Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › H1N1 Vaccine
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

H1N1 Vaccine - Page 4  

post #61 of 77

new abc article about vaccine

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFl...8296948&page=1

ARGGGGG this article is infuriating! it downplays what an adjuvant is and even refers to squalene as merely oil and water.For the average joe reading that article, it makes it sound like no big deal. It doesn't even mention squalene by name so that a person could look it up and learn how potentially dangerous it id for themselves. : ARGGGGGGG@!!!!!!!
post #62 of 77
Marnica, do you have any links on squalene. I have not been able to find anything solid on it, other than that it is stronger than aluminium as an adjuvant and has been used in pandemic vaccines. Admittedly it was some months ago that I was looking into squalene. But beyond Sherri Tenpenny (whose references I could not track down) I did not find much.
post #63 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
Marnica, do you have any links on squalene. I have not been able to find anything solid on it, other than that it is stronger than aluminium as an adjuvant and has been used in pandemic vaccines. Admittedly it was some months ago that I was looking into squalene. But beyond Sherri Tenpenny (whose references I could not track down) I did not find much.


I just read an article that mentioned squalene

http://www.pandemicfluonline.com/wp-...Article_IO.pdf

Quote:
Novartis, the second contender, also has an agreement with WHO for a pandemic vaccine. Novartis appears to have won the contract, since its vaccine is near completion. What is terrifying is that these pandemic vaccines contain ingredients, called “immune adjuvants” that a number of studies have shown cause devastating autoimmune disorders, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and lupus.

Animal studies using this adjuvant have found them to be deadly. A study using 14 guinea pigs found that, when they were injected with the special adjuvant, only one animal survived. A repeat of the study found the same deadly outcome.
The "special adjuvant" referred to is squalene. It says so in the next paragraph but since I can only post 100 words, you'll have to click on link to read all.

All but one of 14 guinea pigs died and we are to accept this as an ingredient in flu shots? Unbelievable. I guess they feel most people are stupid enough (or simply too trusting) to not question what they are being injected with. Maybe they are right. Ignorance is bliss.
post #64 of 77
Quote:
Questionable studies. I reviewed a number of studies on this adjuvant and found something quite
interesting. Several studies done on human test subjects found MF-59 to be a very safe immune
adjuvant. But when I checked to see who did these studies, I found—to no surprise—that they were
done by the Novartis Pharmaceutical Company and Chiron Pharmaceutical Company, which have
merged. They were all published in “prestigious” medical journals. Also, to no surprise, a great number
of studies done by independent laboratories and research institutions all found a strong link between
MF-59 and autoimmune diseases.
p 3.

Thanks for posting that.

On page 2 it mentions that tetanus and diptheria have had MF59 (squalene) in them. Which was news to me.

I wish there were references
post #65 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jen78fl View Post
Does anyone have any idea if they might make this mandatory for the military? Just wondering since my husband is in the coast guard...
This HHS document outlines the tiered target groups for vaccination in the event of a pandemic flu (which we are technically have according to WHO), categorized by the Pandemic Severity Index. Look at Table 1 and Figure 1. Active duty military are in tiers 1, 2, or 3, depending on their specialty field/deployment status. Even at the lowest PSI, some active duty military are still in Tier 1. The document also later details sub-prioritization among the tiered groups. FWIW (although this wouldn't apply to military), the document states in the beginning (bolding mine),

Quote:
The goal of the pandemic influenza vaccination program is to vaccinate all persons in the United States who choose to be vaccinated.
The most recent H1N1 MILVAX update says

Quote:
Two regulatory options exist for H1N1 vaccines; 1) Licensure: an H1N1 vaccine manufactured using the same process as the U.S. licensed inactivated influenza vaccine, or seasonal live attenuated influenza vaccine will be licensed for use in the U.S. strain change, or 2) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA): Currently, no U.S licensed vaccine contains the adjuvants MF-59 or ASO3. It is expected that an H1N1 vaccine manufactured using the same process as U.S. licensed seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine but administered with MF-59 or ASO3 will be authorized for emergency use only. Products by statute, that are eligible for emergency use are those that “may be effective” in preventing serious or life threatening disease. If enough doses of licensed unadjuvanted vaccine can be secured and the H1N1 virus pandemic remains mild the use of a licensed product would be preferred over the use of a vaccine under an EUA.
This sounds to me like they would prefer to use a version of the vaccine that does not contain an unlicensed adjuvant, but they will use an EUA if someone makes a determination that H1N1 represents a "serious or life threatening disease."

Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post
If you skip a mandatory shot in the military, you will show up on the commander's list. They then will force you to get it and you get some sort of reprimand.
See this thread.
post #66 of 77
Articles linking squalene to Gulf War Syndrome:

"Antibodies to Squalene in Gulf War Syndrome" Experimental and Molecular Pathology, Volume 68, Issue 1, February 2000, Pages 55-64 (2000)

"Antibodies to Squalene in Recipients of Anthrax Vaccine" Experimental and Molecular Pathology Volume 73, Issue 1, Pages 19-27 (2002)

Websites about squalene:

The company with the license for anti-squalene antibody technology, Autoimmune Technologies

Mercola

Then there is this article

Quote:
Squalene is a naturally occurring oil which has been used in the development of vaccine adjuvants, such as the oil-in-water emulsion MF59. In past years, by use of noncontrolled and nonvalidated assays, a claim was made that antisqualene antibodies were detectable in the sera of individuals with the so-called Gulf War syndrome. Using a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the quantitation of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM antibodies against squalene, we demonstrated that antisqualene antibodies are frequently detectable at very low titers in the sera of subjects who were never immunized with vaccines containing squalene. More importantly, vaccination with a subunit influenza vaccine with the MF59 adjuvant neither induced antisqualene antibodies nor enhanced preexisting antisqualene antibody titers. In conclusion, antisqualene antibodies are not increased by immunization with vaccines with the MF59 adjuvant. These data extend the safety profile of the MF59 emulsion adjuvant.
It is interesting to note, however, that the main author of this paper, Giuseppe Del Giudice, is associated with (an employee?) of Chiron, the company that developed MF59. Another strike against it for me is this sentence:

Quote:
Despite the fact that vaccines given to veterans returning with Gulf War syndrome did not contain squalene (6) and despite that fact that symptoms similar to those of the so-called Gulf War syndrome have been reported after several wars, including the American Civil War (9), we decided to undertake a study to determine whether immunization with the influenza vaccine with the MF59 adjuvant stimulated antibody responses against squalene.
Several sites claim that the FDA did find squalene in some lots of the anthrax vaccine given under the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Project. I don't have a reference for this. It probably is classified or some such. And the uber-condescending tone regarding the "so-called Gulf War syndrome" makes me question their bias. On a scientific note, the paper mentions that the trial was carried out "in western Europe with Chiron subunit influenza vaccines, either with or without adjuvant." I wonder if the vaccines used in this study were identical in amount of squalene present as the anthrax vaccines found by the FDA.

Then again, it is possible that squalene is a red herring, and the true cause of vaccine disability, including the anthrax vaccine and now the H1N1 vaccine, has not been brought to light yet.
post #67 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by anewmama View Post
It has nothing to do with the president I don't think. Given the way the anti-terrorists laws are written, the power of WHO and the CDC, it is ultimately up to THEM what will happen. If the president wants to change those laws, then he could instigate that. But I seriously doubt at this point that ANY president is about to re-write the anti-terrorism laws. It would be political suicide. And much of the mandatory vaccination laws are covered under anti-terrorism laws. They would not be able to split off a supposed 'natural' flu pandemic from a biological attack and apply different laws to different diseases depending on whether they were natural or man made. This is assuming they are saying THIS current 'natural' pandemic is natural. A pandemic is a pandemic is a pandemic. The affect of any pandemic on commerce is going to be the same (although you could say that this one has had minimal effect so far. Fall is yet to come) and while the economic effect of this has not been huge, there could theoretically be one come fall (like that's all we need at this point). Given the power of any kind of pandemic to disrupt commerce, trade and business, they would treat them all the same I think (manmade or natural) and respond the same with mandatory vaccination if it came to that level of disruption and death/illness.
I'm so glad someone brought this up! We are at Pandemic Level 6 (http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian.../en/index.html). The United States is subject to the WHO International Health Regulations of 2005 (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...580410_eng.pdf) (p.66.) which gives control to the WHO/UN under a pandemic level of 6. This document pretty much explains how vaccinations become mandatory under a Pandemic Level 6. (http://www.vaclib.org/docs/Pandemic-flyer.pdf).

Also, has anyone seen this at flu.gov: http://www.hhs.gov/pandemicflu/plan/sup6.html
"6. Legal preparedness

State and local health departments should ensure that appropriate legal authorities are in place to facilitate implementation of plans for distributing pandemic influenza vaccines. Health departments might undertake these legal preparedness steps:

Ensure that plans for distribution of vaccines are reviewed by appropriate legal authorities.
Determine whether state and local laws allow non-licensed volunteers or healthcare workers from other jurisdictions to administer influenza vaccines.
Work with professional organizations and unions to consider options for emergency performance of tasks outside of standard job descriptions.
Determine whether state and local laws allow mandatory vaccination to the protect public health, if needed."
(bolded mine)
post #68 of 77
Has anyone seen this article?
http://thebirdflupandemic.com/archiv...-massachusetts

Seems unsubstantiated to me--there is no mention of a specific bill and I could find nothing else online. Can anyone confirm this is true or bogus?

