Journal Of Immunotoxicology - Page 3

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by Jugs 

I've read it and many others like it. However, it does not answer the question I posed: "Could you please provide the name of even one vaccine containing antifreeze, lead, cadmium or acetone?" 

As far as the other ingredients, yes they are present in small amounts, just as most are ubiquitous to our environment. Following the time-honored pharmacological principle of "The dose makes the poison", I am confident that a healthy body can filter and excrete these excess ingredients, while leaving behind the amounts of formaldehyde and aluminum that are naturally present in the body.Take that glycerin, for example (although its only in the smallpox vaccine); while it does have a threshold where it is considered toxic, it is also present in many health and beauty products, and is also a carrier for many herbal extracts and a ingredient in many foods. Point being, while these ingredients are not inherently safe, they are not inherently toxic either; even consuming pure water can be toxic in too high amounts. 

Fair enough...But the point was how can I provide that to you when it's not on the package inserts.  How can you be so sure they are NOT in there? All of the other ingredients listed were on point.  Are you in the lab when they are creating these concoctions? Not one knows for sure, but going from what I have researched, I don't doubt the article above. You may, but I don't.  

Now I must ask you to explain (or provide a resource) of how you come to conclusion that a healthy body is disposing of these toxins properly, and that there are no long-term effects from the accumulation of all toxins in the body? I don't recall ever hearing about any long-term studies performed on vaccines. So, to be fair, you have no clue as to how the body is responding. And what about all of the parents who have seen their children deteroriate before their own eyes shortly (or immediately) after vaccination. Are you saying these parents are making this up, or are paranoid?
 

Also, you really can't compare vaccines to health and beauty products.  You are not injecting them into the body. While they are considered toxic and you may breathe them in, you have much more chance of having a toxic-type reaction when injecting something directly into the body rather than putting in on the surface of your skin, and at a much quicker rate as well. Also, it may be best in general to avoid health and beauty products that are that toxic as well as food and go organic and as natural as possible, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 4/2/11 at 6:15am

[no5no5]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

I provided you the inserts, which is much better than the quote I sent.  Look for yourself and you'll find the ingredients.  I'm not going to spoon-feed it.  I guarantee if I sent you the link  the quote is from, you will deem it "biased," so I sent you an unbiased resource.  Straight from the source.  You can't beat that.

BTW, can you show me your resource where it says vaccines have low risk, an unbiased resource like I provided you with regarding ingredients? Before vaccinating, did you read all of the inserts?  If not, I suggest you take a look at the insert website I sent and read the precautions/warnings of all vaccines and tell me if your doctor went over all of that with you.  If he/she did, it must have been a ten-hour visit! Are you seriously talking about the laminated one-page sheet about each vaccine? That covers not even a tiny portion of it all, and that is not enough for me since my child would be involved. Sorry, but I need more than that.  I need every single detail before I would make such a decision.

Do you truly not believe all of those ingredients are in them? I sincerely want to know, what do you think they are made of? It sounds like you don't believe they have those toxins/chemicals/animal tissue/cells in them.  If you don't believe that, you may want to research some more as you may be misguided/misinformed.

You provided the inserts, and I looked at the insert I found for the MMR vaccine, which is the vaccine we are discussing.  I didn't find anything that concerned me.  And frankly, I'm not interested in reading every single one of the inserts for every single vaccine to look for something that sounds nefarious.  As Jugs said, even highly toxic chemicals aren't necessarily a problem in very small quantities.  Is there a particular concern you have about the ingredients in the MMR vaccine that you would like to discuss (with reliable sources explaining why and in what quantity those ingredients are dangerous)? 

Did you read my previous post stating the risks, according to the CDC, of the MMR vaccination?  If you have reason to disagree with my calculations, please post about that.  Otherwise it's really getting to be very off topic. 
 

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

I'm very curious as to where the CDC got that number. Measles was very common when I was younger - we had about a third of our high school out with it over a period of a month or so (not me - I had it on a camping trip when I was much younger). Nobody developed pneumonia. Nobody was hospitalized. We're talking about somewhere around 300-400 kids. While I realize that's only one school, I've seen many, many studies (on various topics) that use considerably smaller sample groups than that. One in 20 measles patients developing pneumonia sounds like an insanely inflated stat to me.

Hm.  Well, I don't want to dispute your recollection, but I went to a high school of about that size, and there's no way I'd have known whether anyone had pneumonia or was hospitalized, unless it was a friend or a star athlete.  Otherwise they'd have been quietly hospitalized and quietly recovered and quietly back without any fanfare.  Still, it is possible, I guess, and I did notice that the CDC statement of risks specifically was discussing the risks to children.  While high school students are children, of course, perhaps the CDC's numbers are in reference to mostly younger children (since it commonly happens to younger children). 
 

