What is in those Vaccinations?????

Jan Drew wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jan Drew wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Jan Drew wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...

Jan Drew wrote:

Blood work from kids SHOULD have been taken within two to four hours,
NOT days
after vaccines
What are you talking about?
http://tinyurl.com/jfxrp
Wow, yet another unsubstantiated article written by the anti-vaccine
group - specifically YOU.


And interestinlgy, the link you claim proves your statement doesn't
work. Will the wonders ever end?

Bryan
Vaccines-Thimerosal-MMR-Government Hearings 2002

Any doubts..check it out yourself.
That is *political* science, not real science.

Blood work from kids SHOULD have been taken within two to four hours, NOT
days after vaccines, thimerosal crosses the blood brain barrier and is
stored in the
brain.

When you speak of the brain, I know you are not speaking from personal
experience. Where did you plagiarize it from?

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Jan Drew wrote:
Do prove you are a scientist.. please.

This may appear 2x - my news reader is acting up...

My scientistness is a matter of public record. My written publications
can be found through any academic search engine, such as the pubmed.gov
search engine I keep providing you links to. Other engines which would
have this info include google scholar, biological abstracts, cisti,
medline, and many more. From pubmed:



As a former member of NIH, I can state that there are a wide variety of
opinions. Some of them almost accurate.
It is primarily an organization for the promotion of ideas, all with money
behind them. In ten years I never saw any inclination of "research".

Also any site with .gov is VERY subject to error.

On the other hand I am not weighing in on the vaccination discussion other
than reiterating that it (vaccinations) is almost void of realistic
research.

A recent flat out farce is the authorization of shingles vaccine. The
research would make a high school science major blush.

"vernon" there@there wrote:


"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Jan Drew wrote:
Do prove you are a scientist.. please.

This may appear 2x - my news reader is acting up...

My scientistness is a matter of public record. My written publications
can be found through any academic search engine, such as the pubmed.gov
search engine I keep providing you links to. Other engines which would
have this info include google scholar, biological abstracts, cisti,
medline, and many more. From pubmed:



As a former member of NIH,

Oh, vern!! Now you must have even the stoutest supporter of quackery
laughing at you. Was this before or after you invented computer tape
and discovered oil?

I can state that there are a wide variety of
opinions. Some of them almost accurate.

And then there are your opinions - almost none of them accurate.

It is primarily an organization for the promotion of ideas, all with money
behind them. In ten years I never saw any inclination of "research".

As you wouldn't recognise research if it burst into flames while
fellating you, I am not surprised at this.

Also any site with .gov is VERY subject to error.

Because it's socialist, right?


On the other hand I am not weighing in on the vaccination discussion other
than reiterating that it (vaccinations) is almost void of realistic
research.

A researcher in the field offers citations of research and you still
see a void. Add "bit down hard" to "burst into flames" in my recent
comment about you and research.

A recent flat out farce is the authorization of shingles vaccine. The
research would make a high school science major blush.

Well you're safe from blushing, aren't you.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Bryan Heit wrote:
Jan Drew wrote:
Do prove you are a scientist.. please.

This may appear 2x - my news reader is acting up...

My scientistness is a matter of public record. My written publications
can be found through any academic search engine, such as the pubmed.gov
search engine I keep providing you links to. Other engines which would
have this info include google scholar, biological abstracts, cisti,
medline, and many more. From pubmed:

I didn't ask what you had co-authored, neither does that prove you are a
scientist.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~girg/faculty/kubesp.html

Dr. Paul Kubes
BSc, PhD

Professor
Department of Physiology & Biophysics and Medicine
Immunology, Gastrointestinal Research Group

AHFMR Scientist
CRC Chair
Chair, Immunology Research Group
Chair CIHR Training Program in Immunology, Immunopathogenesis and
Inflammation
Director, Institutes of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation


Personnel

Graduate Trainee
Bryan Heit




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


You may also be able to find abstracts of presentations I have presented
at various scientific meetings by searching the web pages of the relevant
organizations. This includes meetings of the American Association of
Immunology, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB), the Canadian Society for Immunology, the Brazilian Society For
Immunology (SBI), the Gordon research conferences, the Keystone
conferences, and the Immunet network.

Bryan

Max C. wrote:
It is physically impossible to remove 100% of
any chemical when purifying biological agents.


