Science/Environment Anti-vacc Crazies at it again. Post appropriate outrage ITT

[Clubs are trumps]

It might be news to you that there is a world wide shortage of IC Nurses. Guess why?

Mate i work at the hospital i mentioned in my post above. Im giving an insight into whats happening. I watched my ex struggle to get employment as a nurse after graduating here during the outbreak of the pandemic, simply because she was born in Nepal. If you're going to ask a condescending sarcastic question you can cram it.

 

[rowie343]

You are the one focusing on aluminum content. Hopefully you don't expect me to read every post ever posted on SRP.
I thought it was a simple question.

Yes or no or not sure would suffice.

Apologies I didnt realize that it was a general question. Not all vaccines contain aluminium. Aluminium is used as an adjuvant which to explain it basically acts to stimulate the immune system to respond to the vaccine antigen being injected. There are various types of adjuvants used in vaccines. I would imagine that aluminium is the most common adjuvant being used, not certain about that though.

 

[rowie343]

You are the one focusing on aluminum content. Hopefully you don't expect me to read every post ever posted on SRP.
I thought it was a simple question.

Yes or no or not sure would suffice.

Apologies, didnt realize it was a general question. Aluminium is an adjuvant which acts by stimulating the immune system to respond to the vaccine antigen. There are various types of adjuvants that are used, I would imagine aluminium being one of the most common although not certain about that.

 

[rowie343]

Apologies for multiple posts, I am having issues sending info through!!

 

[MrCharisma]

Exposing aluminium directly into the blood at 100% absorption into the bloodstream and comparing that with exposure to aluminium via the respiratory and/or gastrointestinal tract is ridiculous and an argument that has been raised frequently. The body's absorption rates of aluminium via this route is miniscule and stretched out over a long period. If absorption rates were high, we would have been in trouble some time ago, aluminium being highly neuro toxic and all. In the case of it being injected, very low amounts over a relatively narrow period may result in toxic outcomes.

Please provide sources for your claims that totally ignore human physiology .

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2004/EM/b314329p#!divAbstract

It is now clear that some aluminium is retained in the body–most probably within the skeleton, and that some deposits in the brain. However, most aluminium that enters the blood is excreted in urine within a few days or weeks and the gastrointestinal tract provides an effective barrier to aluminium uptake

Note that the central nervous system takes up only about 1% of the total aluminum in the body (emphasized). This fraction is the one that concerns us when talking about potential neurotoxic effects.

Aluminum neurotoxicity occurs almost exclusively in people on dialysis (dialysis encephalopathy) or ones with a very prolonged and increased occupational exposure

 

[Max zero]

Please provide sources for your claims that totally ignore human physiology .

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2004/EM/b314329p#!divAbstract

Why is it that the pro vaccination side is the ones with all the links and evidence and the anti are all: "I'm just asking a question?"

MrCharisma has provided a significant number of peer reviewed studies on the effects (or lack of) of Aluminium (with hundreds if not thousands more studies available).

How about the anti vacc crowd provide even a 10th of the amount of evidence? Where are their peer reviewed studies? All they seem to do is critisize pro vacc sources (with conspiracy theories and pseudo science) with being awfully lacking in providing evidence to support their own views.

Bit like 9/11 conspiracy theories.

 

[rowie343]

Please provide sources for your claims that totally ignore human physiology .

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2004/EM/b314329p#!divAbstract

Can you point out where you believe I totally ignore human physiology.

 

[rowie343]

O

Why is it that the pro vaccination side is the ones with all the links and evidence and the anti are all: "I'm just asking a question?"

MrCharisma has provided a significant number of peer reviewed studies on the effects (or lack of) of Aluminium (with hundreds if not thousands more studies available).

How about the anti vacc crowd provide even a 10th of the amount of evidence? Where are their peer reviewed studies? All they seem to do is critisize pro vacc sources (with conspiracy theories and pseudo science) with being awfully lacking in providing evidence to support their own views.

Bit like 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Sigh, yet another poster who doesn't read posts properly. We are discussing a specific issue pertaining to vaccines and it all started because I posted a link to a study that showed impairment in mice that were administered with aluminium. And then I asked for any studies that showed safety of aluminium adjuvants. First one provided was not a study, second one was irrelevant. I am going to read through what charisma has newly posted and linked soon. Please just read through history of the posts and get somewhat of an understanding. It is not about the sheer qty
Of links, we have to look at relevancy as well.

 

[bombermick]

Great way to completely ignore potential beneficial and relevant findings. This attitude is disturbing. Robust debate, analysis and study must be taken on both sides of any issue to determine truth especially in science and medicine.