Originally Posted by ema-adama 

In these discussions I think it is relevant to highlight  an inconsistency that I see happen.

When children die of measles, they are actually dying from pneumonia and acute encephalitis. Or SSPE. But they are not dying of measles. Yes, the complications are a result of the measles infection. But the infection alone is not a guarantee for death. There have to be other factors involved. Like malnutrition, age, underlying health issues, overcrowding.

I am guessing that in the event of the timing of a vaccine being associated with  a dramatic change in a child's overall health (for the worse) it could have acted like a trigger in a child who was at risk. Much like the wild virus is the trigger in a cascade of complications in a child (or adult) at risk.

We just don't know. As the children are not being studied. And for some people they are comfortable dismissing anecdotal stories as "correlation doesn't equal causation", or doing anything to cast suspicion on the parent making a claim. Rather than keep an open mind on an issue that has no conclusive information.

Okay.  But if that's how you want to analyze it, children don't die of the MMR vaccine either.  They die of an allergic reaction, or whatever.

I certainly didn't mean to dismiss anyone's story.  I have the utmost sympathy for any parent whose child has medical problems, whatever their cause, and I have no desire whatsoever to cast suspicion on them.  I was simply trying to explain a comment made by a scientist, because it seemed at risk of being misunderstood.

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 
 

Extremely toxic chemicals are always added to all vaccines.  They include mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, acetone, lead, cadmium and others.  Most often, they are not listed on the package insert.

If this is the case, why the insistence that I read the package insert? 

[Jugs]

Fair enough...But the point was how can I provide that to you when it's not on the package inserts.  How can you be so sure they are NOT in there? All of the other ingredients listed were on point.  Are you in the lab when they are creating these concoctions? Not one knows for sure, but going from what I have researched, I don't doubt the article above. You may, but I don't. 

Respectfully, that just doesn't make sense. Random websites claim unlisted ingredients are in vaccines, without no evidence to support the claim. So, without furnishing proof of these hidden ingredients, they are deemed trustworthy?

I was a non-vaxer for many years, so I do truly understand your objections. I'm actually in the middles of a book, called Tabloid Medicine, and it has been quite eye-opening to learn how/why we choose the risks that we do; why we are moved more by the possibility of danger from the unknown than from the known. I feel both the pro-vax and the anti-vax sites are exploiting our fears.

Now I must ask you to explain (or provide a resource) of how you come to conclusion that a healthy body is disposing of these toxins properly, and that there are no long-term effects from the accumulation of all toxins in the body? I don't recall ever hearing about any long-term studies performed on vaccines. So, to be fair, you have no clue as to how the body is responding. And what about all of the parents who have seen their children deteroriate before their own eyes shortly (or immediately) after vaccination. Are you saying these parents are making this up, or are paranoid?

I highly recommend reading more on the body's ability to detoxify itself because, well... that's what properly-functioning livers and kidneys do. As to the bolded, I actually have a child who was injured by a vaccine, so I know all too well what can happen... but I have come to accept that serious injuries are rare enough for me to view most vaccines as an acceptable level of risk.

Also, you really can't compare vaccines to health and beauty products.  You are not injecting them into the body. While they are considered toxic and you may breathe them in, you have much more chance of having a toxic-type reaction when injecting something directly into the body rather than putting in on the surface of your skin, and at a much quicker rate as well. Also, it may be best in general to avoid health and beauty products that are that toxic as well as food and go organic and as natural as possible, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Again, the dose makes the poison. Rather than just focusing solely on the presence of an ingredient, one must also examine the pharmacology of each ingredient. I recognize my limitations with being able to fully-understand pharmacology, so I must trust that those who do have this knowledge are making products (beit food, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals or natural products) that are within acceptable levels of safety.

[ema-adama]

FTR, I absolutely do think Aluminum and Mercury are ingredients to be worried about. Formaldehyde, not so much. Just because Al is in the earths crust, and just because Hg is now present in our environment from a variety of sources, does not make it a good idea to inject them. Talking about metabolising injected and ingested neurotoxins are completely different conversations.

[SilverMoon010]

I appeciate your honesty here.

While I am open to viewing both the pro-vax and anti-vax data in an objective way, I myself have not seen enough evidence that suggests vaccines are safe for the long-term and see them as more of a risk since they are exposed to people whether or not those people are at high risk to get the disease to begin with, or whether the disease can be fought natually with a healthy immune system to begin with without vaccination (i.e. measles, chicken pox).  Again, these are my personal views from what I have reseached and will most likely continue to feel that way until I see more data that they have yet to produce regarding long-term effects, well, because they don't study that.  The effects are unknown.

Originally Posted by Jugs 

I was a non-vaxer for many years, I so I do truly understand your objections.

[ema-adama]

Yes, that is in part my point. 

Technically that would be true.

