H1N1 So, will the shot have squalene adjuvant or not? I've heard both...anybody know for sure?

Leaving aside whether squalene adjuvant is a legitimate cause for concern I have not been able to determine if the SHOT will have the adjuvant or not?

Can anybody inform me and link to your source.

Thanks in advance

Thimerosol info:
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/thimerosal_qa.htm
Squalene:
http://www.cdc.gov/CDCTV/AskDrAnne/Transcripts/AskDrAnne.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/health/22vacc.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=vaccine%20adjuvant&st=cse

Are Americans obligated to use an unproven vaccine to help protect people in other countries from the flu pandemic?

That is the crux of a debate over adjuvants — a class of substances that somewhat mysteriously increase the potency of vaccines. Early studies suggest that adjuvants (pronounced AD-joo-vants) could allow four times as many people to be immunized against the H1N1 pandemic influenza with a given amount of vaccine. So with the world facing possibly severe shortages of vaccine, the World Health Organization and some health experts have been calling for the use of adjuvants to stretch the vaccine supply.

“We have always argued that using adjuvanted vaccine would leave more vaccine for poor people,” said Marie-Paule Kieny, director of the World Health Organization’s initiative for vaccine research.

Wealthy nations have contracted for much of the expected pandemic vaccine production, leaving little for poorer countries. But while Canada and some European nations will use vaccines containing adjuvants, American officials have decided against it for now. They say that they have enough vaccine and that the safety of the additives has not been proved.

SNIP

then people in other countries etc, i wonder what the consensus would be if this flu was 100% fatal and the vaccine was 100% effective and we only had enough for US citizens, and our allies..

lol

While it can be synthesized from plant ingredients almost all commercially available squalene comes from shark liver oil. Shark populations are extremely vulnerable because most species breed slowly to low numbers. Harming an apex predator population is extremely destabilizing to the entire food web and should be avoided at all costs- our oceans are already environmentally devastated and don't need yet another pressure from human exploitation.

would you sacrifice the worlds shark population if it meant say that the amount of vaccine for a 100% fatal flu was doubled to say 1 billion doses.. that means that we could save the US and her allies..

1. There's no such thing as a 100% fatal disease. Such diseases quickly run out of hosts. That's why ebola never went anywhere- it would pop up in some backwoods corner, kill off almost all of the carriers before they could transmit it, and burn out. A virus only perpetuates itself if it doesn't kill enough of it's carriers to spread. A 100% lethal virus is a genetic dead end.

2. You'll never have a flu approach anywhere near that degree of lethality. People have flu resistance because people are commonly exposed to the flu. Swine flu is so successful both because it's relatively novel (not so closely related to flus people commonly carry antibodies to) and because it's really mild, so people aren't lying in bed feeling crappy, they're feeling a bit crappy but out spreading it for the most part.

3. Further while I think the ideas both of sacrificing possibly hundreds of of enormously successful species and of saving only some people based on their relationship to arbitrary borders are both utterly abhorrent and ethically bankrupt, it's also not one that would work- such a tradeoff would destroy the ecosystems of pretty much the entire ocean and in that case we're all dead in short order anyway.

say 500 million humans, and say there was a disease that was 100% lethal maybe a kind of aids (pretty much 100% lethality) type but with the mobility of the flu would you support the US and allies vaccinating there own people first..

"Swine flu is so successful both because it's relatively novel (not so closely related to flus people commonly carry antibodies to) and because it's really mild, so people aren't lying in bed feeling crappy, they're feeling a bit crappy but out spreading it for the most part."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-brilliant-md/love-in-the-time-of-swine_b_293971.html


I got sick a couple of days after I had agreed to write this post for Huffington Post, about two weeks ago. I do hope those two events were unrelated, needless to say.

You should not read too much into my own personal experience with the swine; yours will be different. But my swine flu was not a lovable affair, it was not a joke, and it was not "mild." I spent three nights of aches and pains, and chills and fever. My sheets were soaked with sweat and the sound of my teeth chattering kept me awake. I tried a hot bath in the middle of the night and was so weak I could hardly get out of tub unassisted. Although my temperature stayed below 102 degrees F, the teeth-chattering chills felt more like the two cases of malaria I had years ago in Asia than ordinary flu. I self-quarantined at home, drank lots of teas and sugar-free sports drinks to rehydrate, took ibuprofen for aches and fever and treated myself with the anti-viral drug oseltamivir phosphate (Tamiflu) and watched many, er, ah.... therapeutic movies and was still out of work for a week, and weak for days afterward. But while I was never sick enough to consider going to see my doctor or going to an ER, I would not wish this disease on anyone and I certainly would have preferred a vaccination to this teeth-rattling bug. Most poignantly, even though I tried to stay isolated, I infected one of my children who also spent a lousy sweat soaked teeth chattering week dancing with the swine. No loving parent would ever want to spread this disease to his or her kids. If the sole reason to get vaccinated were to prevent my spreading this disease to my family and community, that alone would make getting vaccinated an easy choice for me.

Honestly it was a bit milder than a typical case of the flu, at least for me, and for my son, who gave it to me.

I didn't get tested though- I called my doctor's office, and another local clinic, and both said I almost certainly had it, and just to stay home and try not to spread it.

There is no flu known to be 100% fatal, not even the Spanish which only slaughtered 20% of its victims.

that was 100% fatal, would we revert back to the animals we basically are and have our own and closest vaccinated before people in other lands.

At least in certain countries.

Novartis is one of five manufacturers who did test in clinical trials a vaccine containing adjuvant, as well as one without, but it is not one that has been licensed for use in the US. Since the clinical trials have shown good response on a single dose for adults and children >10 years of age, the need for immune boosting adjuvants (as was the original concern) is not there.