Max C. wrote:

So, you're saying that the CDC is lying when it lists those ingredients
in the vaccines?

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/contraindications_guide.pdf
If you'll read appendix A, you'll find that gelatin, egg protein, mouse
serum protein (ick!), lactose, sorbitol and yeast protein are listed.

The CDC is not lying, but those compound are present in trace amounts
(if you look at the FDA standards you'll see that the requirements are
usually less then 1ppm). It is physically impossible to remove 100% of
any chemical when purifying biological agents. But you'll note that
some of the things you claimed are in there - human embryonic cells for
example, are not listed by the CDC as components.

Also, what does it matter? None of those components are toxic to
people; in fact, of the ones you listed only one (mouse serum) is not a
regular part of most peoples diet. Gelatin is a part of your body (it
is a component of collagen), sorbitol is a sugar (ohh no, not sugar),
yeast proteins are in bread, beer, pastries, dough nuts, as are egg
proteins. That's quite a long list of toxins!


Now, let me quote a specific sentence of notable mention:
"While these substances, except as noted above, are not specified by
the ACIP as contraindications to vaccination, providers should be aware
of substances contained in vaccines should they encounter a patient
with a known anaphylactic allergy."


Which is why the CDC lists these as *trace* components of vaccines.
And, as I noted before, the concern IS NOT toxic effects of these
compounds, but rather allergic responses to them. And as I've posted
out before - the #1 allergic response is wheel-and-flare. A bit of
swelling and pain. A far cry from the death and destruction you preach.


Yes, people who are now suffering from cancer as a result of the
tainted polio vaccine back in the early 1960s have nothing to worry
about when it comes to "various microbes."


The vaccine was contaminated with another virus, new polio vaccines (and
all other vaccines) are no longer allowed to carry other pathogens.
Apparently this comes as a surprise to you, but both the standards for
vaccine purity and our ability to detect contamination have improved
dramatically. But hey, none of us are surprised that you're living 50
years in the past!


I was going to post a link
here, but I had too many to choose from. Google the words monkey virus
sv40 and take your pick.

Rather then using google, why not use a scientific search engine? That
way you'd get rid of all the crap on the net and limit yourself to the
medical literature. Try www.pubmed.gov for starters.

And a search of the medical literature shows that the link between SV40
and cancer is weak at best, and is highly controversial. But hey,
you've got your agenda, so we shouldn't be surprised that you presented
this as fact and not as a controversial idea which remain unproven. But
for people who want the real story:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum



Sorbitol & lactose: Sugars. You eat these every day; they're found in
milk products, candy, and other sources. Perfectly safe. And usually
removed from the final product to help prevent bacterial growth in the
vaccine.


Sure you eat them. That doesn't mean they make it into your blood
stream in tact.
It's the job of our digestive tract to make sure it's
broken down properly before entering the blood stream.


Actually, simple sugars like sorbatol and lactose are directly imported
into your blood without modification. Your digestive tract does break
down polyshaccarides (complex sugars) via enzymes called amylases, but
the product of these enzymes are simple sugars - things like sorbatol,
lactose, glucose, sucrose, fructose, etc. All of these sugars are
directly metabolizable by our body without further modification.
Indeed, many of these sugars are injected into the blood of patients -
they are a common component of many IV products. They are alsop natural
components of the blood.


You could eat a
candy bar. Does that mean you'd melt one and inject it into blood
stream?


Of course not - the complex sugars, starches, proteins, etc, would be
problematic. But we're not talking about chocolate bars here; we're
talking about highly purified sugars which are normally found in your blood.


Aluminum hydroxide (alum), polysorbate: Adjuvents. Required to make
the vaccine work. Without them you may as well inject water.


And you accuse others of lying. Aluminum hydroxide is used to increase
the production of antibodies. That doesn't mean no antibodies would be
produced without it.


You need to read on what adjuvents do. An antigen (i.e. the chunk of
bacteria) is not enough to generate a protective immune response. You
need a "danger" signal at the same time to indicate to the immune system
that the antigen is dangerous. Without this danger signal your immune
system actually inhibits future responses to that antigen (a process
called anergy). This has the net effect of preventing, rather then
promoting, immune responses against pathogens. In fact, allergy
treatments work on this principal - you expose the body to the antigen
without a danger signal, in the hopes of teaching the immune system to
ignore the allergen. We're also trying to develop vaccines which could
be used to treat autoimmune disease (diabetes, MS, lupus) using the same
process. You can read more on this by searching for energy and
tolerance, or by picking up any basic immunology textbook.

In the case of alum, it serves two purposes. Firstly, it acts as the
danger signal I refered to. Secondly, it helps to inhibit the
dispersion of the antigen. This keeps the antigen in the injection site
longer, thus enhancing the size of the immune response.


Furthermore, some of the aluminum hydroxide ends up in the brain. I
don't know about you, but I don't want aluminum hydroxide in my child's
brain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


True, but the levels seen in the brain were low, transient, and only
seen after the injection of relatively large amounts of alum. And given
the choice between my child brain being exposed to a bit of alum, verses
my child dying from polio, mumps, measles, hepatitus, etc, I'll take the
alum.


Polysorbate is also a common ingredient in foods. These two compounds
are used as they are extremely safe at the doses used.

Ah the ever popular "at the doses used" routine. Never mind that if
you follow the recommended vaccination schedule, your child will
receive MANY times the dosage in a single shot.