The thing is, that when a wild virus or bacteria result in harm, this is accepted. And the harm is attributed to the originally infecting virus/bacteria, with no mention made of any susceptibilities in the host. When a vaccine results in harm, it is denied outright. Or it is pointed out that the person had some  underlying condition.

My guess is that most children if healthy, breastfed, eating nourishing foods, getting enough sleep etc were to be exposed to the many viruses and bacteria in our environment would be fine. Just like most children respond just fine to vaccinations (and yes, breastfeeding is a factor in making vaccines more effective. Diet, sleep etc, I don't know about that).

The question relates to subgroups of children who are more at risk for an adverse outcome following disease, and determining the size of the group of children who are at risk for an adverse outcome following vaccination. And what, if any, factors impact on the safety of vaccines. Like for example combining vaccines that have not been studied together.

Originally Posted by no5no5 

Okay.  But if that's how you want to analyze it, children don't die of the MMR vaccine either.  They die of an allergic reaction, or whatever.

I certainly didn't mean to dismiss anyone's story.  I have the utmost sympathy for any parent whose child has medical problems, whatever their cause, and I have no desire whatsoever to cast suspicion on them.  I was simply trying to explain a comment made by a scientist, because it seemed at risk of being misunderstood.

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by ema-adama 

FTR, I absolutely do think Aluminum and Mercury are ingredients to be worried about. Formaldehyde, not so much. Just because Al is in the earths crust, and just because Hg is now present in our environment from a variety of sources, does not make it a good idea to inject them. Talking about metabolising injected and ingested neurotoxins are completely different conversations.

I agree, and that's where our risk assessment comes in. Thimerosal isn't hard to avoid these days, but am I going to forgo all aluminum-containing vaccines, based on the unproven possibility that it is present at neurotoxic levels? At once time I would have said yes, but now I feel it is more prudent to choose vaccines with the lowest amounts, and just hope I've made a wise choice.

[BeckyBird]

There is evidence that the dose does Not make the poison.

(Ema-adama, would you mind showing us that blog again? I saved it on my husband's computer, not the one I'm using right now. Thanks!)

[ema-adama]

http://passionlessdrone.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/the-dangers-of-using-simplistic-rules-to-understand-complicated-processes-or-%E2%80%98the-poison-is-in-the-dose%E2%80%99-versus-reality/

Yes, we have been told that thimerasol has been taken out of vaccines. And if you are informed, you can ask for thimerasol free flu shots. However, we do need trust vaccine manufacturers when they say their product is mercury free. Just recently Hg was found in higher amounts than stated on the label. Raising the issue of how trustworthy the claims are.

In my estimation it is not unreasonable to be cautious about injecting Al, into anyone. Not just preemies, babies and toddlers. I do not think it is wildly unlikely that there could be unwanted effects when it comes to injecting  a neurotoxin. And bypassing established barriers such as the mucosal lining of the digestive tract.

However, today there is no science to show us that it is safe or not safe and what conditions make it safer or less safe. Some parents will choose the vaccines and hope that the doses are negligible. Others will choose to forgo the vaccines in light of concerns regarding injected a neurotoxin that has not been studied for safety. Concerns regarding the disease would factor in.

There is no information to do a risk benefit analysis. As we do not know what the risks are for injecting Al at different ages, in different doses and any other parameter that could be significant. Each parent essentially decides to put their faith in something and go with that.

Jugs, I have no issue with you. Just putting my reasoning into this thread.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by no5no5 

Hm.  Well, I don't want to dispute your recollection, but I went to a high school of about that size, and there's no way I'd have known whether anyone had pneumonia or was hospitalized, unless it was a friend or a star athlete.  Otherwise they'd have been quietly hospitalized and quietly recovered and quietly back without any fanfare.

Wow - I wish I'd gone to your high school (I mean that quite sincerely). Anything out of the ordinary (definitely including hospitalizations) that happened to anybody in our school made the rounds in pretty short order. In any case, my grade was one of the hardest hit, in terms of absences, and the progress reports were flying all over the place. Nobody was hospitalized, or developed pneumonia.

Still, it is possible, I guess, and I did notice that the CDC statement of risks specifically was discussing the risks to children.  While high school students are children, of course, perhaps the CDC's numbers are in reference to mostly younger children (since it commonly happens to younger children). 
 

I suppose that's possible, too. I know nobody was really all that worried about measles when I was a kid - it was just one of those things...some boring time in bed feeling icky, and then back to school, yk? It just seems strange that if children were experiencing a major complication like pneumonia at a rate of 5%, parents would have been a little more concerned about measles. Mind you, I also notice that the CDC stuff you quoted uses the weasel words of "up to 1 in 20", which could mean just about anything.

