Go Back   This Blue Marble, a Global Current Events Discussion Forum > Health and Medicine > Flu Clinic > Flu Discussion

Flu Discussion This subroom is intended for "soft discussion" of flu-related topics. This includes general chat, joke threads, scenarios, discussions of personal feelings, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-28-2009, 05:34 PM   #1
lynnie
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default was squalene in all the other flu vaccs I've had?

Sorry to be so behind the eight ball on this one; I'm sure you have covered it, but I haven't been reading flu threads much at all.

I have asthma and my lungs are always worse after a bad cold, and the MD always strongly tells me to get a flu vacc. I've never had any problem that I know of. Have I been taking squalene all these years but it does not seem to bother me ( no gulf war syndrome symptoms)? Is the squalene a new thing in this swine flu vacc? Thanks for any help.
lynnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009, 07:09 PM   #2
CanadaSue
SuperModerator
 
CanadaSue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In my gardens or online
Posts: 25,160
Blog Entries: 28
Thanks: 863
Thanked 2,531 Times in 1,498 Posts
Squalene is new in flu vaccines. It has never been in the seasonal ones licenced in the US.
__________________
If a man speaks where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?
CanadaSue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009, 07:17 PM   #3
lynnie
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks.

Guess I better start saving up for my 1,000 fine
lynnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009, 07:24 PM   #4
CanadaSue
SuperModerator
 
CanadaSue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In my gardens or online
Posts: 25,160
Blog Entries: 28
Thanks: 863
Thanked 2,531 Times in 1,498 Posts
They haven't added squalene to US formulations of flu vax - yet. Can't see them doing that either - not unless this strain really kicks up a few notches & they need to vax more people than they have vax for.

Planned uptake remains fairly low so I can't see an issue there. OTOH, planned uptake is higher than what they will have at any given time. They won't have the time or resources to force it on people - not to mention no justification, (so far), for even thinking of trying that.
__________________
If a man speaks where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?
CanadaSue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009, 10:08 PM   #5
lynnie
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
They haven't added squalene to US formulations of flu vax - yet. Can't see them doing that either

Canada Sue, you are a gem. Thanks for the info.
lynnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009, 11:13 PM   #6
Mama Alanna
Speedy moderator
 
Mama Alanna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In front of the computer or the sewing machine.
Posts: 6,381
Thanks: 491
Thanked 907 Times in 451 Posts
Thank YOU, lynnie, for bringing up a question that no one else appears to have thought of.
__________________
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"The trouble with most folks isn't so much their
ignorance, as knowing so many things that ain't so."
--Josh Billings
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Mama Alanna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 12:05 AM   #7
Sarrah
Granny has danced 6,809 plus--->
 
Sarrah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 3,096
Thanks: 448
Thanked 475 Times in 234 Posts
I probably shouldn't be posting in an area where I do not dabble often. I have found this site that has mega information on the business end of flu vaccines. I believe that is important. As the man said a long time ago follow the money. I think it was in regards to 911. Perhaps it has new information or information of use. Anyway, this is what I found.
There is way too much stuff on the page to paste it here so I am just putting a link.

http://www.squidoo.com/swine-flu-vaccine-info
__________________
Be Prepared
Sarrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 03:06 AM   #8
D. Gale
Make a Wish
 
D. Gale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Circle City
Posts: 3,019
Thanks: 548
Thanked 485 Times in 287 Posts
Also found this on squalene: (of course, it's from the gov't )

