Vaccine Ingredients

Good piece, but one small quibble: I believe that aluminum is added as an "adjuvant" not an "adjutant."

Ken, Pennsylvania
November 17, 2009 7:21am

"Because it's so poisonous, antifreeze is not used in food processing or medical equipment, and certainly not in vaccines or other drugs."

Unless it's made in China ;-)

Max, Boston, MA
November 17, 2009 7:49am

Anyone else than me jump at the Scary Ingredient-Listing Voice of Doom?

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
November 17, 2009 8:49am

Thank you for these clear explanations. Being a fellow scientist, it is frustrating to be surrounded by stubborn skeptics who don't do their research to discover the truths about vaccines. I appreciate your efforts to educate!

April, Madison, WI
November 17, 2009 9:34am

Nitpicking here: I'm a layman with no medical experience beyond my first-aid course, but isn't it disingenuous to refer to live and dead viruses? Aren't all viruses by definition not alive?

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
November 17, 2009 9:37am

"Remember: Mickey Mouse sunshine and roses do nothing."

Don't know about Mickey Mouse sunshine, but sunshine does stimulate the production of vitamin D that modulates the immune system.

"If you focus on your diet or your fitness, but ignore your immune system, expect to look slim and run marathons, but don't expect your immune system to be well prepared."

If you run marathons, vitamin C reduces the risk of catching a cold by half.
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000980.html

Not all immunity is acquired, you know. There's also the innate immune system.

Safe-Keeper,

"Live attenuated virus" is standard terminology. It means the virus can reproduce very slowly. "Attenuated vaccine" uses weakened live viruses. "Inactivated vaccine" uses killed viruses that can't reproduce.

Max, Boston, MA
November 17, 2009 12:23pm

Thanks.

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
November 17, 2009 1:32pm

Really enjoyed this one, and perfect timing to share with a thousand friends and family who are discussing these very things. Often from the 'other' side.

A close and concerned relative just sent me a 'must-read!' article explaining the dangerous government conspiracy behind the Swine Flu vaccine. All I had to do was buy his book to learn the truth. The article was so full of drivel I had to clean off my desk after reading it.

Thanks for your work on this one.

PS: By the way, I too was caught off guard by your reference to 'live or dead' viruses; Viruses are not technically 'living' organisms. 'debilitated' vs 'functional' might be a better way to describe the efficacy of viruses contained in vaccines. This was a sticking point in a lab I worked at, however we all understood that most people have an easier time grasping 'live vs dead' in a casual discussion, and it is often times easier than explaining how a compound that is not technically alive somehow has the ability to replicate itself.

Cary Snowden, Utah
November 17, 2009 3:06pm

You're welcome, Safe-Keeper, but it looks like my answer was deleted. I hope it'll be restored.

By the way, the live flu vaccine is even called LAIV, which stands for Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine.

Max, Boston, MA
November 17, 2009 3:25pm

Hmm... would this be possible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEN5KGwNGeo

Reidhart, Philippines
November 17, 2009 7:11pm

Reidhart,

That story has already been debunked. The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation said that this does not appear to be a case of dystonia. Experts concluded that the movement disorder was most likely psychological, not neurological in nature and could've been brought on by stress. It went away as soon as the girl thought she was being treated, even though the treatment was bogus. A neurological disorder wouldn't heal so quickly.

Max, Boston, MA
November 17, 2009 8:22pm

Thanks Max!
...still, poor girl. Could she have been exposed to the misinformation just like what is being discussed here which would account for the psych.

Reidhart, Philippines
November 17, 2009 9:27pm

Thanks for such a great show, Brian. It is important that people understand what these ingredients are, why they are used, and what effects, if any, they may have on the human body.

My question concerns the "Swine Flu" H1N1 vaccine Pandemix.

I am an American living in Germany and am only able to get GlaxoSmithKline's Pandemix vaccine due to a prior contract (2007) between the Germany Government and a distributor of Pandemix.

According to the GlaxoSmithKline Pandemix product leaflet, Pandemix includes the adjuvant AS03 with squalene. It is my understanding that squalene is not allowed in the U.S. due to its possible association with Gulf War Syndrome and the Anthrax vaccine given to soldiers during the first Gulf War - although the connection has not been conclusive.

In your research on vaccines and in particular H1N1 vaccines have you formed an opinion on the use of AS03 and squalene?

Thanks, again!

