"Still not a pandemic, certainly no more than regular flu with some 30,000 deaths a year!"
>>You keep raising the issue of it being a pandemic-why? Is it your belief we should ignore H1N1 until it becomes a pandemic so that it becomes a pandemic, and then address the problem, rather than immunizing against it to delay or perhaps even prevent its becoming a pandemic?
"In other words, you'll stick your head in the sand and close your mind."
>>My mind is open, Patrick, but your claims re: a debate whether or not the virus is engineered is indistinguishable from creationists claims that there's debate about confidence in evolutionary theory.
>>That's interesting, but do you have anything which supports the idea that the virus was designed? This virologist's statement doesn't argue for nor imply design.
"No, just largely going off the doc's newsletter."
>>So you're arguing my mind is closed because I'm not convinced by evidence you aren't aware even exists? For my mind to be open I'd have to accept without consideration a secondhand claim you're offering based on an article by an unspecified doctor published an unidentified newsletter (which apparently doesn't bother to identify evidence supporting that claim)?
"Not exactly sure. Guess he's just pointing out problems with manufacture."
>>Not exactly sure how its relevant, but you're still offering it as a valid criticism of immunization? Do you exercise any critical thinking when composing these screeds?
"Well that's true, and they did come up with a vaccine in the 1970's too, which by the way created like 200 or so cases of the Guillian-Bar whatever."
>>Two hundred or so cases out of how many total individuals immunized? Until we know the incidence of this side effect we can't evaluate risk vs. benefit, can we? .
"Yeah, the doc mentioned it was more modern but I didn't think it was important."
>>If you didn't think it was important why did you mention the specific technology of production?
"You know there's one point the doc didn't mention and I don't know. Are...you injected with monkey cells?"
>>Me personally? No. Are there monkey cells contained in the vaccine? No. Are there detectable levels of host cell proteins in vaccines? No—batches are tested and must meet stringent release criteria with respect to this and a host of other possible manufacturing contaminants.
"How do they do that? Just make small samples and test DNA?"
>>Typically through PCR amplification of cell lysates. Which is much more sensitive than antibody screening.
"There's always a risk of missing something, some contamination."
>>Do you have any evidence that something has been missed?
"Like part of the reason for the Gulf War Syndrome was that some of the vaccines were contaminated with Mycobacterium (or was it something else?)."
>>Contamination of the anthrax vaccine by the mycoplasma m. ferementens was suggested as a possible cause. This has been ruled out, however: Vaccine lots were tested for mycoplasma, live mycoplasma was added to vaccine lots but did not survive beyond 24 hours due to preservatives included in the formulation; blood tests performed on servicemen who were symptomatic and a symptomatic for GWS were identical with respect to markers of mycoplasma infection.
Alshawe A, Alkhateeb G. Test of Iraqi anthrax vaccine and other vaccines. J Biol Sci Res 1987;17:1-16.
Gray GC, Kaiser KS, Hawksworth AW, Watson HL. No serological evidence of an association found between Gulf War service and Mycoplasma fermentans infection. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1999;60:752-7.
"Erm, don't know much about it at this time. I've seen no statistics or evidence of death from HIV contracted from vaccines. I've only seen it as rumor. Perhaps I'll come across it in my various studies."
>>But in your mind a rumor is just as good as a comprehensive study conducted by the CDC or WHO examining a statistically large number of individuals and successfully published in peer reviewed journal—right? The internet said it, I believe it, that settles it—right?
"Still, I'm just reporting. I really don't know much about it other than what I've stated"
>>it's beginning to look like you should have stopped right after "much about it".
"Huh. Really? Can you give me more information, perhaps a link? Most interesting. Are there different types of squalene, like there are different types of vitamin B12?"
>>Just google squalene—it's a required precursor for the biological synthesis of critical sterol hormones (i.e., you don't produce enough squalene, you get sick and/or die). It's also secreted by sebaceous glands in the skin, whyere it asks to pretect against drying. Want some squalene? Just rub your index figure down the side of your nose or behind your ear, where it will have collected in the creases.
Don't you think you should have taken the time to find out something like this before shouting "Vaccines are dangerous cuse they contain squalene!"
