In Defense of Adjuvants

[marcovth]

Here are the two major advantages of adjuvant vaccinations.

* You need less antigen.

- For every U.S. adjuvant-free vaccination, Canada/Europe can vaccinate
four adults or eight children (half dose) with adjuvant containing shots.

Theoretically, this means you can protect your population four times faster.

I assume you can expect less deaths if you can protect your population
four times faster.

Note: the production problems with GSK in Canada was not that the
company couldn't produce enough antigen in time (they exported a lot of bulk product),
but that they were not able to keep up with bottling of the vaccines
(To put it in bottles).

* Adjuvant vaccinations give better protection agains genetic shifts (mutations).

Meaning, if the virus mutates a bit, it's more likely that you don't have to
re-vaccinate your population. Considering that H1N1 will slowly turn into a
regular seasonal flu, and can stay active for the next 20 years, the current
adjuvant vaccinations can give long term (partial) protection.


The adjuvant stays in your body for some hours and not for days.

It has been used in Europe for many years. If there was any problem with
it, the Europeans would have stopped using it long time ago.

Adjuvant is also being used in many other vaccinations.

Considering that you can protect more people in a shorter time, it doesn't
make sense to me why a country would not want to use adjuvant
vaccinations ... with possibly the exception for expecting mothers.

Canada started a bit later than the U.S. with the vaccination program.
I don't have numbers, but I expect a larger percentage has received a
shot because relatively more shots are available.

[St Michael]

Re: We almost had to fight to get adjuvant vaccinations.

Considering that you can protect more people in a shorter time, it doesn't make sense to me why a country would not want to use adjuvant vaccinations ... with possibly the exception for expecting mothers.

The caution for pregnant women is no small thing.

Product information on the GSK vaccine in Canada (hat tip to SusanC of FluWiki):

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/legislation/interimorders-arretesurgence/prodinfo-vaccin-eng.php#a43

"Two reproductive studies were conducted with AS03-adjuvanted H5N1 antigen and evaluated the effect on embryo-fetal and peri-and post-natal development in rats, following intramuscular administration. Although no definite conclusion could be reached, regarding a possible relation to treatment with the H5N1 vaccine and/or the adjuvant AS03, and other findings were considered normal, the following observations deserve to be mentioned: In the first study, there was an increased incidence of fetal malformations with markedly medially thickened/kinked ribs and bent scapula as well as an increased incidence of dilated ureter and delayed neurobehavioral maturation. In the second study, there was an increased incidence of post-implantation loss, and the fetal variation of dilated ureter. Not all findings were observed in both studies, and hence the toxicological significance is uncertain."

[Vibrant62]

Re: In Defense of Adjuvants

IMHO - there are strong arguments for use of adjuvant vaccines as Marcovth has indicated - but there are strong reasons for cautions in some groups too.

I still fail to see WHY it should not be possible to employ both strategies:- use adjuvant vaccine for the bulk of the healthy population and those over 65 in whom there is a reasonable experience of adjuvant use (who are the vast majority) to make vaccinations go further and use non adjuvant vaccines for groups in which there are good grounds for theoretical caution i.e pregnant women, people with personal or familial history of autoimmmune diseases, and those with diseases for which there are also theoretical grounds for caution like rheumatoid arthritis- UNTIL there is adequate safety data and experience of use in these groups for which there is little practical experience of use. Adjuvant vaccines are delivered seperately as adjuvant and antigen, so it should be feasable - as the present canadian experience demonstrates.

If and when the long term safety data shows that there are no grounds for cautions in such groups, then such precautions can be removed. We may need mass vaccination campaigns for someyears to come if H1N1 2009 remains a progenitor virus - remember after the 1918 introduction epidemic years were a frequent occurance for at least a decade.

[Snowy Owl]

Re: In Defense of Adjuvants

IMHO - there are strong arguments for use of adjuvant vaccines as Marcovth has indicated - but there are strong reasons for cautions in some groups too.

I still fail to see WHY it should not be possible to employ both strategies:- use adjuvant vaccine for the bulk of the healthy population and those over 65 in whom there is a reasonable experience of adjuvant use (who are the vast majority) to make vaccinations go further and use non adjuvant vaccines for groups in which there are good grounds for theoretical caution i.e pregnant women, people with personal or familial history of autoimmmune diseases, and those with diseases for which there are also theoretical grounds for caution like rheumatoid arthritis- UNTIL there is adequate safety data and experience of use in these groups for which there is little practical experience of use. Adjuvant vaccines are delivered seperately as adjuvant and antigen, so it should be feasable - as the present canadian experience demonstrates.

If and when the long term safety data shows that there are no grounds for cautions in such groups, then such precautions can be removed. We may need mass vaccination campaigns for someyears to come if H1N1 2009 remains a progenitor virus - remember after the 1918 introduction epidemic years were a frequent occurance for at least a decade.

I'll second St-Michael and Vibrant62 on that.

[St Michael]

Re: In Defense of Adjuvants

I'll second St-Michael and Vibrant62 on that.

I understand both positions, and admit it is an ethical catch 22: From a public health perspective (as well as a global social justice perspective), many more individuals can be treated using adjuvants. Its the age old debate: when do individual rights trump those of the greater good of a society? When does the government's need to immunize the greater number of individuals trump the rights of the individual? Should one first world citizen have access to a safer vaccine at the expense of several third world citizens getting no vaccine. Though I am very conservative politically and religiously, I have done medical missionary work in Haiti and I have great sympathy for the inequity in treatment options available to third world countries.

