalene in vaccines Reply with quote

Dear Dan: The amount of squalene used in Chiron's MF59 adjuvant is in milligrams. That's a million times more than the FDA and SRI found in anthrax vaccine.

As I have stated, milligram amounts of squalene are required, in the form of microdroplets, to create a vaccine emulsion. Each microdroplet acts as a "vehicle," carrying, in the case of Fluad, virus particles into the body. The oil itself elicits an immune response that further promotes the processing of the microbe bits carried by each droplet.

I have stated all this, as a chess player might, in anticipation of your next "move." Please correct me if I am wrong here, but are you not the Daniel C. Leggett who has worked on government studies on "Explosive-Related Vapors from Land Mines," "Vapor Signatures from Military Explosives," and the "Diffusion of Volatile Atmospheric Acids on Snow?" If you are not, then please accept my apologies for misidentifying you; you have never discussed your background, and I may have presumed, incorrectly, that you are the chemist who has worked on these projects.

If you are, indeed, the same Daniel C. Leggett who co-authored the aforementioned studies, then I would say that my responses were, on a psycho-emotional level, hardly illogical given the fact that you are a chemist who has worked on projects for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and has, in his postings, focused on issues that DOD has used to attack this investigation. Although, the significance of the issues we've discussed in this message string, due to their hypertechnical nature, will elude 99.9% of those people reading this interchange, they are "hot button" issues to me. From my perspective, then, I think that I've been consistently disciplined in my responses to your questions; though a hint of defensiveness occasionally creeps in.

As the USAMRIID powerpoint briefing in my possession divulges, the new anthrax vaccine with squalene - which has been in the Army's R&D pipeline for nearly 20 years - is funded, in part, by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. DIA is not DARPA, and not everyone who works with DARPA has a vested interest in covering up this stuff.

Of course, they don't. But DARPA, DTRA and DIA (like USAMRIID, WRAIR and NATO ASI; NCI, NIH, FDA and DHHS) are all involved in the multi-billion dollar business of biodefense. This business includes, as a national priority, the development of the second generation anthrax vaccine, rPA102, coupled with new generation adjuvants like those made with squalene.

While I have no reason to believe you would be even remotely connected with any "damage control" efforts to discredit this work, your alleged affiliation with DARPA (again, assuming that you are the self-same Daniel C. Leggett whose name is on various military-funded scientific studies) is sufficient grounds, I believe, to suspect that, at a minimum, you would be at least familiar, if not inclined to be sympathetic, with certain ways of thinking about this investigation that DOD has persistently used to attack it.

FLUAD: No one, as far as I am aware, has had any cause to perform GC/Mass spec on vials of Fluad to determine its level of squalene content. In this matter, I only have the Italian package insert for the vaccine to go by. Again, unless I am misreading it, this insert states that a 0.5 mL dose of Fluad contains 9.75 mg of squalene. Hence, the squalene content of Fluad is >million times that of squalene-tainted lots of anthrax vaccine.

In your last post you wrote:

Quote:
"We shouldn't judge the data or any implications that might be drawn a priori."


I heartily concur. Thank you for keeping an open mind.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
Back to top
Dan Leggett
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:10 pm    Post subject: squalene and DARPA Reply with quote

Wow, Gary

Now that you've blown my cover Sad- , I'll admit that I am the person you have identified. I am guilty of working on a DARPA-sponsored explosives detection project. The project was quite benign and related to looking at explosive vapor signatures from landmines for the purpose of eventually developing a detector which might work as well as a dog's nose. I retired when DARPA funding for this project ran out, as I was eligible anyway.

I do understand your apprehensions, however, and will do all I can to assure you that my motives are honorable. My questions are not meant to undermine or discredit you and your work in any way. As a scientist, I'm playing devil's advocate, which is the way I would like to think science is always done. Sadly, as you've learned, 'hot button' scientific issues can become politicized in a hurry, much to the detriment of science per se.

I honestly didn't know about you or your work until I happened in Borders one day and saw your book. Up until then I knew very little about GWS but had many suspicions about the cause, including depleted uranium, mycoplasmas, etc. I am convinced that your thesis is correct. It will be interesting to follow the Fluad story and see what transpires. It seems the recipients of that vaccine received a mega dose of squalene; that was the reason for my question.