"Really? I didn't expect confirmation from you!"
>>At high enough doses everything is toxic, Patrick, even water (you've heard of H2O intoxication, right?
"Perhaps part of the reason for the Gulf War Syndrome is their receiving, what was it, 17 shots over a short period? The squalene must have added up."
>>Why would it have added up, rather than being metabolized? The squalene your body produces naturally doesn't pile up in your blood stream over decades. (And once again, there's no evidence linking squalene or for the matter vaccinations to GWS.)
"What I don't get is if squalene is nature, what you're body make it for, and secondly, why would you get autoimmunity at high doses?"
>>As I said above, it's a required precursor for the synthesis of some sterol hormones. Sufficiently high doses of anything can overwhelm the immune system.
"Ah, that point was a little ambiguous in the doc's newsletter."
>>The doctor should have pointed this out himself: MF-59 is simply Novartis' designation for their proprietary acqueous suspension of squalene used as an adjuvant.
"Probably. It's on the back burner right and will consider this later in my own studies, assuming I come across it."
>>My god, we've actually made progress.
"Lol. Sounds like you're holding a grudge with continual reference here?"
>>No, just noting a patern—you seem to begin from a preferred position, then try to either craft a justification for it (as in same sex marriage) or hunt for credible evidence to support it (as in the efficacy and safety of immunization) after the fact.
"The evidence I see is precisely what helps me to decide such things. It doesn't mean I'm able to report all that evidence given time constraints."
>>the problem is that when you try to report what you consider to be telling evidence you point to newsletters, review articles in a non peer-reviewed journal, articles that actually say the opposite of what you think they say, or things that simply aren't true.
"I consult the magic eight ball. Lol. Kind of reporting from the newsletter here. "
>>I'd place more confidence in the magic eight ball—it pretty much says yes or no, right? It's got a 50% chance of being correct.
"Look it up yourself. I trust doctor Blaylock here as an expert witness."
>>Why do you trust him as an expert witness, especially now that you agree his claims re; squalene aren't supportable?
"Because it's the doctor's study and newsletter not mine. What really bugs be about his newsletters is that, while they are packed with useful information, he never cites evidence! Argh!!"
>>If it's unsupported and un-referenced how can you characterize the information as useful?
"I'm sure it the additive affect of squalene from 17 or so shots in a short period of time."
>>The evidence indicates it isn't squalene at all, at any concentration, either received as a single dose or in multiple doses over a short period of time.
"So maybe they did have squalene?"
>>A few paragraphs above didn't you agreed we could rule out squalene?
Maybe they had trout—that's it, GWS is caused by trout contaminating the vaccine and spawning in the bloodstream. There's no reason to believe this either, but it could have happened, right?
'Recall the statement that the vaccine companies planned to greatly reduce mercury content in vaccines. They continue to let the old ones be used until they are used up for a number of years, for how long who knows. They don't keep track very well!"
>>Vaccines sometimes contain thimerosal, not mercury—there's a difference. And if there were evidence to indicate having thimerosal posed a risk it probably would be more prudent to recall the vaccines. There isn't any, however, and in fact there are robust studies demonstrating a causal link between thimerosal and risk of adverse events (like neurological disorders) does not exist.
"Subsequent investigation revealed that the study in question, which attempted to link squalene to Gulf War Syndrome, had several technical deficiencies in the way in which it analyzed its data. On top of this, it has been determined that the anthrax vaccines given to those US military personnel, did not use squalene as an adjuvant [8]."
"It's still in question then."
>>Let's see—the study that claimed to have linked squalene to GWS was inherently flawed in its data analysis, and it's been determined that the anthrax vaccine didn't have any squalene in its formulation, but somehow whether or not anthrax vaccine containing squalene is responsible for GWS is still in question? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
"And obviously studies can be designed to cover things up. And remember, why would they make antibodies to squalene. They make antibodies but not to squalene in vaccines! They make it just for the hell of it? Lol."
>>More likely they make antibodies to an unrelated antigen that cross react with squalene due to the presence of a similar epitope. Recall antibodies which recognize squalene have been found in the blood of people who have never been immunized at all.