If a journalist is writing a story on a Jewish survivor of the holocaust they shouldn't go to a holocaust denier to print their thoughts. Similarly, if a science journalist is writing about a discovery of a human ancestor, there's no need to ask the creationists what they think. That would only cloud the issue when giving people facts is more beneficial.

 

[MrCharisma]

Can you point out where I totally ignore human physiology

Yes.

You claim infants being given 4000mcg of aluminium over the course of the year is potentially toxic .You've failed to address the following factors i have posted previously :

only 1% of aluminium in the body is absorbed into the central nervous system.
baseline aluminum levels at birth.
how the body accumulates and filters aluminum.
how the infant kidney filters out potentially toxic substances from the blood.
how quickly aluminum spreads away from the site of vaccine injections and into the body.
safety levels for aluminum in the body.

 

[MrCharisma]

The fda have stipulated that babies with impaired kidney function should not receive more than 10-25mcg of injected al at any one time. Why is it we dose newborns at much higher rates.


So you are unaware of dosages in vaccines and yet your certain of its safety?

Aluminium dosages administered to newborns as per vaccination schedule:

At birth 73.5 pg/kg bw/day [14.7 times FDA safety limit]

Can you source these numbers please? I'm having difficulty making sense of this.


You claim a newborn will receive 73.5 pg/kg . Pg = pictogram = 1/trillionth of a gram. Which you claim is nearly 15 times the FDA safety limit.

You then claim a newborn with impaired kidney function can receive up to 25mg at a time as stipulated by the FDA.

 

[Pie eyed]

Th

Apologies I didnt realize that it was a general question. Not all vaccines contain aluminium. Aluminium is used as an adjuvant which to explain it basically acts to stimulate the immune system to respond to the vaccine antigen being injected. There are various types of adjuvants used in vaccines. I would imagine that aluminium is the most common adjuvant being used, not certain about that though.

Thanks.
I was not aware aluminium was an ingredient in any.

 

[rowie343]

Now we are getting somewhere in this discussion with analysis of available information. We should always be questioning any source of information. Do not take any info at face value wherever it comes from. Some prefer to completely disregard information based on perceived bias of author of studies. I don’t care who carries out a study, if it is done with scientific rigor with relevant parameters and accurate recording, then this info should be respected. If there are inaccuracies, then you may look for other reasons – bias etc. We should be looking at this issue critically from all sides regardless, only then do we make progress and get to the truth of the matter. To label either side vaccine or anti-vaccine crazies as the title suggests doesn’t help. There are people who have opinions and concerns surrounding this issue for good reason. One size fits all does not cut it. Charisma I will respond to your posts soon.

 

[rowie343]

Th

Thanks.
I was not aware aluminium was an ingredient in any.

Fair enough, not many people do know the ingredients of vaccines. To illustrate, Hep B Vax has aluminium hydroxide and thimerosol (mercury). Other contents of vaxs include formaldehyde, polysorbate, aborted fetal tissues, msg. We have only been discussing aluminium.

 

[rowie343]

Your link states that most Al is excreted – I don’t disagree with this. The question that needs to be asked is how much may cause toxic effects to take place within vulnerable babies with impaired kidney functions or immune systems. To clarify, 250mcg dose of aluminium hydroxide is injected on day 1 (Hep B Vax). This is 14 times over the daily limit as stipulated by fda for parenteral nutrition. These dosages increase within the first year according to the schedule at 2,4,6 and 12 months.
The link to fda limits as follows:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=201.323
The study that the figure of 5mcg/kg/day was obtained from as follows:


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203#t=articleDiscussion
Please read the discussion carefully.
Now back to what I have previously requested, can you please provide a link to a study that has been done to show the safety or non toxic effects of aluminium as administered via the vaccine schedule on humans/animals. The trials should be one where results are obtained from 2 groups of animals/humans. Ones that are vaccinated with Al vs the groups that are not. This is a genuine way of determining toxic effects. Surely with something as crucially important as this there must be studies/trials that are available on this.

 

[MrCharisma]

Your link states that most Al is excreted – I don’t disagree with this. The question that needs to be asked is how much may cause toxic effects to take place within vulnerable babies with impaired kidney functions or immune systems. To clarify, 250mcg dose of aluminium hydroxide is injected on day 1 (Hep B Vax). This is 14 times over the daily limit as stipulated by fda for parenteral nutrition. These dosages increase within the first year according to the schedule at 2,4,6 and 12 months.

You were saying something about circular discussion ?

How is 250mcg 14 times the safe daily limit? Once again you need to source and show your working . I have already provided you with a link from the FDA which states the maxiumum safe amount of aluminum in one dose to an infant is 1.25mg - here it is again www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm.