Sources:
http://health.gsk.com/docs/UK_Pandemrix_PIL.pdf
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,660886,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,660886-2,00.html

Wesley, München, Germany
November 18, 2009 2:38am

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe just released a special podcast on the H1N1 pandemic and vaccine. A panel of four doctors debunks a lot of misinformation: the "dystonia" case, the thimerosal-autism link, the Atlantic article, Dr. Tom Jefferson's objections, the use of squalene in Europe, relative risk, etc. I highly recommend it.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Direct link:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-11-15.mp3

Wesley,

Squalene is a precursor of cholesterol that occurs naturally in humans. It's used in cosmetics. There was no squalene in the anthrax vaccine, but squalene has been used in millions of European flu shots for over a decade without increased risk of adverse effects. I'm not sure why it's not used in America. If it caused adverse effects, you'd expect to see them in Europe, but not in America.

Max, Boston, MA
November 18, 2009 8:07am

(I apologize if this is a dupe... first didn't seem to appear)
I addressed this in a response I did to someone making this (and other claims) at:
http://bit.ly/vMQCJ

Specifically, the World Health Organization's comment on this is:
"* It is now known that squalene was not added to the vaccines administered to these veterans, and technical deficiencies in the report suggesting an association have been published."

That quote can be found on their page devoted to the topic of Squalene at: http://bit.ly/2gsAuM

Josh DeWald, Los Angeles
November 18, 2009 9:16am

I don't see any reason to defend the use of an untested vaccine on broad groups of the populations. Also, the flu is not harmful for healthy people. Common risk assessment makes this quite an easy choice.

Todd Peterson, London, Canada
November 18, 2009 9:21am

"untested vaccine"

The flu vaccine under it's current method of production has over 50 years of testing and data, it is certainly not untested. It is tweaked every year for the particular strain that they think will be going around.

"the flu is not harmful for healthy people"

Not true, being from London you are probably aware of that 13 year old hockey player that died from it. The flu can and will attack healthy and the un-healthy.

Scott Carnegie, Winnipeg
November 18, 2009 9:32am

I had to take issue with the statement “If you focus on your diet or your fitness, but ignore your immune system, expect to look slim and run marathons, but don't expect your immune system to be well prepared.”

I will not claim have done sufficient research into the properties of the immune system to agree or disagree with the claim that lifestyle factors do not the immune system. However, overall health is an important comorbidity of the disease process. According to Anne Schuchat of the CDC, most patients who are hospitalized for H1N1 have substantial comorbidities, including asthma, chronic lung disease, neurologic and neuromuscular disorders, and sickle-cell anemia and other blood disorders. [http://bit.ly/2Pdjtl]

True, vaccination is one part of prevention of disease. Yet, a healthy lifestyle can mean the difference between mild infection and severe hospitalization or death. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (as reported by the L.A. Times [http://bit.ly/4wmyqB]) has shown that the morbidly obese have a fivefold increase in risk for hospitalization for H1N1 as compared with non-obese individuals.

Cody L. Custis, Helena, MT
November 18, 2009 11:13am

Cody,

I took issue with that statement too, and noted that if you run marathons, then vitamin C lowers your common cold risk by half. I also said that Brian ignored innate immunity, as if all immunity is acquired.

I also pointed out that sunshine stimulates the production of vitamin D, which modulates immune function. My comment was deleted, hopefully due to a glitch and not censorship.

Max, Boston, MA
November 18, 2009 12:26pm

The problem is, even if one points out all the information about the levels of 'toxins" in vaccines, anti-vaxxers say - "sure, there might be more mercury in a can of tuna, but I'm not gonna inject a tuna sandwich into my arm!".
They reckon that the act of injecting vaccines, supposedly bypassing the "body's natural defences" is what does the damage. I disagree, but don't have the expert knowledge to explain well enough. Plus, it's an example of how they constantly shift the goalposts. Perhaps you could do a podcast about this sometime?

Katie, NZ
November 18, 2009 1:37pm

A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (as reported by the L.A. Times [http://bit.ly/4wmyqB]) has shown that the morbidly obese have a fivefold increase in risk for hospitalization for H1N1 as compared with non-obese individuals.

Of course they do. But this misses the point. There are fit, healthy, young people out there who are dying from H1N1. There is really no reason to suppose that the next one will not be you. H1N1 doesn't care if you've looked after yourself. If you get primary flu pneumonitis you tend to die, no matter how healthy you were before. Why take the chance when science has provided a safe, effective vaccine?

Rational Person, Devon, England
November 18, 2009 1:42pm

Max,

I see your original post just fine. It doesn't seem to have been deleted off the feed I'm getting, anyway.

Todd Peterson,

I have a friend who died from the flu a couple of years ago, and she was perfectly healthy, before she got the flu. Ran marathons, in fact. It is not true that flu is not dangerous for healthy people.

Brian (or anyone else),

You may have seen the back and forth that Michael Shermer and Bill Maher have recently had over vaccines. One "dangerous vaccine ingredient" listed by Maher was "insect repellent." Brian didn't discuss this one. Does anyone know what Maher was talking about?