http://www.anthrax.osd.mil/resource/...ll.asp?cID=319



The Facts on Squalene
1) Executive Summary
2) What is squalene?
3) Does the anthrax vaccine use squalene as an adjuvant?
4) Does the anthrax vaccine contain squalene?
5) Should we be concerned about the presence of trace quantities of squalene in tetanus, diphtheria, and anthrax vaccines?
6) Can squalene cause harm?
7) If you wanted to use squalene as an adjuvant, what form would it take?
8) What do we know about the European influenza vaccine that uses MF59 (an adjuvant containing squalene).
9) What testing has been done?
10) What did SRI find the first time?
11) References: (abstracts of many of these articles can be viewed at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov , using the PubMed function of the National Library of Medicine)
12) What did the FDA find?
13) What did SRI find after it revised its test procedures?
14) Did DoD mislead or lie to anybody about the squalene tests conducted by SRI?
15) Has anyone, anywhere found squalene added as an adjuvant to any US-licensed vaccine?
16) Where did the squalene FDA found in its anthrax vaccine tests come from?
17) What did the U.S. Senate say about squalene?
18) Did the British government test its anthrax vaccine for squalene?
19) What are the claims about anti-squalene antibodies?
20) Have any independent panels evaluated the claims of researchers to find anti-squalene antibodies in the blood of ill Gulf War veterans?
21) Are these panels really independent?
22) What did the GAO say about squalene testing and what are DoD researchers doing?
23) What did the competitively funded research project find regarding squalene antibodies?
24) Has DoD ever tested squalene-adjuvanted vaccines in humans against any disease?
25) Could squalene concerns have anything to do with various reported clusters of illnesses among people given anthrax vaccine?
26) Bottom line, is there any reason for alarm here?

The Facts on Squalene

1) Executive Summary

A few people claim the Department of Defense (DoD) added squalene to anthrax vaccine to stretch the vaccine supply. Four civilian panels have looked into these allegations since 1999 and repeatedly found them groundless. Neither DoD nor anybody else added squalene to anthrax vaccine for our troops. DoD does not conduct illegal experiments. Details and links to independent sources of data appear below.

2) What is squalene?

Squalene is a naturally occurring substance found in plants, animals, and humans. Squalene is manufactured in the liver of every human body and circulates in our bloodstreams. Squalene is present in the oil left by human fingerprints (Asano et al, 2002). Humans cannot live without squalene, because we use squalene as an essential building block to make hormones and other substances in our bodies. Squalene is also found in a variety of foods (for example: eggs, olive oil (0.7%), cookies, yeast, meat), cosmetics (for example: eye makeup, lipstick, baby powder), over-the-counter medications, and health supplements. Squalene in olive oil may contribute to the low cholesterol levels of people who consume Mediterranean-style diets (Smith, 2000). People can purchase squalene at health food stores. It is more commonly known as “shark liver oil.”

3) Does the anthrax vaccine use squalene as an adjuvant?

No, the adjuvant in the anthrax vaccine is aluminum hydroxide. An adjuvant is a substance to improve the body’s immune response to a vaccine (Vogel et al, 1998; Burdin et al, 2004).

4) Does the anthrax vaccine contain squalene?

Maybe. Some lab tests come up positive for squalene. Because of the difficulty of removing squalene-containing fingerprint oils from laboratory glassware, it is hard to know whether the squalene is truly present in some lots of the vaccine or is introduced by the testing process itself. DoD, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), and several civilian advisory committees agree that squalene at such low levels has no adverse health consequences. In September 2000, DoD became aware of FDA test results finding trace amounts of squalene in three out of three US vaccines tested: tetanus, diphtheria, and anthrax. The level of squalene identified by the FDA test is so minute that it is likely the result of squalene in the oil of a fingerprint not completely cleaned from lab glassware. It is hard to completely remove fingerprint oils from glassware. Before they go looking for squalene, lab workers have to use a chemical solvent such as hexane to completely remove their own fingerprint oils from lab glassware. When lab workers intentionally tested an extract of fingerprint oil, the squalene reading went off the chart. Before the FDA test results became known, Stanford Research International (SRI), under DoD contract, looked for squalene in anthrax vaccine. At the limit of detection of its test, 140 parts per billion, SRI found no squalene in several lots of anthrax vaccine. The FDA’s test, which was developed later, is more sensitive. It is able to detect as little as 10 parts per billion. The FDA found squalene at 10 to 83 parts per billion in diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, and anthrax vaccine. The trace level of squalene found by the FDA in anthrax vaccine is less than the concentration naturally present in human blood (250 parts per billion) (Miettinen, 1982; Nikkila et al, 1992). After the FDA reported its results, DoD asked SRI to refine its assay. Using an improved method that could detect as little as 1 part per billion, SRI found no squalene in 32 out of 33 lots of anthrax vaccine tested (including lots in which FDA found low levels of squalene). In one lot, they found up to 9 parts per billion. The details appear below.

