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]

The paper should have never printed the views from the vaccine denier. There's balance and then there's giving oxygen and credibility to a POV that doesn't deserve it - doing a disservice to your readers.

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.

 

[MrCharisma]

. 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.

You're wrong sorry. Got a source for your incorrect information though?


" Though all of the aluminum present in vaccines enters the bloodstream, less than 1 percent of aluminum present in food is absorbed through the intestines into the blood. Either way, most of the aluminum in the bloodstream is immediately bound by a protein called transferrin, which carries aluminum to the kidneys where it is eliminated from the body. About half of the aluminum in vaccines or in food is eliminated in less than 24 hours; more than three-quarters is eliminated in two weeks and virtually all of it is eliminated in three years. The ability of the body to rapidly eliminate aluminum accounts for its excellent record of safety."

"The small quantity of aluminum in food, water or vaccines that is not eliminated by the kidneys begins to accumulate in the body. Most of the aluminum settles in the bones, some in the lungs and some in the brain. By the time children become adults, they will have accumulated between 50 and 100 milligrams of aluminum, almost all of which comes from food."


http://www.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/aluminum.pdf

"Various government agencies establish guidelines for exposure to potentially toxic substances. These guidelines are called “minimal risk levels” —the maximum amount that one can be exposed to over time-usually on a daily basis-without expected harm.

The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) estimated these levels for infants taking into account the amount of aluminum a child would eat as well as receive by injection of vaccines. The body burden of aluminum from both sources is below the minimal risk level except transiently following vaccinations; since 50-70% of injected aluminum is excreted within 24 hours, this is believed to have no negative
effect."

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/iss...aluminum-adjuvants-vaccines#footnote8_e2z4qen

What's your profession ? Is your expertise in vaccinations or immunology or something related ? Why should I believe you over the experts and professionals? At least post your source .

 

[rowie343]

You don't have to believe anything I say. I am presenting another side to this issue - try not to make this discussion too personal please.
All info provided by you above is good. The points that need analysis is specific to infants in their first years. Extremely vulnerable babies with early developing immune systems are injected with neuro toxic substances on day 1. Questions should be seriously raised as to the impact of these substances especially on infants that may be especially vulnerable to these assaults. Children with non-functioning immune systems or weak kidney function. They may be susceptible to even very low exposure levels. For the greater good is noble but not at the cost of the few that may be taking the fall. The amount of study and trials dedicated to impact is terribly insufficient. The reason why it is terribly low is that there is not even an acknowledgement that vaccines may cause harm to a select minority. Acknowledgement would open a can of worms.
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, and increasing dosages throughout the first year? How can we assume that every single baby can handle the toxic load? 4000mcg injected directly into the bloodstream in the first year, every single baby can handle this, we can say this with certainty?

 

[Chief]

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.

How is "the flu can be cured by homeopathy" in any way, shape or form robust debate or analysis? Potentially beneficial or relevant findings?

"The measles is beneficial and helps childhood development"?

Seriously?

 

[Chief]

Children with non-functioning immune systems

Would be put in isolation to protect them from the thousands of daily attacks their immune system would otherwise be defenceless against, not to mention the few hundred present in all of the vaccines they would be given throughout their childhood.

 

[Chief]

The amount of study and trials dedicated to impact is terribly insufficient. The reason why it is terribly low is that there is not even an acknowledgement that vaccines may cause harm to a select minority. Acknowledgement would open a can of worms.

1) There are thousands upon thousands of studies of vaccines.

2) Some people given the vaccine may have an adverse reaction (though nothing anywhere as serious as the development of autism) or not respond and thus be unprotected anyway. But that is millions to one compared to the wide-spread misery before vaccines were introduced.

Read this carefully: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

DISEASE

Measles​

Pneumonia: 6 in 100​

Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000​

Death: 2 in 1,000​

​

Rubella​

Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)​

​

VACCINES

MMR​

Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:​

1 in 1,000,000​

If you consider that in the US, say, they had 500 deaths a year prior to the vaccine (not to mention 30,000 cases of pneumonia) vs 4 or 5 cases of adverse reactions per year post-vaccine you can see how vital vaccines are.

