Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
The first one is a review which proposes squalene as the agent which results in lower breast cancer in women with a higher consumption of olive oil.
The second hit is a study about squalene acting to prevent induced cancer in lab tests, and how it might accomplish that.
The third one just talks about how squalene might be an antioxidant and about the lower cancer again.
The fourth is about how squalene fights arsenic.
The fifth is about squalene levels being measured to see if "enhanced absorption and reduced synthesis of cholesterol may be related to coronary atherosclerosis".
The sixth is about olive oil seeds being antioxidants and how much squalene is in them.
So nothing negative about it. I can't read them all, which ones are the "peer reviewed studies indicate health problems related to squalene"?
|
For example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2eb70f12c286f1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19388722
Both of which would argue that it is debatable that vaccines with adjuvant may do harm.
The question I have for you is, if given the choice between the vaccine with adjuvant and the one without, which one would you take based on the evidence (or lack there of)?
The fact that people with the choice or who are already sick are in fact getting the non-adjuvant formula speaks volumes I think.