5) Should we be concerned about the presence of trace quantities of squalene in tetanus, diphtheria, and anthrax vaccines?

No. The trace level of squalene found by the FDA and SRI in diphtheria, tetanus, and anthrax vaccines is well below the concentration naturally present in human blood (250 parts per billion). Injecting trace amounts of squalene are unlikely to have any biological effect, given that it is already present in the body. In fact, without squalene in the body to manufacture hormones and other substances in our bodies, we would die. In Congressional testimony on 3 October 2000, FDA official Mark Elengold said that the trace quantities of squalene detected were “both naturally occurring and safe."

6) Can squalene cause harm?

Some animal research to study arthritis used injections of tuberculosis-like bacteria (mycobacteria) dissolved in squalene (e.g., arthritis-prone rats, mice). Other studies assessed 100% squalene injected into rat tails or injected directly into joints. (Yoshino & Yoshino, 1994; Lorentzen, 1999; Kuroda et al, 2004) The relevance of findings in susceptible animal species to humans is unclear (IOM/Sox, 1999; Kuroda et al, 2004). Based on other research, it is clear that whether squalene causes harm or not is related to selected conditions of concentration, dose, route of application, and other factors (Benisek et al, 2004).

7) If you wanted to use squalene as an adjuvant, what form would it take?

If you wanted to use squalene as an adjuvant (to boost immune responses) you would have to multiply the amount of squalene found by the FDA about 1 million times, as well as change it from a simple liquid (its natural state) to an emulsion. An emulsion is a stable suspension of tiny droplets, like an oil-and-vinegar mixture that doesn’t separate. This double difference is like the difference between a teaspoon of oil and 2,000 pounds of mayonnaise. [If you emulsify oil with eggs, you get mayonnaise.] Squalene in the form of an emulsion (emulsified squalene, such as an adjuvant called MF59) has been added as an adjuvant to some investigational vaccines in the U.S. (Burdin et al., 2004) There is no squalene adjuvant in any US-licensed vaccine. Whatever the arguments for or against squalene as a vaccine adjuvant, the fact is that none of the anthrax vaccine administered to U.S. troops contained squalene as an adjuvant. Based on manufacturing records, FDA can verify that no squalene was added to any vaccine formulation used during the Gulf War. This includes the anthrax vaccine. To date, the FDA has licensed, and US manufacturers have used, only aluminum salts (for example, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, aluminum potassium sulfate) as adjuvants.

8) What do we know about the European influenza vaccine that uses MF59 (an adjuvant containing squalene).

In 1997, European health agencies approved emulsified squalene (with influenza virus in the center of each droplet) for use as an adjuvant in an influenza vaccine (Fluad, Chiron Corporation, Marburg, Germany, and Siena, Italy, http://www.forumimpfen.de/impfnaviga...5205fluad.pdf; Sesardic & Dobbelaer, 2004). Some clinicians consider influenza vaccine with MF59 adjuvant to be better able to induce immunity in elderly people (Banzhoff et al, 2003). To make this influenza vaccine work, researchers needed a squalene concentration of 1.95% (about 2 parts per hundred or 20 million parts per billion) to boost the immune response. This squalene had to be in the form of an emulsion (a mixture of tiny droplets) to be recognized by the immune system. Squalene in its oily state is naturally present inside the human body. Tens of millions of doses of this European influenza vaccine have been administered safely since 1997.

9) What testing has been done?

Three sets of US tests have been performed: Initial tests by SRI, tests by FDA, and improved tests by SRI. Each is described below.

10) What did SRI find the first time?