Patrick, Dallas, TX
November 19, 2009 7:37am

Bill Maher is frustrating when he opens his mouth about vaccines. When he's talking about religion, he scolds believers for ignoring science, logic and common sense. The he starts talking about vaccines and all of a sudden he is spouting conspiratorial anti-Big Pharm nonsense which flies in the face of scientific evidence.

Lost a lot of repsect for Bill that night.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
November 19, 2009 11:06am

Patrick,

My comment was restored yesterday after being deleted for a while.

Katie,

If you make bad or lazy arguments in favor of vaccines, expect to be challenged. Instead of just pointing out that there's more mercury in a can of tuna, explain that the methylmercury from tuna accumulates in the body far more than the ethylmercury from vaccines.

Max, Boston, MA
November 19, 2009 2:41pm

There are real health risks associated with vaccinations. Most of the hysterics are unjustified, but there are negative reactions. Health Canada has reported that some individuals have become ill due to the vaccine that we are administering for H1N1. Apparently it contains egg products and those who have severe allergies may be at risk. The numbers of people affected are really small. If you are in a high risk group (those with poor immune systems) the benefits far out weight the risks.

I sort of miss this forum. I really haven't been coming here much since I stop subscribing to the podcasts. I appreciate the forum, but got very tired of Brian's attempts to make a buck from his hobby.

Sean Webb, Hamilton
November 19, 2009 6:59pm

http://www.acaai.org/public/advice/Fluvaccine_eggallergy.htm

Is there any way to administer the flu vaccine to a very high-risk patient who is allergic to egg?

When egg allergy is suspected, patients should be skin tested to the flu vaccine. If the test is positive, the severity of the reaction and the risk/benefits of administering the vaccine should be evaluated. If the flu vaccine is warranted, it can be administered in the office of an allergy specialist who can administer emergency treatment if necessary.

Max, Boston, MA
November 19, 2009 7:40pm

Brian,
I'm not sure this statement is relevant, "so the maximum dose of aluminum in a vaccine is about the same as the maximum that might get into everyone's blood in a normal day (about what's contained in 33 ounces of infant formula)."

Drinking something (formula) is very different than having it injected. That's why drinking snake venom is safe, but a bite is not.

Your point is still valid, I'm sure, but please be more careful in your arguments.

Frank, Austin, TX
November 20, 2009 8:40am

Sean,

If Brian can make a buck doing this then more power to him. Websites ain't free.

All the Big Pharm money only goes so far.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
November 20, 2009 9:05am

Frank,

You're right that the body retains a lot more of injected aluminum (40-75%) than orally administered aluminum (less than 0.3%).

But it sounds like Brian was careful to compare the dose of aluminum that actually gets into one's blood, rather than the dose that's ingested.
Ingested snake venom doesn't get into the blood because it's digested first.

Max, Boston, MA
November 20, 2009 12:33pm

Since so many people are asking about the H1N1 vaccine thing, the egg proteins are present only in the live virus nasal spray vaccine. I just had it, because I'm not allergic to eggs and have no preexisting issues with my immune system. The health risks attendant to both the nasal spray and the non-egg, less risky injected vaccine are readily available. One of my roommates wasn't able to get the nasal spray, due to an immunodeficiency disorder, and it was the only thing available. Hopefully she'll be protected by the rest of her housemates' immunity.

And that's why I'm really enthusiastic about this one. I usually find Skeptoid to be good food for thought, but the anti-vaccination movement is victimizing not only the desperate and misled but their children. Breaking down herd immunity is extremely dangerous to those who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons. I'd like my poor roommie not to get sick, but I'd like much more for kids with leukemia to be protected from preventable diseases. Antivaccination is a great way to end up with epidemics of dangerous illness and a lot of completely avoidable tragedies. This one isn't an academic matter of principle. Thanks, Brian!

Siobhan, Northampton, MA
November 20, 2009 1:31pm

Siobhan,

All flu vaccines contain egg proteins because the viruses are grown in eggs. Where did you get the idea that egg proteins are not present in flu shots?

Max, Boston, MA
November 20, 2009 2:49pm

For a specific breakdown (albeit summarized) of how this anti-vax stuff got started, please read my recent blog entry http://tinyurl.com/jennymccarthyshutup

Sheldon, San Ramon, CA
November 21, 2009 11:37am

A company called Novavax bypasses the use of eggs to produce vaccine by using recombinant, cell culture based virus-like particle (VLP)technology. The manufacturer can custom make a vaccine to be a genetic match to any influenza strain of interest (H1N1 or seasonal). You can find out more at their website.

Nope, I don't work for them.

Guy, FL
November 23, 2009 3:12pm

Some words on Scalene and Cytokine storms would have been interesting. I have some autoimmune 'issues' like Rosacea so I'm really concerned about any ingredient that could produce a violent Cytokine storm reaction.

