[quote]apbt55 wrote:
enchilnada wrote:
Squalene was never added to the anthrax vaccines and to date, the cause of Gulf War Syndrome is unknown. Although, some have investigated and suspect chronic exposure to the combination of pyridostigmine bromide, DEET, and permethrin. The myth that squalene was included in very small or trace amounts (which makes no sense as it’s not enough to work as an effective adjuvant) in the anthrax vaccine stems from the fact that squalene contamination readily occurs on laboratory equipment after being handled by humans (we leave it on objects after we touch them as we produce squalene in our body and consume it in our diet). If you’ve ever worked in an analytical lab and didn’t bother to use hexane to clean the glass equipment or were lazy, you’re going to see squalene with GC-MS equipment. It’s just a common contaminant in those cases. And again, this is why they only found trace amounts of it, not nearly enough to make it an effective adjuvant. It has also been shown that a significant portion of the human population already produces antibodies to squalene.
Thimerosal has not been shown to contribute to autism or any of the other nonsense perpetuated over and over by conspiracy theorists and such. And the autism is caused by “X” crowd continually shifts their assertions after scientific data are gathered to refute them…if it wasn’t the vaccine itself (MMR) then it had to be the preservative and if wasn’t that then it was another vaccine and if it wasn’t that then it was antibiotics. The truth is that, just as with the Gulf War Syndrome, the cause of autism isn’t known.
Regarding the H1N1, the last I checked (not on wacko and unsubstantiated websites) it was not going to contain squalene if for no other reason than the FDA has not approved its use as an adjuvant here in the US. I know the international community has expressed concern that the US may not use adjuvants and risk “hogging” up limited resources. This is all ignoring the fact that there is no good evidence to suggest that squalene used as an adjuvant is harmful to begin with (Europe has safely used it).
Exp Mol Pathol. 2000 Feb;68(1):55-64
this is the primary study looking at squalene, this was not some conspiracy it was used in the licensed anthrax vaccine and not in trace amounts, as an adjuvant, [/quote]
Have you even read the study you’re citing? Let us first ignore that FDA, WHO and the Institute of Medicine have all done their part to dimiss this nonsense. They must all be “in on it” anyhow. Instead, let’s just directly cite from the paper you reference:
“It is important to note that our laboratory-based investigations do not establish that squalene was added as adjuvant to any vaccine used in military or other personnel who served in the Persian Gulf War era. Several investigators have speculated that GWS is the result of either exposure of chemicals, chemical weapons, or to biological agents encountered in the Persian Gulf.”
“Further studies are required to define the role of ASA, if any, in the pathogenesis of GWS.”
Did you not read their later paper which actually contradicts their earlier findings (and is the ultimate reason why they have not published anything since)? Or, for that matter, where they point to the fact that only trace amounts were found (in the low ppb range) in only some of the vials in some of the lots, just as I have said before? And that many have questioned whether these trace amounts could have any effect? This is taken directly from their second and last paper published:
“The amount of squalene, in four of the five lots of anthrax vaccine for which we found antibodies, was determined by the FDA to be 10-83 parts per billion. These levels have been dismissed as too low to have an immunological effect. It is true that the precise biological significance of low levels remains to be determined, and in what context, but we suggest that
they cannot be dismissed summarily.”
Probably the most sad thing is that so many argue, citing their study, without ever knowing that they never argued most of the things that people say. I sure would hate it if people were citing my data and conclusions as evidence for arguments that I never made. They proposed a hypothesis as has been done throughout the history of science and their hypothesis was never able to be validated. It is as simple as that.
Here are more recent studies which I would highly recommend reading:
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2006 Oct 11;42(4):494-9
J Immunol Methods. 2004 Mar;286(1-2):47-67.
Vaccine. 2009 Jun 12;27(29):3921-6.