To determine whether squalene was present in anthrax vaccine, the DoD contracted with an independent civilian laboratory, Stanford Research Institute (SRI) International of Menlo Park, California www.sri.com, to test for the presence of squalene in anthrax vaccine. SRI developed a laboratory method to detect squalene as dilute as 140 parts per billion (ppb). At this level of detection, extraordinary measures must be taken to avoid contaminating samples, glassware, and equipment with squalene from the skin, because squalene is a natural component of the oils in our skin. The SRI test used a technique called high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) with ultraviolet detection at a wavelength of 203 nanometers. SRI tested 17 lots of anthrax vaccine: FAV008, FAV017, FAV019, FAV020, FAV024, FAV030, FAV031, FAV033, FAV034, FAV036, FAV037, FAV038, FAV041, FAV043, FAV044, FAV047, and FAV048B. SRI reported "based on triplicate analysis, no squalene was detected in the sample. The limit of detection is 70 nanograms per 0.5 milliliter dose (140 ppb)." (Spanggord et al., 2002)

[snipped-11) References (a bazillion - you can see them at the website listed above)]

12) What did the FDA find?

Using a more sensitive test, developed after the initial SRI test, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) found trace amounts of squalene in three out of three US vaccines tested in Jun 1999: diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, and anthrax vaccine (http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/library/Squalene1.pdf). The FDA test used a technique called gas chromatography with flame-ionization detection. The FDA method could detect squalene as dilute as 10 parts per billion (ppb). Testing five lots of anthrax vaccine and two lots each of diphtheria and tetanus vaccines, FDA concluded, "there were only trace amounts of squalene in the lots tested." Based on manufacturing records, FDA verified that no squalene was added to any vaccine formulation used during the Gulf War. The amounts of squalene identified in the specific lots were:
Anthrax lot FAV020 11.3 ppb
Anthrax lot FAV030 10.1 ppb
Anthrax lot FAV038 27.1 ppb
Anthrax lot FAV043 40.0 ppb
Anthrax lot FAV047 82.9 ppb
Diphtheria lot 3710 22.5 ppb
Tetanus lot 7271 28.7 ppb
Squalene is constantly present in the human blood stream at 250 ppb (250 nanograms per milliliter), a concentration 3 to 25 times higher than the level detected in the FDA test. The amount of squalene added as an adjuvant to a European-approved influenza vaccine is 4 grams per 100 ml (4 parts per hundred), which is about 1,000,000 times more than the concentration of squalene detected in the FDA test. This European influenza vaccine has been administered safely to hundreds of thousands of people.

13) What did SRI find after it revised its test procedures?

After the FDA released its findings in September 2000, SRI revised its squalene test, lowering its limit of detection of 1 ppb or 0.5 nanograms per 0.5 ml. With this more sensitive test, SRI found no squalene in 32 out of 33 lots tested. SRI found squalene in each of three vials of lot FAV008, at 1, 7, and 9 ppb. SRI found no squalene in lots 12, 13, 18, FAV001, FAV002, FAV003, FAV004, FAV005, FAV006, FAV007, FAV009, FAV012, FAV016, FAV017, FAV018, FAV019, FAV020, FAV022, FAV024, FAV030, FAV031, FAV032, FAV033, FAV034, FAV036, FAV037, FAV038, FAV041, FAV043, FAV044, FAV047, and FAV048B. SRI also tested some non-vaccine injectable pharmaceuticals. SRI found no squalene in human insulin regular U-100, human insulin isophane (NPH) U-100, lidocaine 2% solution, sodium chloride 0.9% solution, or potassium chloride 2 mEq/ml solution.

14) Did DoD mislead or lie to anybody about the squalene tests conducted by SRI?

No. DoD truthfully and fully reported its findings at each step since May 1999, when SRI first developed its squalene test. DoD did not know of FDA’s findings until they were publicly released. At the initial limit of detection of its test, 140 parts per billion, SRI found no squalene in anthrax vaccine (Spanggord et al., 2002). It was scientifically proper to say ‘no squalene was found to the limit of detection of the assay,’ which DoD officials sometimes oversimplified to say ‘there is no squalene present.’