P.S. I believe it is adjuvant and not adjutant.

prsmith, Magnolia, TX
November 24, 2009 9:15am

What does Scalene have to do with cytokine storms? Are you misinterpreting the information that most deaths in Healthy adults are due to Cytokine storms ? You normally have to have a persistant infection to induce a cytokine storm, or an immune issue. But you're right it's Adjuvant

Jami, Las Vegas
November 26, 2009 12:33am

"You don't strengthen your immune system by eating vitamins ..."

You do if it's vitamin D. Vitamin D, via its active form calcitriol, enhances the innate immune system (by regulating the production of anti-microbial peptides cathelicidin and beta-defensin 2). It can also control inflammation (by suppressing cytokines) and has links with the adaptive immune system too.

Kevan Gelling, Isle of Man
November 27, 2009 4:24pm

Kevan: You don't need a vitamin supplement for this. Of course, if you don't get enough vitamins you will be weaker in many ways if you go long without getting any. You just need normal healthy food and sun light. You don't need to eat vitamin supplements. That's what Brian is saying.

You can't control inflammation with vitamin D. "Control" is a strong word. It can help a bit. Eating a lot of vitamin D will more likely poison you..so people need to be careful.

Torgny, Norway
November 28, 2009 6:23am

Torny,

In Norway between October and March the sun is too weak to make vitamin D in the skin. During this period, you'll have to rely on vitamin D stored in fat cells and from your diet. According to research (PMID:15671233) an average Norwegian diet contains 6ug per day (150IU/d) of vitamin D (a UK diet which contains less fish is about 100IU/d).

It is estimated that 100 IU/d will contribute 1-3ng/ml to vitamin D blood serum 25(OH)D levels by between. You need at least 20ng/ml to be sufficient.

Numerous studies (PMID:19661054) have shown vitamin D deficiency is rife. I'm afraid statements like "You just need normal healthy food and sun light" look increasingly glib and untrue.

"Control" may not be correct genetic or medical terms, but at a metabolic level 1,25(OH)2-D (calcitriol) down-regulates cytokines which cause inflammation.

Kevan Gelling, Isle of Man
November 28, 2009 1:21pm

When these people talk about "aborted fetal tissue", don't they refer to the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines? Of course, they forget to mention that these lines are from a single fetus each and exist for decades. I have no information if the fetuses were aborted or not.

Michael, Germany
November 30, 2009 2:57pm

It's good to see the list of toxins debunked. However - this is not proof that vaccines are as safe as we are told that they are.

It's been shown that many outbreaks of polio in Africa occurred after children were vaccinated. Those who were not vaccinated got the disease from those who had been vaccinated.

Elaine, Texas
December 02, 2009 7:12am

"It's good to see the list of toxins debunked. However - this is not proof that vaccines are as safe as we are told that they are."

If those "toxins" are the primary means by which a vaccine would be "dangerous" to the recipient, then it pretty well clears the vaccines themselves.

"It's been shown that many outbreaks of polio in Africa occurred after children were vaccinated."

It has? Among the vaccinated children? Oh, wait you get to that below. (Emphasis mine.)

"Those who were NOT vaccinated got the disease from those who had been vaccinated."

This seems questionable. By what mechanism would the vaccinated children give the disease to the non-vaccinated?

This also doesn't directly address the efficacy of the vaccine itself. If anything, it shows what happens if you DON'T get vaccinated.

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
December 02, 2009 8:21am

This is the worst group of skeptics ever. You take everything our government or the establishment says at face value. They love us and would never do anything to endanger us. Just change the name of this site to debunking the skeptics, because you're never critical of the government or the corporations that rule them. Instead, you only tote the party line under the guise of being skeptics.

Brock, Long Beach, CA
December 07, 2009 3:40pm

"They love us and would never do anything to endanger us."

Straw man fallacy, and evidence that your position is based on ideology, not science, reason, or logic.

If this is in regard to the vaccine ingredients, then, truthfully, the onus is on the anti-vaxers to prove that vaccines are dangerous. So far... Fail.
The evidence that they are safe, is a lack of demonstrable victims beyond routine allergic reaction; lack of a mechanism by which the vaccines would actually harm anyone beyond the routine irritation or allergic reaction; and the fact that millions of children have had them to the point that many easily prevented diseases were nearly erradicated...
until anti-vaxers scared enough people out of getting vaccines that the diseases re-surged.

"Instead, you only tote the party line..."

I know this is petty, but I'm pretty sure the cliche is "TOE the line."