Please note that 1 mcg = 1/1000 of a milligram .

And now it's not about the general safety of aluminium in vaccines , but specifically the safety to infants with impaired kidney function? Seriously ? You do realise a child with impaired kidney function pretty much has to avoid any potentially toxic substances usually broken down by healthy people? That's why there are guidelines specially for medicating infants with such illnesses . You know this because you posted the guidelines. You seem to be have trouble grasping why the amount of aluminium recommended for healthy children is higher than the amount of aluminium recommended for children with impaired kidney function . How is this not self explanatory ?

The link you have provided is to the labelling regulations for drugs containing aluminium and is irrelevant .

The link to fda limits as follows:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=201.323




http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203#t=articleDiscussion
Please read the discussion carefully.
.

This second link is also completely irrelevant , you should've known this from reading the first line

A study on the effects of aluminium toxicity in premature babies receiving intravenous feeding solutions or dialysis is completely irrelevant to vaccinations . And if you read my post a few above you will see where I paraphrased the statement that aluminium toxicity occurs almost exclusively in people on dialysis or through prolonged occupational exposure.

So why are you posting a link to this study when you should be able to post a link to a study regarding vaccinations? Almost one century and billions of people ...surely there is evidence of harm? Do you honestly think vaccines have been studied , practised and tested less than intravenous feeding? Please ... Where's the evidence?

You have not addressed my claim you have ignored human physiology .

You are yet to post any evidence of harm caused by aluminium in vaccines .I have posted several links and studies on the safety of aluminum , which contains many facts you have ignored and repeated as unanswered questions .

 

[rowie343]

You were saying something about circular discussion ?

How is 250mcg 14 times the safe daily limit? Once again you need to source and show your working . I have already provided you with a link from the FDA which states the maxiumum safe amount of aluminum in one dose to an infant is 1.25mg - here it is again www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm.

Please note that 1 mcg = 1/1000 of a milligram .

And now it's not about the general safety of aluminium in vaccines , but specifically the safety to infants with impaired kidney function? Seriously ? You do realise a child with impaired kidney function pretty much has to avoid any potentially toxic substances usually broken down by healthy people? That's why there are guidelines specially for medicating infants with such illnesses . You know this because you posted the guidelines. You seem to be have trouble grasping why the amount of aluminium recommended for healthy children is higher than the amount of aluminium recommended for children with impaired kidney function . How is this not self explanatory ?

The link you have provided is to the labelling regulations for drugs containing aluminium and is irrelevant .



This second link is also completely irrelevant , you should've known this from reading the first line

A study on the effects of aluminium toxicity in premature babies receiving intravenous feeding solutions or dialysis is completely irrelevant to vaccinations . And if you read my post a few above you will see where I paraphrased the statement that aluminium toxicity occurs almost exclusively in people on dialysis or through prolonged occupational exposure.

So why are you posting a link to this study when you should be able to post a link to a study regarding vaccinations? Almost one century and billions of people ...surely there is evidence of harm? Do you honestly think vaccines have been studied , practised and tested less than intravenous feeding? Please ... Where's the evidence?

You have not addressed my claim you have ignored human physiology .

One of the problems I am trying to highight in asking you to provide me a study experiment of humans/animals is that there hardly is experimental results we can look at all. Since now you have not been able to provide one. The reference you provided by the fda is not an experiment at all. I am talking about double blind placebo studies. The closest we have is the study on mice administered with aluminium hydroxide at equivalent to human doses. Guess what they found? Significant motor neuron damage. Can you now tell me that there are no experimental studies, double blind placebo controlled studies as to the safety of aluminium in vaccines as prescribed in childhood vaccination schedule? Do you think that it would be something that maybe required to confirm safety? If you can find one, please link it to me, I really want to find one! Or are you saying that this is simply not required. I provided you with results of experiments on premmie babies because this is one of the few that I can find that may be of slight relevance! We can only guess and extrapolate as to effects on mature babies. Why should we even be doing this when proper experiments can be carried out to put this to bed. And if there is adverse effects on kidney impaired babies, can we say for certain that all babies that are administered are not kidney impaired? One size fits all is acceptable? And again we are talking about the past 2 decades with a massive increase in aluminium adjuvant use, not 100 years. So how have you come to the conclusion that there has been no evidence of harm over the billions of vaccines? Again the simple question for you if you can provide it, a study/experiment as outlined clearly above on the safety of aluminium in vaccines. With hugely increasing aluminium adjuvants that have been added to the vaccination schedule over the past 10-20 years surely this warrants a proper experiment. Surely one already exists, I cant find it so please provide it to me. If you cant find one, let me know. Its all good because I cant either! I have a few that come close though.
Were you also aware that the american government has paid out billions of dollars in vaccine injury settlements over the past few decades? In spite of it being hugely difficult to prove that your child has been injured by vaccinations. Show me the experimental studies.

