what are the cons of vaccinations? - Page 3

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

No, it is not my opinion only. Your claim is that the DNA in vaccines can change the recipients DNA. Everything we know about DNA including failed attempts at gene therapy say that is not the case.

Nothing to do with gene therapy. You obviously have no grasp of what I am saying. 

That must be the case because from here it seems like you're talking nonsense.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Nothing to do with gene therapy. You obviously have no grasp of what I am saying. 

Please, please elaborate on the race of hybrid humans!  Enquiring minds want to know!

[purslaine]

…..anyways…..

Here is a list of reasons from the other thread in case people missed the sel/delayed thread:

Looking just at vaccines, not diseases, here are a list of common cons:

- vaccine reactions.  We absolutely do not have a handle on how common or rare severe vaccine reactions are.  We have baseline numbers through VAERS, CDC, vaccine inserts…but these numbers are baseline.  We know vaccine reactions are under-reported…we do not know by how much.  If you cannot get a handle on how rare vaccine reactions are, it becomes very difficult to compare risks of vaccinating versus not vaccinating.

-vaccine ingredients.  There is a laundry list of ingredients people find objectionable.  Questions often come down to "is this a safe ingredient and is it a safe amount to inject in a newborn/baby?"

-vaccine safety.  The testing of vaccines is questionable.  It is not held to the gold standard of double blind random studies (as that would be unethical).  There is a lot of conflict of interest in the testing and approval process for vaccines.  Pharmaceutical companies sit on vaccine approval boards.  

-concerns about the amount of vaccines a child receives today in the USA versus amounts used in the past, and amounts used in other countries.  

-for some people, there is an ethical concern to vaxxing.  Here is a link from NVIC (largely non-vax or sel/delayed site)  http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/human.html   that shows which vaccines have what in them, in terms of cells and DNA… http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/human.html.  I am not going to get into whether or not this is a valid concern, but I do think it squiggs some people out.  

[nukuspot]

I'd like to add one, which is sheer amount of dosing.  There is no difference in say, a DTaP dose for a 2 month old and a 4 year old.  If the dosing was actually tirated to body mass like other meds (abx for example) was, then it would make some of us feel a little better as far as vaccinating young babies/amount of preservatives they are getting.

[nukuspot]

And I don't really understand the hybrid DNA thing that Mirzam is talking about either...But what it did make me think of was my own concerns about GMOs in our food.  I am very uncomfortable with ingesting modified organisms, and fear that down the road, ten, twenty, hundreds of years we will look back and see this as tampering with our own DNA since we are made up of what we eat.  Not trying to explain for her because I really don't understand what she meant...But I just wanted to say that sometimes I see a big parallel between concerns about GMOs and concerns about vaccines.

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

 Everything we know about DNA

Here's something I found, from an acceptable source: Hamsters infected with human DNA...

Established mammalian and other eukaryotic genomes apparently allow the insertion of foreign DNA sequences both naturally, e.g., upon virus infections (5, 33) or via the gastrointestinal tract (34, 35), and under experimental conditions exemplified by the genomic fixation of foreign DNA after the application of various transfection or microinjection protocols. While investigating the oncogenic transformation of hamster cells after infection with human adenovirus type 12 (Ad12), we have studied in considerable detail the insertion of Ad12 DNA into the hamster cell genome and some of its consequences...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC103921/

Another example, abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11761228  
 Generation of mink cell focus-inducing retroviruses: a model for understanding how viral-viral and viral-cellular interactions can result in biological consequences.

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/9/779.abstract

Foreign genes can be transferred into taste cells via adenoviral vectors

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v294/n5843/abs/294773a0.html Propagation of foreign DNA in plants using cauliflower mosaic virus as vector

So, vaccines contain foreign DNA and viruses....bada bing, bada boom, we have potential for DNA alteration. Virus is the vector for the foreign DNA.

[Rrrrrachel]

It's not the same at all. Vaccines dont contain foreign DNA in any form that's even close to complete. DNA isn't an ingredient, it's a leftover from the manufacturing process. DNA is fragile. Most of it is destroyed in the process of making the vaccine. The tiny tiny tiny amount that is left is very fragmented. It can't form a complete protein let alone rewrite your DNA.

[stik]

Viruses also contain viruses.  They don't alter our DNA.  Food contains viruses and bacteria.  Those don't alter our DNA either.  But supposing we entertain this completely unsubstantiated notion for a moment (which I fully admit I am doing because the idea of hybrid humans entertains me - hybrid with what?), how does an intramuscular injection lead to substantial alterations in DNA?    How have we gone from the point at which modifying DNA is a complex and expensive process carried out on a cell-by-cell basis, to the point that the process can be initiated by a relatively inexpensive intramuscular injection?  How would anyone make a profit off of that? 
 

[BeckyBird]

Yes, viruses can alter DNA. What about cancer?

"Transformation occurs when a virus infects and genetically alters a cell. The infected cell is regulated by the viral genes and has the ability to undergo abnormal new growth."

http://biology.about.com/od/virology/ss/cancer-viruses.htm

SV40-riddled polio vaccine is one example. 

[amnesiac]

Originally Posted by kfillmore 

I wondering if we could compile a concise list of cons of vaccines. I am particularly interested in cons related to specific vaccines.

I think it can be difficult to make a very concise list. Partially because some of us consider cons that apply to the practice of vaccination in general, some cons pertain to specific vaccine "ingredients" and some cons are concerning specific vaccines or their impact. One example we used to talk about a lot was replacement effect, particularly with hib & PCV. Another was negative implications of lowering boosting opportunity in communities with decreased viral circulation due to vaccines, like with varicella. Those are just a couple.

