Hi.

I was reading this page: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/swine-flu-vaccine/

and noticed the sole point addressed was that one activation was not really a problem and it was only in one paper and it was debunked.

I just looked and MF-59 does not appear in "one paper" it's all over the place and it's as bad as this guy says.



Two things of note here I found in the first three hits for mf-59:

1. Squalene was used in flu shots contrary to what is implied here
   
2. You'll notice Squalene was replaced by Squalene and tocopherol.

Tocopherol is Vitamin E and is used to prevent fats from going rancid. Squaline is a fat. Tocopherol is added to medicine, beauty products and food as a preservative, it prevents lipid (fat) oxidation in the same way vitamin C is added to apple juice to keep it tasting apples. You can try this yourself cut an apple open, put vit C on one side. Now wait a few minutes. Notice one side did not go brown? The other side oxidized. Vit E is lie a the oily version of C. There is no other reason to add a homeopathic amount of vit E i an injection, it is not for the host is it to prevent the oil from going rancid or becoming oxidized, whatever you call it, clearly an effort was made at some expense and great thought to add another chemical. Why? There can only be one reason. Rancidity of Squalene is an issue.

Whatever harm MF-59 does (and that is documented in a lot of papers) the oxidized form of Squalene would be far far worse so it's no surprised they corrected that biochemical error. But your article debunks the current shot and does not point out that the criticisms of the old shot were valid (and perhaps understated) and apply to all flu shots that were administered that contained MF-59 and Glycoprotein 120. The later is actually of more concern and much more complicated, but, one at a time.

Thus your sole point of rebuttal which amounts to "flu shots don't contain Squalene and harm caused from it was debunked" is not actually valid. But it's your only point! So now you have no rebuttal whatsoever to that one point of his argument and you didn't even address the other parts.

Disclaimer: I'm pro vax dammit but this borders on criminal negligence. At best this is unbelievably sloppy work. The original essay deserves better treatment than this and made a lot of claims. Each needs to be examined on the basis of it's merits an din some depth. The author is a prominent neurosurgeon of some accomplishments and I am not able to falsify a single claim he made. You "debunked" one but it was in error.

now what?

Best Regards,

Richard J. Sexton