I certainly didn't mean to dismiss anyone's story.  I have the utmost sympathy for any parent whose child has medical problems, whatever their cause, and I have no desire whatsoever to cast suspicion on them.  I was simply trying to explain a comment made by a scientist, because it seemed at risk of being misunderstood.

I guess I don't know how the comments of the scientific community on these topics even mean anything. I know of no long-term studies of vaxed vs. unvaxed populations. There are lots of stores of people who have reported adverse vaccine effects, and been dismissed. Sure - that's anecdotal, not statistical...but if nobody is collecting the data, and the anecdotes aren't prompting any studies, then how can good scientific data ever be accumulated? I get the "the plural of anecdote is not data" sentiment, but facts aren't as clear-cut as "data vs. anecdote". Any data set only includes the information that went into it I honestly don't know how any scientist can make a statement on the safety of vaccines at all.

Statistics, when it comes to health, also suffer from a major flaw. If we look at safe levels of toxins, for instance, we run into the basic question of "safe for whom?". People's bodies are different, and it's not necessarily going to take the same amount of a given toxin to cause a negative effect on Person A, as it will to cause that same effect on Person B. "Safe" levels are an attempt to create a standard, objective measurement for something that has non standard effects. And, personally, I find the "dose makes the poison" thinking very iffy. It works to some extent, but it's not that cut and dried, imo. (And, fwiw, I'm not a non-vaxer. I do delayed, and somewhat selective, vax. I just don't think they're anywhere near as well understood as many would like us to believe they are.)

[BeckyBird]

Thank you Ema-adama. I'll add it to the bookmarks on this computer :)

[Jugs]

Originally Posted by ema-adama 

http://passionlessdrone.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/the-dangers-of-using-simplistic-rules-to-understand-complicated-processes-or-%E2%80%98the-poison-is-in-the-dose%E2%80%99-versus-reality/

Yes, we have been told that thimerasol has been taken out of vaccines. And if you are informed, you can ask for thimerasol free flu shots. However, we do need trust vaccine manufacturers when they say their product is mercury free. Just recently Hg was found in higher amounts than stated on the label. Raising the issue of how trustworthy the claims are.

In my estimation it is not unreasonable to be cautious about injecting Al, into anyone. Not just preemies, babies and toddlers. I do not think it is wildly unlikely that there could be unwanted effects when it comes to injecting  a neurotoxin. And bypassing established barriers such as the mucosal lining of the digestive tract.

However, today there is no science to show us that it is safe or not safe and what conditions make it safer or less safe. Some parents will choose the vaccines and hope that the doses are negligible. Others will choose to forgo the vaccines in light of concerns regarding injected a neurotoxin that has not been studied for safety. Concerns regarding the disease would factor in.

There is no information to do a risk benefit analysis. As we do not know what the risks are for injecting Al at different ages, in different doses and any other parameter that could be significant. Each parent essentially decides to put their faith in something and go with that.

Jugs, I have no issue with you. Just putting my reasoning into this thread.

No worries, I'm not offended or anything; we're all just trying to making the choice we feel we can live with. Thanks for the link; I'm going to read it tonight.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Jugs 

No worries, I'm not offended or anything; we're all just trying to making the choice we feel we can live with. Thanks for the link; I'm going to read it tonight.

I originally posted the link in a discussion where someone made the claim that the dose makes the poison.  While it can, there are also other parameters to take into consideration. 

And yes, each parent is just trying to make the choice that is easiest to live with. Which is very challenging into the current climate with so many voices clammering for our attention.

[Marnica]

Not sure what you mean - I didn't cite any article in my reply to you. I trust intuition, I trust millions of parent's experiences. I don't believe in "cooincidences" that happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and I do trust science that has been untainted by bias and conflict of interest -  But that is so hard to find. I also don't feel the need to justify why I believe what I believe to anyone - certainly not to folks hellbent on "proving" what I choose to believe and why I believe it is wrong, ignorant, misguided etc.....(not saying that is you - just reflecting about experiences I've had in my life)

 

Originally Posted by no5no5 

Ah, there we have it.  You disagree with my analysis of the risks of vaccination because you trust anecdotal lay people's opinions over what scientists say the research says.  That's fine.  I can totally accept that.  We disagree fundamentally on what constitutes evidence, but again, that's fine.

It does make me wonder why you keep citing scientific articles, though, if you think that they are full of lies. 

[babysanchez614]

If you made your decision (whatever that decision is) based on your opinion about what is safer for your child, that's reasonable.  If you made it based on fear (which is how I interpreted the comment about "apprehension"), to me that is not reasonable, whatever your decision. 

Good point, it's not fear that's driving the decision, it's believing something to be unsafe and harmful to my child, I should have wrote:

I don't understand why "believing it unsafe" to inject several live viruses of various diseases (and double the amount compared to when I was growing up) that contain traces of aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury etc. over and over again into a tiny baby's body is such a hard thing to understand?