Lewayne, Near Des Moines
December 07, 2009 7:48pm

So Brack, according to you - all that science, medicine and government says is a lie - at the outset, without any need of further proof that it is a lie - and all that's posted on the internet by folks with a hidden agenda, goods to sell or well-meaning cluelessness is more trustworthy?

I am a skeptic. I don't care who you are, what organization you represent: I may need to act on the information you give me, but time allowing I do not take that information as fact until substantiated my more than vague assertions, and that i like or do not like the result is entirely irrelevant.

Are vaccines safe? Nothing is 100% safe, vaccines included. There are always anecdotal cases of bad reaction with any treatment. It could be me, stuff happens.

The issue in this case is one of risk management. While both are small, the risk of me dying form that flue is greater than that of dying from the vaccine. Case close.

Pat, Montreal
December 11, 2009 6:37am

I wanted to point out an area that I don't think you did all your research in. In regards to Aluminum, yes, we ingest it and breathe it daily. The GI tract acts as a natural barrier, not allowing aluminum to travel around our body. Aluminum cannot bypass the blood brain barrier either. It is bound and transported to the kidneys to be eliminated.
However, when aluminum products are administered parenterally (IV's, subcutaneous injections, intramuscular injections) you bypass the protective barriers of the respiratory tract and GI tract. As such, it is transported throughout our bodies. It competes for binding sites with calcium, magnesium and iron, so it goes where they are supposed to go, and it accumulates.
The FDA recognized these dangers regarding IV feeding products, and established limits for the amount of aluminum that could be administered parenterlly.
Vaccines are also administered parenterally, and the amount of aluminum in them exceeds the guidelines the FDA set for IV feeding products. Somewhat of a double standard I think.
Another frightening thing is that aluminum readily combines with fluoride. Both of which are found in drinking water. This aluminum fluoride compound easily crosses the blood brain barrier.
I'm not making this up. I am not an anti vaccine activist. I have read publications by the FDA that state aluminum toxicity is probably more common than we recognize, and that excess aluminum administered parenterally is dangerous.

Christine, Saratoga, NY
December 11, 2009 7:37am

While I agree that vaccines do greatly exceed the standard for aluminum in IV feeding products, IV feeding is a daily process, while vaccines are not. The amount the FDA recommends is the amount patients in the condition of needing to be feed with an IV can safely be expect to flush away daily.

I hope someone else can comment on the rest of your post, since I am unfamiliar with aluminum fluoride or aluminum accumulation.

noname, lamesville
December 14, 2009 4:36am

""Vaccines are also administered parenterally, and the amount of aluminum in them exceeds the guidelines the FDA set for IV feeding products. Somewhat of a double standard I think."

Look into HAZWOPER standards sometime. The time-weighted average limits to what we can be exposed to are often one value, while the ceiling limits ("DO NOT EXCEED EVER") are often much higher. Same thing probably applies here.

Gregory, Alabama
December 15, 2009 1:46pm

""This is the worst group of skeptics ever. You take everything our government or the establishment says at face value. They love us and would never do anything to endanger us.""

Oh, yes, the old sheep attack. You might as well pull a Cousin Vinny - "everything that man just said is ********, thank you".

Next time, instead of throwing straw men at us, try coming up with some real arguments, or tell us just HOW we're wrong.

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
December 23, 2009 9:59am

Skepticism is not saying Yeah right all the time. It is the default position until someone proves their side is correct.

We do not trust the Government at face value. We do not trust the scientists either. We trust the DATA and the analysis of it.

It more about trusting the people that did the work and not the ones that scream the loudest.

The Scientists took your side's hypothesis and tested it out. They discovered that there is nothing to any of your claims.

Until you can prove your side is correct, we will trust the ones that did the work.

For the record I got the H1N1 vaccine and it has not affected me in anyway... Hold on, my pizza's ringing.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
December 23, 2009 12:47pm

Lately, I’ve been working with the local county department of health in my area vaccinating schoolchildren with the Novel A-H1N1 “Swine Flu” vaccine. Initially, there was a lot of fear on the part of parents concerning the preservative Thimerosal contained in the vaccine in order to prolong shelf life. Thimerosal is ethylmercury. In the “dead” vaccine, there is 1 mcg of Thimerosal per 0.5ml dose. This is pretty much across the board in all manufacturer’s H1N1 sera now been distributed in the US. In comparison, there is 25mcg of Thimerosal in the Seasonal flu vaccine. Both “dead” vaccines are administered via Intra muscular injections to the deltoid, except in very young children for whom we use the vastis lateralis (a muscle in the thigh). There is also the option of taking the live, weakened or attenuated virus vaccination via a nasal mist, which has no Thimerosal at all.