(US births per year ~ 4 million)

This is not some individual sacrifice for the greater good - it's a vital duty to your children.

 

[rowie343]

Please provide links to studies on the effects of aluminium adjuvants administered subcutaneously. Either human or animal studies on this subject. To avoid confusion, please do not provide studies done on oral consumption of aluminium.

 

[rowie343]

I have not provided any argument as to the importance of vaccines. I have merely presented potential safety concerns surrounding them being administered to infants.

 

[MrCharisma]

Please provide links to studies on the effects of aluminium adjuvants administered subcutaneously. Either human or animal studies on this subject. To avoid confusion, please do not provide studies done on oral consumption of aluminium.

http://www.nature.com/icb/journal/v82/n5/full/icb200476a.html

Aluminium adjuvants have been used in practical vaccination for more than half a century to induce early, high-titre, long-lasting protective immunity. Billions of doses of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines have been administered over the years and they are, at present, the most widely used adjuvants in both veterinary and human vaccines. In general, aluminium adjuvants are regarded as safe when used in accordance with current vaccination schedules1, 2.

Aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate adjuvants have been used for more than half a century now and are generally regarded as safe when used according to current immunization schedules2. In 1993 the United States the National Cooperative Vaccine Development Group on safety evaluation of vaccine adjuvants with the participation of FDA representatives concluded that 'the extensive experience with this class of adjuvant for vaccine use has indicated that it is safe'.

The aluminium adjuvants are not in themselves pyrogenic and there is no evidence of carcinogenicity or teratogenicity attributed to their use. In contrast, aluminium hydroxide has a significant binding affinity to endotoxins that may reduce the reactogenicity of some adsorbed vaccines containing, for example, residual LPS.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1442-200X.2003.01706.x/abstract

Methods: The present study was a clinical phase II, observer-blind, randomized, multicenter, controlled study. Subjects were healthy infants aged 6−12 weeks, eligible for expanded program of immunization (EPI) routine vaccination and admitted to Hacettepe University Department of Social Pediatrics and Gülveren Health Center, Ankara. A total of 520 healthy infants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive at either Chiron Hib/AlPO4 vaccine or VaxemHib (aluminum hydroxide adjuvant) vaccine or HibTiter (no adjuvant). Vaccines were administered simultaneously with routine diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) vaccines at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. Blood samples for anti-plain polysaccharide (PRP) antibody measurement were collected before the first vaccination and 1 month after the last vaccination. After each vaccination parents filled out a diary for 7 days.

Results: Out of 520 subjects enrolled, 514 received three doses and were included for safety analysis. Local and systemic reactions occurred with low and similar frequencies in all groups. Only erythema was more common in Chiron Hib/AlPO4 vaccine (19, 10, 11% in Chiron Hib/AlPO4, VaxemHib and HibTiter, respectively, P < 0.05). Nine serious adverse events were reported in seven cases of which none were related to vaccines. A total of 504 subjects were included in the immunogenicity analysis. The three vaccines were highly immunogenic and equivalent in terms of percentage of acquisition of long-term protective levels. The anti-PRP geometric mean titers were 9.9, 8.3 and 5.14 µg/mL, respectively (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The use of aluminum compounds adjuvants in Hib-CRM197 conjugate vaccines does not impact the safety profile, while it does increase the magnitude of anti-PRP antibody titers.

 

[MrCharisma]

I have not provided any argument as to the importance of vaccines. I have merely presented potential safety concerns surrounding them being administered to infants.

Where's your evidence to back up your concerns though? Tell us why you're concerned and show us why.

 

[rowie343]

Where's your evidence to back up your concerns though? Tell us why you're concerned and show us why.

I won't be involved in a circular discussion because you can't or don't want to read my posts.

