U.S. Could Potentially Use Controversial Adjuvants in Swine Flu Vaccine

The World Health Organization estimates that a worldwide production capacity of 3 billion doses of pandemic H1N1 vaccines will be used to prevent the outbreak and spread of the 2009 H1N1 flu, or "swine flu," as it is better known. This ambitious plan for widespread vaccine use, albeit inadequate for a total population of 6.8 billion people, has drawn criticism regarding the vaccine's safety, and the use and potential use of vaccine adjuvants.

In the alternative health community, chiropractor Ginger Mills, DC, of Redwood City, is concerned that adjuvants, especially squalene, will be added to vaccines used in the U.S., should the number of cases rise. "Squalene is an oil that is found in olives and in certain other foods, and is perfectly healthy when you ingest it — but when injected into the bloodstream, it can have adverse effects."

Adjuvants enhance or "supercharge" the immune response, reduce the number of vaccines needed, and allow supplies to last longer. Currently, aluminum salts are the only approved vaccine adjuvants for use in the United States. The use of adjuvants has been suspected, but not confirmed, in the development of illnesses in Gulf War veterans who may have received squalene-containing anthrax vaccines.

However, the current stock of U.S. swine flu vaccines does not contain adjuvants, according to Anne Schuchat,MD, in an informational video produced by the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC). Advertisement

Schuchat does acknowledge that there is an emergency provision to use them — should the pandemic accelerate. Adjuvants are being used in swine flu vaccines in countries outside of the United States, including Canada, Europe and Australia. However, even though Canada is using an adjuvanted vaccine, it has also ordered 1.8 million doses of the unadjuvanted vaccine for use in pregnant women and children under the age of 3.

It's only a choice between Rheumatoid arthritis or Alzheimer's. What's the big deal?

Why not? After all, it worked so well for the DoD with the involuntarily administered anthrax vaccine!

/sarc

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/matsumoto_h.html

I discuss the British findings, briefly, in Chapter Twelve, pg 250. A highly regarded British laboratory, Scientific Analyses Ltd. (SAL Ltd.) in Manchester, tested samples of British-made anthrax vaccine for the Granada Television network and found a thirty-six parts per billion concentration of squalene in two lots of the British vaccine. That is a fairly close match for the concentration found in one of the five lots confirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to contain squalene. Lot #FAV 043, according to the FDA, contained forty parts per billion. What is also noteworthy is the specific test used by SAL Ltd. to detect squalene in anthrax vaccine: flame ionization/gas chromatography. This is the same test used by the FDA. Interestingly, a laboratory the U.S. Army sub-contracted to test the vaccine, SRI, used a much less sensitive analysis called liquid chromatography, which would have been incapable of finding squalene in the concentrations present in either the U.S. or British anthrax vaccines. SRI has a long business association with the Department of Defense and an unanswered question is whether SRI deliberately chose to use a test that would invariably fail to find low concentrations squalene in the vaccine and thus allow the U.S. Department of Defense to declare its anthrax vaccine squalene-free, which it did.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.