Thanks!
post #69 of 77
from the text of the bill:

Quote:
An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/sena...02/st02028.htm
post #70 of 77
Thank you!!!
post #71 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
Marnica, do you have any links on squalene. I have not been able to find anything solid on it, other than that it is stronger than aluminium as an adjuvant and has been used in pandemic vaccines. Admittedly it was some months ago that I was looking into squalene. But beyond Sherri Tenpenny (whose references I could not track down) I did not find much.
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this....I have been delving deeper into the whole sqaulene issue. This adjuvant has been around since the 1960's and there is plenty of research as to it's detrimental effects. There is also research on a oil based adjuvant that they used BEFORE squalene was discovered called Freund's Incomplete Adjuvant. This was the first oil based adjuvant to be used and was used in an experimental flu vaccine back in the early 50's for the military. The military knew it was dangerous and injected them anyway. The study results were published in The American Journal of the Medical Sciences in April of 1964. Veterans came down with GBS, uveitis, neorodermatitis, MS, lupus, scleroderma, reumatoid arthritis and the list goes on and on.....
As for squalene they have known it is just as noxious as the previously used adjuvant.

Ivins BE, Welkos, S "Recent Advances in the development of an Improved Anthrax Vaccine" European Journal of Epidemiology, 1988 Mar; 4(1) pg 13
Quote:
oil adjuvants can provoke toxic, allergic, ulcerative, or lethal reactions
An experiment in the late 70's where they injected squalene into rats revealed ALL of them developed allergic encephalomyelitis (an MS like disease)
Quote:
The injectyed animals were left hobbled, dragging their paralyzed hindquarters through the wood chips in their cages
Beck, FW, Whitehouse, MW, Pearson, CM, "Improvements for consistently inducing experimental allergic encephalomylelitis (EAE) in rats" Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 1976, March; 151(3) pgs 615-622.

The thinking is that squalene is safe because it is an oil found in food we eat. (olive oil for example) so therefore it must be safe. This logic is flawed. Just because something is safe to ingest does not mean it is safe to inject. In the early 70's the guys from the article above ran a bunch of experiemts at UCLA medical center where they injected a variety of edible oils on the assumption that the body would metabolize them safely. They injected into rats castor oil, olive oil, gradeseed oil, coconut oil, sesame oil, wheat-germ oil, cod liver oil and a few others and found that ALL of the rats got arthritis to varying degrees.
Whitehouse, MW, Orr, KJ, Beck, FW, Pearson, CM "Relationship of Arthritogenicity and adjuvanicity in rats to vehicle comosition" Immunology, 1974 Aug 27(2) pg 319

It is mind boggling that scientists and the military and even the government has known that these oil based adjuvants induce autoimmune disease and yet here we are with 2 of the manufacturers quite possibly producing this new swine flu vaccine using an oil based adjuvant. Ever wonder why the FDA never approved any oil based adjuvant for human use? Cause they know how toxic it is.
post #72 of 77
Here is some more good stuff on squalene:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=16960112

https://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&pi...on%2Fpdf&pli=1

The second one is really good since it is a collection and description of all the post license stuff on squalene and also the trials on both humans and animals.
post #73 of 77
None of us will be getting the vax!
post #74 of 77
We won't be vaxing. One of my issues with the swine flu vax (and I have many others) is this: It's been said in prior years that the regular flu vaccine is a crapshoot as to whether or not it will actually provide immunity to the strain of flu that is going around. I distinctly recall hearing two or three years ago that the vax for that year did not match the strain at all.

Fast forward to this situation. The vaccine being currently developed is for the existing strain of swine flu, is it not? And yet, we keep hearing that the virus is expected to mutate in the fall and cause widespread chaos. At that point, wouldn't a new vaccine need to be developed to combat the mutated strain? If so, every time a mutation occurs, people would need to be vaccinated anew, as they would not have immunity from the prior vaccines.

Maybe my logic is off, but I'm just not getting this.
post #75 of 77
I just took this poll and left a comment....didn't know if it's been posted or not. So far more people thing the vaccine is more dangerous! Good!



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...-greater-risk/

YOU DECIDE: Which do you think is a greater risk: taking the fast-tracked H1N1 vaccine or not being vaccinated?
post #76 of 77

Information on the vaccine itself and keeping your immune system high

Highly recommended reading and viewing:

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2009/...e-flu-vaccine/

http://www.homefirst.com/content/view/194/120/

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com...vaccine-shots/
post #77 of 77
Due to it's excessive content, this thread is being closed. A new thread has been opened for current discussions. Treatment/prevention other than vaccines should be continued in H&H.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › H1N1 Vaccine