According to the US Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, who are charged with inspecting the quality of edible fish in the US for market, there is 57mcg of mercury in every 6 oz. can of domestic tuna sold in the US, more if the tuna comes from foreign waters. So, there is approximately as much mercury in one tuna fish sandwich as there is in the seasonal flu shot, and approximately 25 times more mercury in one tuna fish sandwich as there is in the H1N1 flu shot. (I’m estimating that one 6 oz. can will provide two sandwiches, as in my house).

Winston Hammersmith, St. Petersburg, FL.
December 29, 2009 6:11pm

Winston,

Your comparison is simplistic and misleading.
First, the methylmercury in tuna is much worse than the ethylmercury in vaccines.
Second, the tuna is ingested, not injected, so much less methylmercury is absorbed into the bloodstream.

Max, Boston, MA
December 30, 2009 9:12am

Msx,
You are absolutely right and if I'd been paying attention to the word count restrictions placed on these comments, my next three paragraphs explaining this and the two recent FDA product quality vaccine recalls (not safety recalls) and the fact that most of us were painted with ethyl mercury in the form of Mercurochrome for our scrapes as kids would have shown up here.

Thanks for finishing this for me.

Winston Smith, SP, FL
December 30, 2009 4:14pm

I'm not saying don't get vaccinated. I'm saying avoid giving your kids vaccines with thimerosal in them.

Chris

Chris Kubica, Chapel Hill
January 02, 2010 6:42pm

From what I read here, http://sarnet.org/doc/Geier-mito.pdf thimerosal kills brain cells in infants even at very, very low levels.

Chris

C. Kubica, Chapel Hill
January 02, 2010 6:51pm

Chris,

From what I read there, thimerosal damages fetal brain cells in a petri dish (in vitro) which serves as a fetal model.
Also, the paper's authors "have been involved in vaccine/biologic litigation."

Max, Boston, MA
January 04, 2010 9:13pm

Some folks are fully vaccinated but still end up getting measles or chickenpox. Go figure. Vaccines are not natural anyways. They inject a genetically altered virus into you. It's best to get the virus naturally so your body can build a resistance to it naturally like through your nose or mucous membranes. Plus you won't have all that added junk inside your system(formaldehyde,aluminum, etc.)

lyn, la
January 20, 2010 3:11pm

Chris,

I am not a medical expert, so I cannot speak for the study you have linked in your comment. I guess I would ask what are the concentrations in comparison to the concentrations given in a vaccine. The interesting thing about the study is the leap they take from killing developing cells in a dish to autism. Not exactly a link that can be made from that kind of study. I am skeptical of the study since they try to make that leap.

The other question is why autism continues to increase even though there have been several years since thimerosal has been used in children's vaccines.

Eric, MN
January 20, 2010 8:47pm

""Some folks are fully vaccinated but still end up getting measles or chickenpox. Go figure.""

Yeah, go figure indeed. Here we were thinking it was a 100% perfect like natural remedies (because no natural remedy has ever failed), and you come along and tell us it's not a magical cure-all, end-all miracle product Big Pharma has been making it out to be.

What would we do without you.

Safe-Keeper, Norway
January 23, 2010 12:40pm

One problem with vaccines which none of you have discussed is the proven increase of vaccine site sarcomas (cancerous tumors) in animals. This is clearly true, and has even caused some changes in vaccine protocols by veterinarians for pets.

If the protocols are being changed for pets, should there be changes for people? And how many people honestly hear about these changes?

Al

Al, Florida
January 24, 2010 2:56pm

Hi there,

I don't agree, vaccines also account for a portion of autoimmune diseases giving rise to secondary cancers.

I myself have had very bad experiences with vaccinations and seriously, I'm much better without them.

Joe, Australia
February 16, 2010 5:46am

Hi there,

My family's physician (a homeopath) is a antivaccine activist. He gives talks on this topic since almost 16 years (German title: "Impfschäden aus homöopathischer Sicht" in English "Vaccination injuries from the point of view of homeopathy"). He convinced my mother not to vaccinate me. Since I've heard about antivaccine activists I was interested if he uses all the disproved arguments. Of course I found a lot of them on <a href="http://kron-rolf.de/">his website</a>. As the diseases such as measles or mumps aren't as harmless as he claims I'm going to write him an e-mail and point out all the misinformations (hopefully he will remove them from his website). I know it's no use arguing with an conspiracy theorists, but let's see how argument-resistant he is.

Your information helped me a lot, thank you.