15) Has anyone, anywhere found squalene added as an adjuvant to any US-licensed vaccine?


No

16) Where did the squalene FDA found in its anthrax vaccine tests come from?

The most likely source of the trace squalene in the FDA tests is the result of squalene in the oil of a fingerprint not cleaned from lab glassware. Squalene is not added to anthrax vaccine or any US-licensed vaccine. It is hard to completely remove fingerprint oils from glassware. Lab workers have to use a chemical solvent such as hexane to completely remove fingerprint oils from lab glassware.

17) What did the U.S. Senate say about squalene?

In its investigations of illnesses among Gulf War veterans, the Senate Special Investigations Unit (SIU) found no credible information indicating that vaccines used during the Gulf War contained squalene (1998, page 123) http://veterans.senate.gov/Reports/chapt3.pdf (chapter 3, page 23 of 55) In its report, the SIU stated that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), squalene can be contained in a vaccine due to two different processes: 1) as an adjuvant, which is an agent to enhance the immune response; or 2) in minute quantities in certain vaccines manufactured using eggs, since eggs are rich in squalene and cholesterol. The FDA verified that none of the vaccines used during the Gulf War contained squalene as an adjuvant.

18) Did the British government test its anthrax vaccine for squalene?

Yes, The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence arranged for an independent laboratory to test 11 lots of the British anthrax vaccine manufactured at Porton Down, as well as other vaccines. No squalene was detected in those lots of vaccine, with a limit of detection of 0.1 microgram/ml (100 parts per billion).

19) What are the claims about anti-squalene antibodies?

In an effort to explain the health problems of some Gulf War veterans, a few people have theorized that a vaccine adjuvant may have caused an autoimmune disease in veterans. A Vanity Fair article by Gary Matsumoto, "The Pentagon’s Toxic Secret" (May 1999), alleges that the DoD possibly used "an illicit and secret anthrax vaccine" on its own soldiers. The writer’s interpretation and presentation of the facts regarding the Department’s use of anthrax vaccine are speculative, inflammatory, and wrong. His allegations and the reported "clinical evidence" are not new. Since 1997, reports in the Washington Times, its magazine Insight on the News, and the (Wilmington) Delaware News Journal, have made similar allegations regarding “secret medical experiments” and the like. Investigators cited in these articles (Pamela Asa, Ph.D., Memphis, TN, and Robert Garry, Ph.D., Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA) report they developed in 1997 and patented a test for anti-squalene antibodies (ASA). Autoimmune Technologies, LLC, of New Orleans, has an exclusive license on the use of this test. The investigators report that they detected anti-squalene antibodies in the blood of ill Gulf War veterans. Their methods were published in the February 2000 and August 2002 issues of the journal Experimental and Molecular Pathology. In the February 2000 article, the authors themselves conclude: "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." Asa and colleagues published a second article in the August 2002 issue of Experimental and Molecular Pathology, but it also provides no validation of the original assay. As a result, the findings of the second article are also in question. The authors' comment that the Matyas article of Nov 2000 supports their findings is mistaken.

20) Have any independent panels evaluated the claims of researchers to find anti-squalene antibodies in the blood of ill Gulf War veterans?

