User talk:Amiantos

Welcome!

WELCOME!! Hello, Amiantos! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself in the new user log and the list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. Wikipedia is held up by Five Pillars...I recommend reading about them if you haven't already. Finally, it would be really helpful if you would sign your name on talk pages, so people can get back to you quickly. It's easy to do this by clicking the button (next to the one with the "W" crossed out) one from the end on the left. If that's confusing, or if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a ♪ at my talk page (by clicking the plus sign (+) next to the tab at the top that says "edit this page")...and again, welcome!--ViolinGirl^♪ 17:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please check this?

Hi, Brad!

I've tried to follow a reference you added to Squalene a couple of weeks ago, namely this one (concerning the ubiquity of squalene antibodies in human). I didn't succeed yesterday, nor to-day. I don't know whether this is due to some server being temporary down, or if there is some other trouble.

Would you please check that the link is correct? JoergenB (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it works for me... --Brad R. (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! However, it still doesn't for me; I wonder why. I'm using Firefox; I get a long wait followed by the message

The connection has timed out

The server at www.anthrax.osd.mil is taking too long to respond.

* The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.

* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.

* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

This is the same message as I got the other times I tried. I'll check the last point with our local webmaster. However, just one point to eliminate a possible source of error: I suppose that the server www.anthrax.osd.mil is not some military server which may only be accessed by people with a security clearance? JoergenB (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The only possible explanation I could think of is that for some reason, assuming you're not in the US, you can't access military servers but that makes no sense. Anyone else you can get to check this out? --Brad R. (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a friend, who tested from his home computer. I tested again from my office computer. We both got "taking too long to respond" type messages, after waiting a long time.

Both computers are situated in Stockholm, Sweden. There could be some connection trouble from here; but I don't understand why it should last for the better part of a week.

For people liking to theoreticise about conspiracies (like seemingly some editors of the Squalene articles do:-), I could offer another alternative. By present (critizised but passed) Swedish legislation, FRA (one of the Swedish military intelligence agencies) has the right and duty to collect traffic information on all web communication that crosses the borders of Sweden. They are supposed to read only a tiny part of those messages, and are said to go in particular for certain cites or key phrases. One could possibly imagine them to be interested in the combination of "anthrax" and a military site; but I can't imagine them to be clumsy enough actually to time out block the connections...

Anyhow, I suppose that there isn't much more to do. Thanks for your efforts, nevertheless! (I really wanted to read that source, but you can't get all you want, I suppose.) JoergenB (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's simple to do I could mirror the article somewhere, or perhaps Google has a copy. It's an indepth end-user-friendly briefing on Squalene use by the DoD (basically they state over and over that they've never used Squalene and people are insane, and then link and reference to every 'reputable study' people reference when trying to 'prove' that Squalene is harmful and elaborate on the references--usually revealing that the studies actually disprove their theories. Kinda fun. --Brad R. (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! I tried Google, and indeed was able to read their cashed version - after choosing a "text only" alternative. (Seemingly, in the first attempt, there was a try to establish the link with the www.anthrax.osd.mil site, where the loading got stuck.) JoergenB (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However,...

I didn't find any explicit reference to all humans having antibodies for Squalene. I found the information that all humans have 250 PPM Squalene in our blood stream, and also that many humans have antibodies to Squalene, although they never had been vaccinated with vaccine employing Squalene as an adjuvant.

I think we should either insert an explicit reference for the "all" statement, or change that "all" to "many". JoergenB (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and make any changes you like. TBH I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor and only edited the Squalene article because it was intentionally misleading---and after I got ambushed by a friend who tried to 'educate' me on the dangers of Squalene, my own research showed that it was all nonsensical bullshit perpetuated by self-appointed experts to talk about on late night radio... So I hastily edited the article in the hopes of pointing other people in the right direction, namely away from anti-squalene hysteria. My interest in the subject has since waned... --Brad R. (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons were similar... a friend who pointed at some anti-vaccination site, full of conspiration ideas. Nevertheless, if better articles come out of this, the better.

I'll change that wording. End of matter(?). JoergenB (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]