 

[rowie343]

Let me make it clear to you just this one time:
1: There have been tests done on mice administered with the same amount of aluminium per body weight equivalent tp military personnel that have received the series of anthrax vaccines.
2: Mice administered with these levels of aluminium exhibited significant signs of cognitive impairment.
3: Babies in their first year are administered with much higher doses of aluminium than the mice in this study.
4: Babies in their first year do not have fully adjusted immune systems and their blood brain barriers have not developed adequately.

I hope this outlines clearly enough my concerns.

 

[Pie eyed]

Are we administering Anthrax Vaccine to infants?

 

[MrCharisma]

Let me make it clear to you just this one time:
1: There have been tests done on mice administered with the same amount of aluminium per body weight equivalent tp military personnel that have received the series of anthrax vaccines.
2: Mice administered with these levels of aluminium exhibited significant signs of cognitive impairment.
3: Babies in their first year are administered with much higher doses of aluminium than the mice in this study.
4: Babies in their first year do not have fully adjusted immune systems and their blood brain barriers have not developed adequately.

I hope this outlines clearly enough my concerns.

Sure , but doesn't this mean there should be evidence of harm considering billions of babies have been vaccinated with this adjuvant for over 80 years. Where is the evidence of this? I've just provided you with large scale , peer reviewed studies showing the contrary , that aluminum adjuvants in infant vaccinations are proven to be safe.

Is the Gulf War Anthrax vaccination really even relevant? Do you know something the experts don't through a few minutes of google searching ?

 

[rowie343]

Are we administering Anthrax Vaccine to infants?

Surely it is not that difficult to get the logic of what I just outlined.

 

[rowie343]

Sure , but doesn't this mean there should be evidence of harm considering billions of babies have been vaccinated with this adjuvant for over 80 years. Where is the evidence of this? I've just provided you with large scale , peer reviewed studies showing the contrary , that aluminum adjuvants in infant vaccinations are proven to be safe.

Is the Gulf War Anthrax vaccination really even relevant? Do you know something the experts don't through a few minutes of google searching ?

Look up increasing auto-immune diseases and disorders over the past few decades and there may be some evidence of certain environmental co-factors that are contributing to this. Keep in mind that aluminium doses have increased dramatically over the past 2 decades.

 

[rowie343]

Charisma - that study you linked above titled Effect of aluminum adjuvants on safety and immunogenicity of Haemophilus influenzae type b-CRM197 conjugate vaccinne "was carried out to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the Haemophilus influenzae type b-CRM197 (Hib-CRM197) conjugate vaccine in relation to the change of adjuvant from aluminum hydroxide to aluminum phosphate (AlPO4)".

It is a study that is irrelevant to this discussion. You should have realised this after reading the first paragraph.

 

[rowie343]

And the other paper you linked is not a trial or study. A study/trial on the toxicological effects of aluminium adjuvants as administered in the current vaccine schedule or any studies on aluminium a toxicological effects(if any) as administered via an injection (according to the vaccine schedule or not).

 

[MrCharisma]

And the other paper you linked is not a trial or study. A study/trial on the toxicological effects of aluminium adjuvants as administered in the current vaccine schedule or any studies on aluminium a toxicological effects(if any) as administered via an injection (according to the vaccine schedule or not).

It's a peer reviewed article published in a scientific journal on the saftey of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines, the links to the studies are in the references . If that's not good enough for you , you probably have a mistrust in medical science , but that's a different issue.

Can you post any evidence of harm directly associated with aluminium contained in vaccines?



http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/6/1394.full

The safety of aluminum has been established by experience during the past 70 years, with hundreds of millions of people inoculated with aluminum-containing vaccines. Adverse reactions including erythema, subcutaneous nodules, contact hypersensitivity, and granulomatous inflammation have been observed rarely.

Aluminum-containing vaccines are not the only source of aluminum exposure for infants. Because aluminum is 1 of the most abundant elements in the earth’s crust and is present in air, food, and water, all infants are exposed to aluminum in the environment. For example, breast milk contains approximately 40 μg of aluminum per liter, and infant formulas contain an average of approximately 225 μg of aluminum per liter.36–40 Vaccines contain quantities of aluminum similar to those contained in infant formulas (Table 3). However, because large quantities of aluminum can cause serious neurologic effects in humans,41 guidelines were established by the ATSDR

.