 

[MrCharisma]

Rowie , I've posted numerous studies , or at least the conclusion and abstract of studies from official credible sources , which also have a link to the whole study in the references, if you are so inclined to purchase it . All these studies have concluded Aluminium in vaccines are safe . If this is not enough for you , this discussion is futile , and probably is a good explanation as to why you're against something that has so much scientific weight/evidence behind it.

I've pointed out several major flaws in your agument , which you have so diligently ignored . Instead ,demanding i provide you with studies that i have already provided you with. Which you then ignore.


Maybe we have a different nderstanding of what a study is ; lets go over this link:

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

"This study is important because it provides additional scientific information confirming that the benefits of aluminum-containing vaccines administered during the first year of life outweigh any theoretical concerns about the potential effect of aluminum on infants."

What does study mean in this instance ? What study are they talking about? Lets look at the references...

Ahh here we go...

“Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination.” Is the name of the paper .

Now , if you want you can go visit google scholar and purchase this paper for $31.50 and read the whole paper (which to understand fully probably requires a fairly high knowledge of clinical medicine , physiology and immunology ). Or you can just read the conclusion. On the FDA site. Please let me know why this is an insufficient study.


Once again , please provide links for any claim you make , as I have done for you.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Ghossein]

If vaccination is so bad, then why isn't there polio in Australia?

 

[rowie343]

I agree that this is a futile argument. My point is there are no studies on the effects of aluminium as administered via vaccine schedule on actual animals or people. Studies on animals or humans as to safety of aluminium, double blind placebo etc to show its safety. There just arent. I dont get why you are so confused about what is being requested. I repeat, studies on humans/animals administered same amounts of aluminium as per vaccine schedule and to compare this group with totally non vaccinated group without any aluminium administered whatsoever. Simple enough study right? Apparently not. This is probably the fourth time I have outlined this. I repeat, a study of a group administered with aluminium vs group not administered and then comparing effects against set out parameters. This is straightforward enough. This is what I have requested someone provide in my very first post requesting this. Unyet no such study has been put forward. Anyway, I agree this is totally futile.

 

[MrCharisma]

I agree that this is a futile argument. My point is there are no studies on the effects of aluminium as administered via vaccine schedule on actual animals or people. Studies on animals or humans as to safety of aluminium, double blind placebo etc to show its safety. There just arent. I dont get why you are so confused about what is being requested. I repeat, studies on humans/animals administered same amounts of aluminium as per vaccine schedule and to compare this group with totally non vaccinated group without any aluminium administered whatsoever. Simple enough study right? Apparently not. This is probably the fourth time I have outlined this. I repeat, a study of a group administered with aluminium vs group not administered and then comparing effects against set out parameters. This is straightforward enough. This is what I have requested someone provide in my very first post requesting this. Unyet no such study has been put forward. Anyway, I agree this is totally futile.

It's futile because you refuse to take a science based view of this. You have ignored or dismissed the plethora of credible information i have presented you and have refused to even provide me with one relevant and credible study , review article ,link etc etc .

You keep asking for study involving a double blind trial , because you have little understanding of the scientific method .

Please inform yourself of the rigious testing of vaccines before they a given to the public - and yes ,surprise ,surprise , they use the usual scientific method which includes blind testing .

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation.

Phase III Vaccine Trials
Successful Phase II candidate vaccines move on to larger trials, involving thousands to tens of thousands of people. These Phase III tests are randomized and double blind and involve the experimental vaccine being tested against a placebo (the placebo may be a saline solution, a vaccine for another disease, or some other substance).

This is just phase 3 of the testing out of four rigorous phases over many years , please read how rigorous the testing is.


Is this a lie ? Do you need to base your view on this on my google search skills? Or the fact you need to purchase study's to read them , and you or I don't wish to do this.

 

[rowie343]

"You keep asking for study involving a double blind trial , because you have little understanding of the scientific method "
"Is this a lie ? "

Lol, after reading your post I dont even know where to begin to answer it. All I can add it is definitely futile, good luck with it.

 

[MrCharisma]

At least you're gracious in defeat . Good luck.

 

[rowie343]

At least you're gracious in defeat . Good luck.

Discussion of this topic is not about defeat at all.

 

[MrCharisma]

Discussion of this topic is not about defeat at all.

I was kidding . Sort of.