Tim Baumann, Bobingen, near Augsburg, Germany
March 02, 2010 11:12am

The whole psuedo-science of how vaccines ultimately prevent you from contracting a specific disease is severely flawed!!!
Yes, a healthy immune system will immediatlely produce antibodies to eradicate harmful poions, viruses and germs that the body is exposed to! But if someones system is weak at the time of exposure, like some infants and elderly people, the poisons will do a lot of damage to the bodies cells, especilally nerve cells!!!The only people that won't be harmed are people who wouldn't be vulnerable to the disease in the first place! You see, All symptoms of disease anyways is the bodies attempts to cure itself by eliminating toxic buildup within the body! So the only prevention that makes sense is to live hygienically (clean food, air, water, nutrition, ect) and if you do get sick, nuture the bodies natural healing process of cleansing with rest, fluids, and nutrients that strengthen the body!
All vaccines do is potentially harm your body. They are the biggest hoax the medical system has ever perpetrated upon the public!

Paul, New York
March 18, 2010 3:38pm

Paul-
Though I recognize and respect your right to an opinion (any opinion) on this matter, I must tell you that YOUR reasoning is what is flawed here, not the "pseudo-science" (as you call it, but trust me it is hard science) that has produced factual reports/data derived from clinical testing of vaccines.

You apparently claim (at the very least imply) that the information we are given as to how vaccines prevent disease is untrue, but you do not describe what that information is, ie how we believe vaccines work. Furthermore, you do not present any arguments against this information, which admittedly would be difficult since you didn't present the information with which you disagree in the first place.

It is proven that the second time the immune system encounters an invader its response is quicker and more thorough than the first. This is also true of the 3rd, 4th and so on. This is why folks are "immune" to some viral diseases such as chickenpox, after having had it once.

Vaccines work on the same principle, admittedly some better than others. This is easily tested by measuring the level of antibodies in the blood before initial exposure, after first exposure, and after subsequent exposures.

Vaccines CAN be harmful to SOME people. This is usually directly related to some sort of allergic or similar reaction. BUT this is NOT a good reason to stop vaccinating EVERYONE. If vaccines were stopped, more people would become ill or die than would react to the vaccine.

Mark, Phoenix
March 19, 2010 1:04am

Paul-
Though I recognize and respect your right to an opinion (any opinion) on this matter, I must tell you that YOUR reasoning is what is flawed here, not the "pseudo-science" (as you call it, but trust me it is hard science) that has produced factual reports/data derived from clinical testing of vaccines.

You apparently claim (at the very least imply) that the information we are given as to how vaccines prevent disease is untrue, but you do not describe what that information is, ie how we believe vaccines work. Furthermore, you do not present any arguments against this information, which admittedly would be difficult since you didn't present the information with which you disagree in the first place.

It is proven that the second time the immune system encounters an invader its response is quicker and more thorough than the first. This is also true of the 3rd, 4th and so on. This is why folks are "immune" to some viral diseases such as chickenpox, after having had it once.

Vaccines work on the same principle, admittedly some better than others. This is easily tested by measuring the level of antibodies in the blood before initial exposure, after first exposure, and after subsequent exposures.

Vaccines CAN be harmful to SOME people. This is usually directly related to some sort of allergic or similar reaction. BUT this is NOT a good reason to stop vaccinating EVERYONE. If vaccines were stopped, more people would become ill or die than would react to the vaccine.

Mark, Phoenix
March 19, 2010 1:06am

Perhaps Paul would be so kind as to move to a country without adequate vaccination, such as Afghanistan, where 35 000 children die annually of measles.

No one in the US, or any other developed first-world country, should be forced to vaccinate their kids -- they should have the freedom to leave for the third world whenever they want to:).

Øyvind, Norway
March 25, 2010 10:54am

One argument that "supports" the eficacy of vaccination uses high rates of disease in third world countries. It takes little research to see that people in third world countries are living with less or no clean water, fertile soil and less access to regular healthy nutrition.

In theses circumstances all populations would suffer more from disease, not only the populations without vaccines.

Eating green food, doing yoga and living in unpolluted areas DOES boost one's immune system. One need only experience the health difference first hand by changing one's diet experimentally.

Food and herbs are my family's medicines and we are all vitally healthy. When scores of children and adults are laid up at home with the 'flu' we enjoy continuing on with our regular lifestyle, including outdoor activity and great big parties of people and germs.

To vaccinate against diseases that are not locally threatening is redundant. You and your children will be exposed to amounts of pathogens daily that exist in your nieghbourhood and city.

You produce anti-bodies that protect you ALL THE TIME. You don't need a shot in the arm to protect you from a disease. Our bodies immune systems have developed to protect us, and natural medicines can help relieve us of the symptoms that accompany the discomfort of fighting off disease.

Thank you.

masterherb, Winnipeg, MB
April 23, 2010 5:05pm

"You produce anti-bodies that protect you ALL THE TIME. You don't need a shot in the arm to protect you from a disease. "

Specific antibodies target specific disease-causing organisms. So while yes, we produce antibodies all the time, we will NOT produce the antibodies needed to prevent certain diseases all the time. To say otherwise is to expose a dangerous misunderstanding of how antibodies work in the immune system. A quick shot in the arm with weakened or killed pathagens causes your body to start making those antibodies, which lowers your risk of infection. Basic physiology that they teach in high school health classes.