I wonder if you're familiar with Len Horowitz' theories of the origins of HIV/AIDS. Also, I see by the jacket of your book that you wrote about the anthrax attacks. I am interested in pursuing both topics, but will let you suggest whether this is an appropriate venue for discussing these things.

Regards,
Dan
Back to top
Guest 1
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been reading the posts from Dan and Gary. I think Dan is playing Devil's advocate quite legitimately.
I also agree with Dan that the relevations in Gary's book show that squalene was almost certainly added to many batches of vaccine deliberately.

The DoD is playing a good confusion game by pointing out that squalene is used in an Italian Flu vaccine - clearly we need more details about that. To my knowledge that vaccine is only given to elderly persons who are at risk of dying if they catch the flu. It is not recommended for those under 65.

When DoD say that squalene exists naturally in everyone's blood they are deliberately evading the central question. That is, the squalene antibody test. Clearly if squalene existed in everyone's blood in exactly the same form as what occurs after an anthrax vaccination then everyone would have the squalene antibody present also. They don't. As Gary clearly points out in his book, only people who have had the anthrax vaccination from squalene containing lots have it. How can that explained by any other means than it was the result of the shot? In at least 2 subjects there was no antibody present just before their shot, then after it there was. That's pretty convincing data - but DoD apparently do not want to face that question directly. Instead they present roundabout discussion.

As far as the anthrax attacks of 2001 are concerned - that's a very interesting question. If it wasn't for these attacks perhaps the vaccine wouldn't have been produced and used in the enormous quantities it is being used today.

The persons responsible for the attacks have still not been identified and the FBI's case is going nowhere. One cannot help but wonder about this totally unacceptable situation.
Back to top
Dan Leggett
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:51 pm    Post subject: anthrax attacks Reply with quote

You wrote:

"As far as the anthrax attacks of 2001 are concerned - that's a very interesting question. If it wasn't for these attacks perhaps the vaccine wouldn't have been produced and used in the enormous quantities it is being used today.

The persons responsible for the attacks have still not been identified and the FBI's case is going nowhere. One cannot help but wonder about this totally unacceptable situation."

I agree. And I think the reason the investigation is going nowhere is that the perp is being protected. The anthrax used was from a source only produced in the U.S. and maintained in only a handful of labs. Very few people could have had access to it, and certainly not some wild-eyed Islamic terrorist, at least not without the collusion of someone with a high clearance to a bioresearch facility. Most Americans don't realize that the greatest terrorist threat we face is our own government, but I think that is becoming clearer and clearer every day.
Back to top
Guest 1
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary actually has written one of the best articles out there on the anthrax attacks - it was published in Science magazine last year. It can be seen at this link: http://www.garethhowell.net/bioaerosol.html

He concentrates on the additives that were used to weaponize the anthrax. The bizarre thing is that he reveals that the FBI, in a private briefing to senate staffers, denied these additives are there!

Meanwhile, army scientists, whose names and titles are all given in the article, openly state that the additives are there. One has to ask - what on earth is going on here?

How can the FBI possibly solve the case when they deny the existence of the very forensic evidence that points to who made it?
Back to top
forrest shalom
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

there is indeed something very strange going on in western countries as
western business/political tycoons make partnerships with countries and/or individuals who promote jihad.

it was a member of a certain presidentially protected "peaceful religion"
who sent the sophisticated anthrax letters to members of congress.

these people are not all "wild eyed". many are highly trained in technical
fields. in my opinion, the west is committing collective suicide by making
friends with those whose ideology teaches to despise and ultimately destroy you.

strange bed fellows indeed!

forrest
Back to top
Dan Leggett
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have you seen this Forrest?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/anthraxsuspect.html

Dan
Back to top
Gary M - Author
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply to Dan Leggett, et al., RE: "anthrax attacks" Reply with quote

To All: This forum was created to discuss topics directly related to the book VACCINE A: e.g., medical experimentation on military personnel without informed consent, and specifically the evidence that some military personnel are suffering from incurable autoimmune diseases as a result of covert experiments on troops to acclerate the development of the Army's second generation anthrax vaccine, rPA102, combined with an unlicensed squalene emulsion.

I have never read anything by Len Horowitz on the origins of HIV/AIDS.

Although I have investigated the 2001 anthrax letter attacks for ABC News, The Washington Post and Science magazine, I do not wish to discuss that work here, which would divert attention from the reason this forum exists.

Thank you for understanding.

Sincerely,
Gary Matsumoto
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
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