Yes, four independent civilian panels considered the February 2000 article by Asa and colleagues and other allegations related to squalene and anti-squalene antibodies. When the Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) Committee on Gulf War and Health (the “Sox committee”) evaluated the 2000 Asa claims of anti-squalene antibodies in the blood of ill Gulf War veterans, it concluded that the paper contains shortcomings, some serious, that combine to invalidate the authors’ conclusions. The report says: "The committee does not regard this study as providing evidence that the investigators have successfully measured antibodies to squalene." See http://www.nap.edu/books/030907178X/html, pages 311-312. The civilian experts on the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB) said in July 2000, "the research reported in this paper does not support this claim; … it remains unclear if the assay actually measures antibodies to squalene, as the authors assert…" http://www.ha.osd.mil/afeb/reports/squalene.pdf Regarding assertations that Service Members who received anthrax vaccination from the five lots cited in the FDA squalene tests experienced more or more severe adverse events after vaccination, the civilian physicians on the Anthrax Vaccine Expert Committee (AVEC) evaluated adverse events by lot and geographic location. They found no meaningful differences based on lot or on geographic location. (Sever et al. 2002 http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/library/AVEC_ms.pdf, especially pages 198-200, and Sever et al, 2004 http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/li...verArticle.pdf, especially pages 13-15) Of note, the five lots cited in the FDA squalene tests were shipped to multiple DoD installations. In addition, Dover AFB received lots other than the five lots mentioned above. After the comprehensive review of anthrax vaccine safety by the National Academy of Sciences (the “Strom committee,” March 2002, www.nap.edu/catalog/10310.html), which included hearing from personnel from Dover AFB and elsewhere concerned that they suffered adverse events after anthrax vaccination, the civilian physicians and scientists concluded that “The [SRI] study report, dated August 14, 2001, found that 1 lot of over 30 lots tested contained measurable levels of squalene. Three samples from that lot [FAV008] contained squalene at 7, 9, and approximately 1 parts per billion, respectively. Use of vaccine from that lot has not been associated with elevated rates of adverse events. … Because the available data ... demonstrate that the presence of trace amounts of squalene is not associated with an increase in the rates of adverse events following vaccination with AVA, the committee concludes that further investigation of possible AVA contamination is not warranted at this time.”

21) Are these panels really independent?

The IOM committee members were selected by the National Academy of Sciences to be fully independent of both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The AVEC committee members were selected by the Department of Health & Human Services to be fully independent of the Department of Defense. The DHB is appointed by the Secretary of the Army to advise the Surgeons General of the military Services. These civilians constitute a highly accomplished and widely respected scientific advisory board. These civilians are free to render whatever opinions they wish, and their candidness is important to ensuring that DoD is using the best possible medical information.

22) What did the GAO say about squalene testing and what are DoD researchers doing?

In March 1999, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government Accountability Office) released a report "Gulf War Illnesses: Questions about the Presence of Squalene Antibodies in Veterans Can be Resolved" (GAO/NSIAD-99-5). The Department of Defense disagreed with the GAO’s opinion that "the first step is to determine the extent to which they [antibodies to squalene] are present in a larger group of sick Gulf War-era veterans." The proper first step is to show that the test for squalene antibodies measures what it claims to measure.

Further, the medical significance and the origin of antibodies to squalene, even if their existence is corroborated, remain unknown. Without such information, Gulf War veterans get only speculation about the meaning of the test result and its implication for their health. Gulf War veterans deserve objective evidence and recommendations based on sound science. To investigate the anti-squalene antibody theory, a scientifically proven test for squalene antibodies is needed to assess whether Gulf War veterans have antibodies to squalene. In response to a DoD solicitation for research on illnesses among Gulf War veterans, a DoD investigator and nationally recognized expert on antibodies to cholesterol and other lipids submitted a research proposal to determine the feasibility of developing a test for antibodies to squalene. The competitively funded research project to determine whether antibodies to squalene exist has five main objectives:
1) Development and validation of an enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) for antibodies against squalene.
2) Evaluation and potential development of other assays for antibodies to squalene.
3) Development of a positive control antibody to squalene.
4) Production of the positive control antibody to squalene for use in the assays.
5) Testing of normal human serum for antibodies to squalene by ELISA and other methods.

23) What did the competitively funded research project find regarding squalene antibodies?


In April 2000, the research project published its first peer-reviewed report, describing an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that could detect antibodies to squalene induced in mice. Use of squalene alone did not produce a significant amount of anti-squalene antibodies. A special chemical was needed to induce the antibodies against squalene in mice. After injecting mice with liposomes (fat globules) containing 71% squalene (710 million parts per billion), plus a second chemical called lipid A, antibodies to squalene were readily induced in mice. The validity of the method was established using positive and negative controls to preclude false positive and false-negative test results. The investigators concluded that squalene is a weak antigen (a weak inducer of antibodies). (Matyas et al., 2000).