On the other hand, if MY wife were pregnant, and we had the opportunity to obtain adjuvant free vaccine, there would be no debate. I'm pro-life, and cannot knowingly do something that might harm my child.

If faced with a pandemic with increasing morbidity and mortality (i.e., if the third wave of 2009 H1N1 shows 1918 level virulence, or if H5N1 suddenly becomes pandemic) I would not hesitate to receive an adjuvanted vaccine, and I would not hesitate to recommend it. If only an adjuvanted vaccine is available due to emergency from a 1918 or H5N1 level pandemic threat, the danger of the influenza infection to the pregnant woman would outweigh the risks of a theoretical abortifacient effect.

Hopefully, with the newer technologies on the horizon, and the ability to mass produce antigen sufficient for the global population, these questions will be moot. It will be interesting to see whether adjuvants are relegated to the medical dust bin with increasing antigen production capacity. If not, why not? Do the pros (greater immune response, broader protection against mutated virus, antigen sparing that increases global availability of vaccine doses - but this would be obviated by rHA vaccine antigen production capacity) outweigh the cons (possible abortifacient effect, possible future autoimmune disease)?

[tropical]

Re: In Defense of Adjuvants

#5:
"Its the age old debate: when do individual rights trump those of the greater good of a society? When does the government's need to immunize the greater number of individuals trump the rights of the individual? Should one first world citizen have access to a safer vaccine at the expense of several third world citizens getting no vaccine."


The societies have enaugh time from 2005 to arrange, enlarge and build, more vaccine production facilities in time now,
but they didn't want to.

There were no priv. nor public enaugh dedicated money investments,
nor the priv. or public sectors wants to collect additional taxpayers ticketing money in advance; no collection of individual or charity money in advance to build the needed global facilities.

So, after such society preventable failures were mainly not resolved by societies, why the individual ordinary world citizen must now risk his individual health rights?

Because he is driven to the brink of such hard options
otherwise he can do it driven by natural path ...

[tropical]

Re: In Defense of Adjuvants

Excerpt from:

http://vactruth.com/2009/09/11/ingredients-found-in-spermicides-cleaners-and-cosmetics-along-with-thimerosal-and-squalene-present-in-experimental-h1n1-vaccine/

"Here is what the World Association for Vaccine Education had to say about Squalene (MF59):
Squalene:C30H50 an Adjuvant

Too dangerous for human use, Squalene is not licensed for use in the United States. Oil adjuvants like squalene have been ordinarily used to inflict diseases in animals – for experimentation and study. According to anthrax vaccine expert Gary Matsumoto and other reliable sources, the US military used an unlicensed, experimental anthrax vaccination laced with squalene, with disastrous consequences, including Gulf War Sydrome.
Chemical descriptions:
Unites States National Library of Medicine: PubChem
http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=638072


Toxicity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed&term=%22Squalene%2 ftoxicity%22[Mesh%20Terms%3anoexp

Adverse effects:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed&term=%22Squalene%2 fadverse%20effects%22[Mesh%20Terms%3anoexp
Must read:
Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A; The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers – and Why GI's Are Only the First Victims. Basic Books, 2004.
Present in these vaccines:
Anthrax (experimental, used on military personnel)

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny also elaborates on the deleterious effects of the Squalene Adjuvant in a 2006 article entitled, "FLU SHOTS AND THE NEW ADJUVANTS: BEWARE!" and can be found in its entirety here. An excerpt from Dr. Tenpenny's article can give a better appreciation and understanding of what squalene is capable of in the body...

"On first blush, squalene seems like a good choice for an adjuvant. Manufactured naturally in the liver, squalene is a precursor for cholesterol. In addition, squalene can be purchased at health food stores in its more commonly known form, “shark liver oil.� However, ingested squalene has a completely different effect on the body than injected squalene. When molecules of squalene enter the body through an injection, even at concentrations as small as 10 to 20 parts per billion, it can lead to self-destructive immune responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus.

Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain this reaction. Metabolically, squalene stimulates an immune response excessively and nonspecifically. More than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers from ten different laboratories throughout the U.S., Europe, Asia, and Australia have been published documenting the development of autoimmune disease in animals subjected to squalene-based adjuvants. A convincing proposal for why this occurs includes the concept of "molecular mimicry"� in which an antibody created against the squalene in MF59 can cross react with the body's squalene on the surface of human cells. The destruction of the body's own squalene can lead to debilitating autoimmune and central nervous system diseases."
"Carcinogenicity, we (Dr. Deborah Novicki of Novartis, another pharmaceutical company) have done no testing for the carcinogenicity of MF59 adjuvant or any of our preventive vaccines. We haven't done it and we don't plan to."
This information is found on a workshop on adjuvants and adjuvanted preventative and therapeutic vaccines hosted by the FDA. This gem of a quote is on page 391.""

___

Will Adjuvants be Protective or Detrimental?

http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132891

___

[St Michael]

Re: We almost had to fight to get adjuvant vaccinations.

Adjuvant vaccinations give better protection agains genetic shifts (mutations).

Meaning, if the virus mutates a bit, it's more likely that you don't have to
re-vaccinate your population.

Is there anything in the scientific literature to substantiate this claim? I've seen it said, and it is a viable assertion, but I have not seen any hard data.