(Busted) Unbelieve Propaganda about additives no evidence, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 09:34 PM by marg6043

reply to post by Seiko

Thanks for the tip I forgot about the squalene been injected and the one naturaly found.

He is just posting the natural squalene chemical brake down.

Still Norvatis is the biggest manufacturer of the swine flu vaccine and they are the ones that are behind the MF-59

Taking into consideration that they enjoy immunity from any repercussions, they can say and do whatever they want about their vaccine, because death and side effects are not their problems.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 09:38 PM by Jigore

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Jigore

Like I say you get the vaccine and then lets talk again about three months for now.

From you obvious verbal fallacy, I must assume that you ran out of argument against my position.
I talked about squalene, not the actual vaccine. Please read my other post.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 09:41 PM by marg6043

reply to post by Jigore

Hey don't derail the subject now because you can not argue anymore, the swine flu vaccine have squalene, the same squalene that is dangerous to human beings when injected with the vaccine.

Plain and simple, now, anything else?

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 09:47 PM by Jigore

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by Jigore

There is a difference between a chemical found in your liver, and one injected into your bloodstream. I can think of many natural occurring chemicals produced that I do not want injected directly into my bloodstream.

Do you understand this difference?

Squalene is everywhere in your body in smal quantity or in larger.
Blood, testicles, brain, you named it.

It is present in microscopical quantity in the vaccine. Not enough to hurt you. I would be surprise if there is more than a μg (1/1,000,000 of a gram) in the vaccine.

Ever heard of steroid hormones? They all came from squalene!
Testosterone, estrogen, corticosteroid, progesterone. They are squalene littel brother, made by specialised cell in mane gland in your body. Sometime, when those cell excrete thos steroid hormone, well they also excrete squalene in the bloodstream.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 09:48 PM by Seiko

Department of Microbiology, Tulane Medical School, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70112, USA. PMBA@aol.com

Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) is a multisystemic illness afflicting many Gulf War-era veterans. The molecular pathological basis for GWS has not been established. We sought to determine whether the presence of antibodies to squalene correlates with the presence of signs and symptoms of GWS. Participants in this blinded cohort study were individuals immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm during 1990-1991. They included 144 Gulf War-era veterans or military employees (58 in the blinded study), 48 blood donors, 40 systemic lupus erythematosus patients, 34 silicone breast implant recipients, and 30 chronic fatigue syndrome patients. Serum antibodies to squalene were measured. In our small cohort, the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene. In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 09:50 PM by Seiko

reply to post by Jigore

I'm aware of what it is, and you avoided my point. The squalene found in my body is produced there. My point is he fundamental difference between a naturally produced chemical in my body, and one injected into the bloodstream.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 09:53 PM by Jigore

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Jigore

Hey don't derail the subject now because you can not argue anymore, the swine flu vaccine have squalene, the same squalene that is dangerous to human beings when injected with the vaccine.

Plain and simple, now, anything else?

You seems impermeable to knowledge. I see that you already made you mind on this subject despite the fact that i prove you wrong many times.
I suggest that you look for ''hoc ergo propter hoc'' and you will understand why Im leaving this thread thread.

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 09:55 PM by Jigore

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by Jigore

I'm aware of what it is, and you avoided my point. The squalene found in my body is produced there. My point is he fundamental difference between a naturally produced chemical in my body, and one injected into the bloodstream.

see this post

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 10:03 PM by Seiko

reply to post by Jigore

My point is, and also of that study, and another follow up to that one search-able on their website is that the way it enters the body. I saw your earlier post, and you still have not addressed my point.

If the anthrax vaccine was tainted, and it most likely was, we still have the point of the squalene anti-bodies. If it's a naturally occurring chemical in the blood, why did their bodies produce anti-bodies? Creating an imbalance of this will screw up blood cholesterol levels, and we know there are good and bad. We do not need our bodies attacking squalene because as you point out, it controls many things. screwing up blood chemistry is dangerous, and their are studies to support that using squalene as an adjutant could do this.

Until they prove it safe, why use it?

reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 10:09 PM by dgtempe

Originally posted by marg6043

BTW, please people stop bashing grammar no everybody has a degree in linguistics or have an English major, we are after all people from many parts of the world in ATS.

This is the latest fad here...and i guess its now ok to bash people who date themselves, who do not write very well due to having knowledge of multiple languages and getting confused, THIS IS THE SECOND THREAD IN A ROW I HAVE BEEN IN WHERE I HAVE ENCOUNTERED THIS.

We have a lot of donkeys here.

Its making me sick.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 06:36 AM by marg6043

reply to post by dgtempe

Hi, dg, you know how it goes, when the topic seems to be hitting a spot the grammar and language "becomes a problem", after all the years we have been here we know that it seems to show up when some topics and threads are a sore spot for some.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 07:17 AM by nepafogo

reply to post by Jigore

The big difference is that ingesting squalene oil is fine and has no adverse effects , however injecting squalene into the bloodstream has a completely different effect.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by nepafogo]

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 07:19 AM by nepafogo

Originally posted by Jigore

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Jigore

Hey don't derail the subject now because you can not argue anymore, the swine flu vaccine have squalene, the same squalene that is dangerous to human beings when injected with the vaccine.

Plain and simple, now, anything else?

You seems impermeable to knowledge. I see that you already made you mind on this subject despite the fact that i prove you wrong many times.
I suggest that you look for ''hoc ergo propter hoc'' and you will understand why Im leaving this thread thread.

We could say the same thing about you as far as being impermeable to knowledge and that you have already made your mind up on this subject, so feel free to leave.

reply posted on 27-10-2009 @ 07:34 AM by argentus

reply to post by Jigore

Consider the possibility/probability that the delivery system is the variable that causes a different reaction of squalene in the body. For example, that which is required by the body is able to be sythesized and used by the human body (and other creatures); that which is injected, in combination with other adjuncts, might well create a localized autoimmune response, and thus tend the body's autoimmune reaction toward ALL of the body's squalene.

I'll go find a citation to support this. I'm fairly certain I saved it in one of the many files.

First, for parity, here's the WHO's Report on Squalene

Opinion of Dr. Mercola, as related on Milenniumark.com ... and yes, I realize Dr. Mercola is selling "natural" products and is not, therefore, unbiased.

FDA/NIH/NIAID Workshop on adjuvants -- beginning on page 66 and thereafter --

And then finally, to what extent do formulations and delivery systems impact on the toxicity of adjuvants in vaccines. So, for example, if you have nano particles or ISCOMS that target antigen presenting cells, does this mitigate the indiscriminate bystander activation of undesirable cells of the immune system.

American Journal of Pathology - Squalene

Squalene is a cholesterol precursor, which stimulates the immune system nonspecifically. We demonstrate that one intradermal injection of this adjuvant lipid can induce joint-specific inflammation in arthritis-prone DA rats. Histopathological and immunohistochemical analyses revealed erosion of bone and cartilage, and that development of polyarthritis coincided with infiltration of ß+ T cells....

Department of Microbiology and Immunology - Tulane (squalene/Gulf War Syndrome)

..... The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene...

.. and yes, I cherry-picked a few quotes -- my intention is to use them as teasers in the hope that others read the whole of the articles.

Just a few starters that I believe add evidence to the scales of measuring squalene reaction within the human body.

cheers

[edit on 27/10/09 by argentus]

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^