By September 2001, researchers reported improving the assay and ensuring these tests were reproducible and sensitive enough to detect 80 ng/ml of anti-squalene antibody. The test was also reproducible from experiment to experiment (Matyas et al., 2001). The third study from this research effort, published in 2004, adapts the test described above so that it could detect anti-squalene antibodies if present in human serum. Serum from three groups of people were tested: retired employees of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (average 68 years of age, 88% of whom received anthrax vaccine, mean = 26 doses per person) , civilian volunteers of similar age from Frederick, Maryland (none of whom received anthrax vaccine), and random blood donors from Fort Knox, Kentucky (vaccination status unknown), This next study indicates that anti-squalene antibodies are found in 7.5% of the vaccinated USAMRIID alumni, 15% of the unvaccinated Frederick civilians, and in 0% of the Fort Knox blood donors. The antibodies described in the previous sentence were a type of antibody called IgG. Researchers found another type of anti-squalene antibody called IgM in all three groups (37%, 32%, and 19%). The researchers found that anti-squalene antibodies are more common with increasing age (a characteristic also found in mice). The presence of anti-squalene antibodies was unrelated to anthrax vaccination status. They concluded that anti-squalene antibodies occur naturally in humans (Matyas et al., 2004).

24) Has DoD ever tested squalene-adjuvanted vaccines in humans against any disease?

Yes. The DoD conducted several human clinical trials exploring the value of investigational vaccines containing squalene-based adjuvants to prevent malaria and HIV infection. The squalene-containing adjuvants principally involved products known as MF59 (licensed from Chiron Corporation) and AS02A (licensed from GlaxoSmithKline). Each of these studies involved an FDAapproved scientific plan in human volunteers told the contents of the vaccine. Malaria: Hoffman et al, 1994; Epstein et al, 2004; Wang et al, 2004. HIV: Nitayaphan et al, 2000; Pitisuttithum et al, 2003. The Department of Defense (DoD) has never exposed any military member or civilian to any squalene-adjuvanted investigational product without the person’s informed consent, abiding by FDA regulations. Civilian researchers, including some funded by the National Institutes of Health, have conducted clinical trials of these and other squalene-adjuvanted vaccines on human volunteers, ranging from infants to the elderly.

25) Could squalene concerns have anything to do with various reported clusters of illnesses among people given anthrax vaccine?

A panel of civilian physicians selected by the Department of Health & Human Services reviewed all reports of adverse events after anthrax vaccination from 1998 to 2001 (Sever et al, 2002; Sever et al, 2004). This panel was known as the Anthrax Vaccine Expert Committee (AVEC).

To evaluate assertations that Service Members who received anthrax vaccination from the five lots cited in the FDA squalene tests experienced more or more severe adverse events after vaccination, these civilian physicians evaluated adverse events by lot and geographic location. They found no meaningful differences based on lot or on geographic location. Of note, the five lots cited in the FDA squalene tests were shipped to multiple DoD installations. In addition, Dover AFB received lots seven lots other than the five test-positive lots mentioned above.

26) Bottom line, is there any reason for alarm here?

No. Squalene is not added to any US-licensed vaccine, including anthrax vaccine. The background level of squalene found by the FDA is less than the concentration normally present in human blood.
The FDA confirms that these trace levels are "naturally occurring and safe." Improved tests found no squalene in the lots where FDA found it. Nonetheless, DoD continues to compile additional knowledge about squalene and anti-squalene antibodies.



So there you have it -- don't y'all feel better now?

(I think my favorite quote is right up there in #1: "DoD does not conduct illegal experiments."

D. Gale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 12:28 PM   #9
CanadaSue
SuperModerator
 
CanadaSue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In my gardens or online
Posts: 25,160
Blog Entries: 28
Thanks: 863
Thanked 2,531 Times in 1,498 Posts
In Canada, the vax WILL have squalene - period. And they're increasingly puzzled as to why fewer peole seem willing to take the vax at this time.