Which is taken into account when they add these components to vaccines.
The scientists and doctors who design vaccine schedules are not
idiots, and the whole schedule is designed around getting optimum
immunization with minimal toxic effects.


While looking for info
on polysorbate, I came across this page:

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/...gredients.html


I'd question the validity of this source, seeing as it comes from an
anti-vaccine source. Here's a MSDS on polysorbate, which has accurate
info on toxicity and routs of ingestion for polysorbate-80, the form
used in vaccines:

http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/t7683.htm

You'll notice that the listed risks are mild irritation, with the
exception of ingestion of large amounts, which can cause diarrhea...

There is also no published scientific data claiming that polysorbate-80
is a carcinogen, although it does appear to be useful in delivering
anti-cancer drugs to tumors. Once again, I'd direct you to pubmed.gov
if you want to check yourself.


It lists several drawbacks of many of the ingredients we're talking
about here. I also found many web sites implicating polysorbate as a
potential carcinogen.


Webpages are fine, if reality isn't a concern. If you want the real
story you need to look at the medical literature. There is a lot of
medical material on the net; most of it is wrong. www.pubmed.gov is an
excellent search engine for looking specifically at the medical
literature. I've heard that Google scholar also does a good job,
although I have no first hand experience.


That's probably a good analogy. Much better than "you may as well be
injecting water."

Either way you don't get bread/immunity.


Phenol, formaldehyde, 2-phenoxyethenol: Organic compounds used in the
preparation/preservation of the vaccine. Toxic at high doses, but
present in vaccines in trace amounts. Some are produced by our bodies,
particularly in the liver. As an example, your liver produces trace
amounts of formaldehyde as a natural part of it's metabolism (usually
during the breakdown of alcohol-containing compounds). Every 3 hours
your liver will produce about the same amount of formaldehyde that is
present in an vaccine. You'll recieve more phenol from living in a
house with carpets then you will recieve from vaccines (phenol is a
common ingredient of carpet glue).

Which part? The stuff on the formation of formaldehyde is readily found
in any biochemistry textbook; I don't have a specific link for that as
it is just stuff I know and use on a day-to-day basis (I'm a molecular
biologist). It's actually the mechanism of methanol poisoning - the
enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase converts the alcohol group on methanol into
an aldehyde group, thus forming formaldehyde. The formaldehyde is what
is toxic, not the methanol. Formaldehyde is also produced any time your
liver breaks down a methanol side-group. For example (you'll need
monospaced type for this):


CH3-CH-CH3 (isobutanol) ---------------------- CH3-CH-CH3
| ALCOHOL DEHYDROGENASE |
CH2OH CH2O


------------- CH3-CH2-CH3 (propanol) + CH2O (formaldehyde)
HYDROGENATION

As for the carpet glue, it's a major concern. There is a lot of medical
lit out there about the risks of long-term exposure to these chemicals,
with flooring being identified as the major source. Pubmed.gov again...


I'd be interested in reading your source for the information above.
Could you please post it?


As I said, it's basic biochemistry. Any biochem book should cover the
basics. I did a quick google, and this is the best simple description I
could find, from molecule of the month:

http://pdbdev.sdsc.edu:48346/pdb/molecules/pdb13_1.html


I've posted plenty of evidence already debunking your above statement.


No, you've posted links to a bunch of anti-vaccine and conspiracy pages.
That hardly constitutes proof. Try providing us with a bit of science
- I linked to multiple medical papers about this topic; one must wonder
why you cannot provide the same quality of proof.


There are plenty of other quotes like that to be found on the page
cited. So, tell me again how it's "not even close to being toxic."

Firstly, dose, dose, dose. Even water is toxic if you drink enough.
As is table salt (who's MSDS reads a lot like the one you posted).
Spilling thimerosal on your skin is not going to kill you - bathing in
it may be a good idea. And also, you really need to get more recent
sources for your info, here's the MSDS (2005 version) for thimerosal
from a reputable university:

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/TH/thimerosal.html

You'll notice it has codes for "harmful by inhalation" (R20) and
"harmful by ingestion" (R22). But only is stated that it may be harmful
through skin contact. You'll also notice that the lethal doses are
quite high - in the range of 40-100mg/kg. Table salt is almost as
toxic. Now the first thing you're going to do is ask why there is such
a big difference between you're older MSDS and this newer one. The
answer is simple - often they don't have all the info they need, so they
simply put in the strongest warnings they feel is necessary. Often,
this is based on related chemicals. But as more an more is found out
about a compound the MSDS gets updated. Hence why you really need to
look at sources which are a little newer then the ones you tend to post.



Although the fact that you use lies to push your agenda is a
pretty good indicator of just how honest you are, and speaks volumes
about the credibility of your arguments. At the end of the day vaccines
have saved millions of lives; you seem to want those people to die. why
is that?


I will not argue that vaccination has saved lives, but it has cost
lives as well. The thing is, there is ample evidence that proper
nutrition COULD have been used to save the same lives that vaccination
has saved, only without the potential negative side effects.


Really? Please provide ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC article proving that
nutrition is as effective as vaccination. I've heard that line before,
and yet none of you "nutrition is god" people have ever been able to
post single link which demonstrates this scientifically. Anecdotal
links need not reply. I can provide anecdotal evidence that Elvis is
still around and kicking - doesn't make it true.

Bryan