[stik]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Yes, viruses can alter DNA. What about cancer?

"Transformation occurs when a virus infects and genetically alters a cell. The infected cell is regulated by the viral genes and has the ability to undergo abnormal new growth."

http://biology.about.com/od/virology/ss/cancer-viruses.htm

SV40-riddled polio vaccine is one example. 

Viruses affect the DNA of the specific cells they attack.  However, viral RNA (because viruses don't have DNA, iirc, someone hit me with a basic biology text if I'm wrong) then replaces the DNA in affected cells, which is really not the same as altering your DNA though it certainly is a genetic alteration, but it does not become your DNA or affect the DNA you pass on to offspring - even if your reproductive system was virally infected, those cells would not be able to form a zygote because they no longer contain functional DNA (viruses can infect a fetus, but they don't alter the fetus's DNA).  Your immune system attacks the infected cells when they begin behaving abnormally.  This does not make you a hybrid. 

I am not looking up the SV40 polio vaccine right now - logistical issues.  What is SV40? 

[Taximom5]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/sv40

"Simian virus 40 (SV40) is a virus that infects several species of monkeys and typically does not cause symptoms or disease in them. The virus was discovered in 1960 in rhesus macaque monkey kidney cells that were used in the production of the original Salk and Sabin polio vaccines (1). Since the mass immunization program for polio began in 1955 before the discovery of the virus, contaminated vaccine lots were inadvertently used for the first few years of the program."

"The issue of SV40 resurfaced in the last few years when an increasing number of laboratories, using an extremely sensitive molecular biology technique, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), found traces of the virus in some rare human tumors including pleural mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining of the lung), osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer), ependymoma and choroid plexus tumors of the brain, and recently non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (12–29). Other studies reported that SV40 T-antigen, a viral protein, binds to human tumor suppressor proteins such as p53 and RB (30–32), suggesting a possible carcinogenic mechanism. Not all studies, however, find that SV40 plays a significant role in human cancer (33–46)."

[BeckyBird]

I never mentioned the term "hybrid". I said viruses can alter DNA, which is true.

The SV40 :

" Simian virus 40 (SV40) is a virus that infects several species of monkeys and typically does not cause symptoms or disease in them. The virus was discovered in 1960 in rhesus macaque monkey kidney cells that were used in the production of the original Salk and Sabin polio vaccines (1). Since the mass immunization program for polio began in 1955 before the discovery of the virus, contaminated vaccine lots were inadvertently used for the first few years of the program.

 The issue of SV40 resurfaced in the last few years when an increasing number of laboratories, using an extremely sensitive molecular biology technique, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), found traces of the virus in some rare human tumors including pleural mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining of the lung), osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer), ependymoma and choroid plexus tumors of the brain, and recently non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (12–29). Other studies reported that SV40 T-antigen, a viral protein, binds to human tumor suppressor proteins such as p53 and RB (30–32), suggesting a possible carcinogenic mechanism. Not all studies, however, find that SV40 plays a significant role in human cancer."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/sv40

They have not determined if the SV40 is harmful in humans. Ha! Of course, I believe it is harmful. Here's an article about SV40 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449518/

 It's important to remember that even though the virus could possibly be transmitted through other means, the fact remains that the virus was present in the early polio vaccines.  Also, "Such findings have raised the possibility that SV40 infection has been transmitted horizontally among the human population, and therefore can be found in people never directly exposed to the vaccine."

That's all I have for now. Just search the web for more info if you're interested. Chances are that we might have the SV40, if our parents were vaccinated with the contaminated vaccines.

Edited by BeckyBird - 6/1/12 at 11:03am

[Rrrrrachel]

So the assertion is that this virus is passed down from generation to generation through dna?

[purslaine]

This was buried upthread in a wall-of-text, so I thought I would repost it.  Hopefully it will shed some light on the DNA/vaccine connection:

http://www.vaccine-tlc.org/human.html

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

So the assertion is that this virus is passed down from generation to generation through dna?

Epigenetics.  This is not a conspiracy theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

So the assertion is that this virus is passed down from generation to generation through dna?

I don't know that there has been any assertion.

I think people have been questioning why SV-40 has been found in cancerous tumors of people who were too young to have been given the tainted polio vaccine.

[Rrrrrachel]

It is misleading to say that vaccines contain DNA, IMO.  It makes it sound like it's an ingredient in the vaccine, which it's not.  It's basically a residue leftover from growing the original virus, it is in very very very very tiny amounts (trillionths of a gram, a gram is about a fifth of a teaspoon of water), and extremely fragmented and broken down.  This is a little bit like worrying that roadkill is going to jump up and bite you.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

Epigenetics.  This is not a conspiracy theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

I don't know a lot about epigenetics, so bare with me, but I thought it, by definition, meant NOT changing DNA, just DNA expression?

[BeckyBird]

"At a very low frequency, pieces of the viral DNA become integrated into the host chromosomal DNA. Problems arise if these viral DNA fragments encode the viral T (tumor) antigen.

The cellular DNA synthetic machinery is then co-opted for replication of the viral DNA. When only T antigen is present, the cells divide without stopping – they are transformed, and on the way to becoming a tumor. SV40 does not need to cause tumors as part of its life cycle; they are an aberrant result of having T antigen push the cells to divide. SV40 T antigen can transform human cells, and therefore in theory the virus could cause human tumors."

http://www.virology.ws/2010/04/13/poliovirus-vaccine-sv40-and-human-cancer/