Idiots.
__________________
If a man speaks where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?
CanadaSue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 12:54 PM   #10
Old Hawk
Elderest
 
Old Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,838
Thanks: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Even health care workers reject flu shots

60 percent opt not to get vaccinated despite promixity to virus


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27214082/

Promixity?

OH
__________________
Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. If you do it today and like it you can do it again tomorrow.
Old Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 02:37 PM   #11
CanadaSue
SuperModerator
 
CanadaSue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In my gardens or online
Posts: 25,160
Blog Entries: 28
Thanks: 863
Thanked 2,531 Times in 1,498 Posts
I've been asking health care workers I know. Almost ALL who have told me they don't want it explain their decision based on the following reasons:

They become ill from it - I believe it. No, you can't catch flu FROM a shot but some people simply don't handle vaccines very well. Some react to other components of the shot & some mount an almost overly vigorous response to the shot - happened to me one year. Felt pretty ill for a good 36 hours.

A family member of close friend has become ill after a vaccine.

They don't think it works well enough to take the risk.

They cite some of the factors listed in the article posted - mainly the ones that state very few health care worker caused outbreaks have ever been documented.

About 2 months ago, I started asking every health care worker I encountered or knew if they routinely got flu shots and if they'd planned on getting the H1N1 shot when available. These included 7 doctors, 12 nurses & 9 health care aids/personal care workers. ONE doctor gets them routinely. TWO plan on getting the H1N1 shot but only after they're satisfied with safety testing. Ten nurses don't & won't. 9 aides - none do or will. So out of a total of 33 health care workers - only three take flu shots routinely & only four are interested in the H1N1 vax. Three of the nurses who said no they never bother do routine childhood vax AND work the annual flu vax clinics.
__________________
If a man speaks where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?
CanadaSue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 06:34 AM   #12
mixin
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 91
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Because of the difficulty of removing squalene-containing fingerprint oils from laboratory glassware, it is hard to know whether the squalene is truly present in some lots of the vaccine or is introduced by the testing process itself.
I'm curious about this from D. Gale's post. I saw the claim disputed on another forum, with that person saying that lab workers wore gloves. I wonder why it's hard to remove fingerprint oils? Wouldn't a sterilizer get them clean? Seems like the contamination would have to be on the inside of the glassware in order to make it into the vax.
mixin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 07:01 AM   #13
Mousehound
Senior Level 6
 
Mousehound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 8,583
Thanks: 1,743
Thanked 864 Times in 537 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixin View Post
I'm curious about this from D. Gale's post. I saw the claim disputed on another forum, with that person saying that lab workers wore gloves. I wonder why it's hard to remove fingerprint oils? Wouldn't a sterilizer get them clean? Seems like the contamination would have to be on the inside of the glassware in order to make it into the vax.
I use a sterilizer at work. You need to think of it as a hot air oven of sorts. The process of cleaning items before they go into the sterilizer is what will remove any oils, pieces of debris, etc. The process of washing and disinfecting things is what will remove that. If it is done poorly, what you get is sterilized oils and/or debris. Most wear gloves when doing any part of this process, but may not use gloves to transfer the washed and disinfected item to the sterilizer, or to package them for the sterilizer. We sterilize at 180°C for 90 minutes.
__________________
There are always dozens of reasons why something "can't" be done. That's no excuse in my book. If you want it bad enough, you find a way. That's how life works for grown ups. -- Booger

Don't be afraid to be open-minded. Your brain won't fall out.

Seth Godin: “Instead of wondering when your next vacation is, maybe you should set up a life you don't need to escape from.”
Mousehound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 05:39 PM   #14
mixin
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 91
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanks Mousehound, that helps answer some of my questions.

In your personal experience with handling glasware, does the fingerprint contamination of entire batches explanation seem likely to you?

Contamination is such an issue in the cosmetic industry, I just assumed it would be top priority in a vax lab setting, too.
mixin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
flu, squalene, vaccs

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.