Gregory, Alabama
April 30, 2010 12:37pm

""One argument that "supports" the eficacy of vaccination uses high rates of disease in third world countries""
No, this is not an "argument that supports the efficacy of vaccines", and no one, least of all myself, is trying to portray it as such.

The efficacy of vaccines has been proven through empirical studies and long experience (as opposed to useless anecdotes like "we do X and are all healthy"). Pointing out that 35 000 people die from measles in Afghanistan annually is just as much a reminder of what can happen if a nation was to stop vaccinating its children.

I'd rather have close to zero children get afflicted by measles in my area than 35 000+, thank you very much.

""Eating green food, doing yoga and living in unpolluted areas DOES boost one's immune system. One need only experience the health difference first hand by changing one's diet experimentally.""
"Boosting your immune system" doesn't work if your immune system doesn't recognize deadly viruses and bacteria as hostile in the first place. Imagine if the Allies built twice as many destroyers during WWII, but never taught any of their crews that they were at war with Germany, nor how to recognize a German submarine. How effective would they be? Until their first contact with u-boats, probably not very.

Øyvind, Norway
May 08, 2010 8:12am

Your vaccine episode is incorrect in a few areas:
1) the aluminum is added as a adjuvant not an agitant.
2) The FDA says that baby's should receive no more than 50 micrograms of aluminum per day. which is significantly below the 175-850 typically included in childhood vaccines. Additionally, there are no scientific studies done to date that have tested the effects of the injection of aluminum into young children. Obvious coincerns are warrented since aluminum is considered a toxin.
3) you stated that no scheduled childhood vaccines contain thermisol or mercury. This is incorrect. currently 9 childhood vaccines contain thermisol(tripedia, tetanus, DT, dT, fluarix, fluvirin, fluzone, flulaval. Some are for single dose and some are for multidose vials).
They have not removed thermisol completely.

mimi rite, San Diego
June 30, 2010 11:44am

"2) The FDA says that baby's should receive no more than 50 micrograms of aluminum per day. which is significantly below the 175-850 typically included in childhood vaccines. Additionally, there are no scientific studies done to date that have tested the effects of the injection of aluminum into young children. Obvious coincerns are warrented since aluminum is considered a toxin."

Any evidence that this aluminum is bioavailable?

Gregory, Alabama
July 02, 2010 4:38pm

The author says: "...thimerosal has always been such a safe and popular preservative." In congressional hearings, when Indiana Senator Dan Burton asked of the FDA representative, do you know of any direct safety studies beyond the one conducted in 1929, in which patients with meningitis were injected with a 1% solution of thimerosal, and all patients subsequently died, but thimerosal was declared safe?...the answer was, no.

Any bona fide attempt at research will yield nothing but doubt about all government vaccine claims.

The author also states: "When you're exposed to a pathogen, it irritates your body. This irritation is what provokes your immune system to respond, and produce antibodies to fight the pathogen. Vaccines work the same way." Posh. Natural exposure to vaccines is obviously not through a syringe, with antigens being injected directly into the muscle. The difference in exposure is significant, and critical.

Shawn Siegel, Austin, Texas
July 06, 2010 7:20am

Of course not vaccines are good, but this paranoia connected to them has reached high levels and I see nothing good coming out of that. Who can really prove that those ppl whose names were mentioned on the conspiracy theory sites were victims of the vaccines? Lets get real and objective...

Chris, Romania
July 14, 2010 8:14am

"Posh. Natural exposure to vaccines is obviously not through a syringe, with antigens being injected directly into the muscle. The difference in exposure is significant, and critical."

Lots of people SAY this, but can you prove it? Because what I have been told is that the vaccine travels to your liver, where any dangerous substances are filtered out.

If you have a link to a credible, peer-reviewed study that shows vaccines are dangerous, fine, show us.

Øyvind, Bergen, Norway
July 23, 2010 5:27pm

The closest case I know of to a "credible" peer review study finding a flaw to vaccination was the "MMR jab causing autism" paper.

Which has been proven false five times now, and the authorhad his outright immoral methods exposed.

But groups of parents who believe his allegations still support him vocally and claim a conspiracy. Even in the face ofhis own statistics proving that even if he had established a link to autism from the MMR jab, the probabilityof it manifesting itself is far less than the probability of death frommumps measels or ruebella in the children who avoided vaccination onhis advice.

So in short, the closest there is to evidence a vaccine is dangerous is a case the media supported, but was then exposed as heavily flawed and immoral.

Tom H, Kent, UK
August 30, 2010 10:18pm