For determining the quantity of aluminum below which safety is likely, data were generated in mice that were inoculated orally with various quantities of aluminum lactate.42 No adverse reactions were observed when mice were fed quantities of aluminum as high as 62 mg/kg/day. By applying uncertainty factors of 3 (for extrapolation to humans) and 10 (for human variability), the ATSDR concluded that the minimum risk level for exposure to aluminum was 2 mg/kg/day.43 The half-life of elimination of aluminum from the body is approximately 24 hours.41 Therefore, the burden of aluminum to which infants are exposed in food and vaccines is clearly less than the guideline established by the ATSDR and far less than that found to be safe in experimental animals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14871632?dopt=Abstract

We have reviewed evidence of adverse events after exposure to aluminium-containing vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP), alone or in combination, compared with identical vaccines, either without aluminium or containing aluminium in different concentrations.

We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events.

 

[MrCharisma]

Charisma - that study you linked above titled Effect of aluminum adjuvants on safety and immunogenicity of Haemophilus influenzae type b-CRM197 conjugate vaccinne "was carried out to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the Haemophilus influenzae type b-CRM197 (Hib-CRM197) conjugate vaccine in relation to the change of adjuvant from aluminum hydroxide to aluminum phosphate (AlPO4)".

It is a study that is irrelevant to this discussion. You should have realised this after reading the first paragraph.

It's a study of the saftey of aluminium adjuvants contained in vaccines , which you claim are potentially dangerous . Both types of aluminium used in vaccines were trialled and concluded both to be safe without effecting the vaccines ability to provoke an immune response . It's certainly more relevant than Gulf War Syndrome.

 

[Pie eyed]

Surely it is not that difficult to get the logic of what I just outlined.

Not really.
Are you saying all vaccines contain aluminium?

 

[rowie343]

It's a study of the saftey of aluminium adjuvants contained in vaccines , which you claim are potentially dangerous . Both types of aluminium used in vaccines were trialled and concluded both to be safe without effecting the vaccines ability to provoke an immune response . It's certainly more relevant than Gulf War Syndrome.

It is the study of the effects of the change in adjuvant from al hydroxide to al phosphate. A study of aluminium toxicity should be a test where al is tested against a placebo not against another al. Participants injected with al compared to participants not injected with al at all. Come on, the title spells it out for you. Please provide link to this type of study.

 

[rowie343]

Not really.
Are you saying all vaccines contain aluminium?

Look back in my posts, you should be able to works out what I am saying surely. To repeat - 1st year infants are injected with close to 4000mcg of aluminium within days 1-365 according to vaccine schedule. Whether or not all vaccines have aluminium you ask? What is your point there?

 

[Pie eyed]

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.

 

[MrCharisma]

Please provide link to this type of study.

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.

The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low.

Vaccines containing an aluminum adjuvant have a demonstrated safety profile of over six decades of use and have only uncommonly been associated with severe local reactions. But because the public has expressed concerns that aluminum in vaccines might pose a risk to infants, FDA performed an updated analysis of the safety of aluminum adjuvants.

The authors of the paper based their calculations of infant exposure to aluminum on the following updated parameters:

an updated list of recommended vaccines for infants

• baseline aluminum levels at birth

• more recent information on how the body accumulates aluminum

• new information on how the infant kidney filters out potentially toxic substances from the blood

• more accurate information on how quickly aluminum spreads away from the site of vaccine injections and into the body

• the latest information on safety levels for aluminum in the body

• the most recent information on infant weights from age 0 to 60 months

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122 -

We updated the analysis of Keith et al. [1] with a current pediatric vaccination schedule [2]; baseline aluminum levels at birth; an aluminum retention function that reflects changing glomerular filtration rates in infants; an adjustment for the kinetics of aluminum efflux at the site of injection; contemporaneous MRLs; and the most recent infant body weight data for children 0-60 months of age [3]. Using these updated parameters we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.
[/


I'm still awaiting any link , study or source from you .