I was going to suggest exactly that, but since I didn't know for sure,
I let it go. Still, you've yet to provide any evidence of the process
used to remove these ingredients before sale.

Varies depending on what they're trying to remove. Size exclusion
chromatography, dialysis, affinity chromatography, precipitation, and
many other techniques are used to remove undesired components from
vaccines and other medical preparations. The exact standard of purity
varies depending on what they are removing - highly toxic chemicals are
treated much more carefully then non-toxic elements (say sugar).

Info on these techniques should be in any basic biochemistry text or lab
manual. You may even be able to find info on the net...

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.

Did I say anything about human embryonic cells? I don't recall that.

They were in the link you provided us with. What the matter - not
willing to stand up in support of your "sources"?


Say what? I suppose if you want to play semantics on the word "toxic"
you're technically right, but I take anaphylaxis seriously.

Anaphylaxis is not a toxic response, but rather an immunological over
response. Anaphylaxis is taken seriously by the vaccine and medical
community. This is why you're kept under observation after a
vaccination for 10 or so minutes. That way, if you begin to show signs
of an anaphyaxis reaction they can stop it before it progresses to a
dangerous state.


Now, given the conclusion, and given that no one could possibly know if
an infant is one of these rare people,

Because to develop anaphyaxis you first need to be exposed to the
antigen which induces the response (i.e. animal gelatin). Since infants
cannot be exposed to this until after birth, and are vaccinated soon
after birth, they do not have an opportunity to develop an Anaphylaxis
response. given the time it takes for the immune system to set up for
such a response, the childhood vaccines can be safely given early on
without this being a concern. That is one of the underlying reasons why
so many vaccines are given in the first few weeks of life.

wouldn't it be prudent to test
for gelatin sensitivity before blindly giving vaccines to a new born?

Nope, for the reason described above.

Yes? Then why isn't it done?

Because infants cannot undergo Anaphylaxis responses until their immune
system has finished developing, and they've been exposed to the
anaphyactic antigen.



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!


I've already addressed this ridiculous question. Being part of one's
diet does not mean that it is safe to inject directly into the body.


Actually, without additional stimuli (i.e. bacterial products), these
things are safe to inject. Without that second signal (i.e. the
bacterial products), these foreign substances are just seen by the body
as yet more proteins and sugars (which your blood is already filled with
anyways). All that happens to them is they'll circulate and then be
processed by the same metabolic pathways that your body uses to deal
with its own proteins and sugars. There is nothing special about animal
or fungal proteins/sugars - they're made of the same basic building
blocks as our own proteins and sugars. you're body just breaks them
down and recycles them - just like your body does with worn out proteins
floating around in your blood.


Given your apparent background, I would certainly hope you'd understand
that the digestive tract is designed to make sure that many of those
ingredients, when eat, are broken down.

Sugars ARE NOT broken down by the digestive tract before absorption,
I've mentioned that before. So in the case of sorbitol the point is
moot. As for proteins, your digestive tract does break them down
somewhat, but a lot of the final process occurs after absorption,
through a variety of metabolic pathways designed for the recycling of
proteins. As I mentioned above - proteins which end up injected into
your blood simply circulate until disassembled and recycled by these
metabolic pathways.



You seem to think pubmed is the end-all, be-all of information.


If you want accurate medical and scientific information, it is.
Mainstream search engines don't separate the grain from the chaff, so
you never know what you're going to get. Pubmed links exclusively to
articles published in peer-reviewed medical and biological journals.


My
problem with it is that depending on it leaves no room for logical
thinking. Just because some clown with funding has posted something in
pubmed doesn't make it so.


But its more likely to be correct then google, yahoo, etc. Anyone can
make a web page and claim what they like - there is no second opinion or
control over the material. Pubmed simply is a database of articles
published in scientific journals. And each of those journals has a
staff of editors, as well as review boards, who's job is to ensure the
quality and accuracy of the material. Which makes it far more reliable
then anything just pulled off the net at random.



So, because SV40 wasn't detected in *some* tumors then that suggests
that SV40 wasn't the cause in other cases? I'm sorry, but that's just
stupid. Are these "scientists" trying to suggest that SV40 is the
*ONLY* cause of mesothelioma or some other unnamed tumor?


Nope, and had you read the article, and not just the abstract you would
know that. So who's being stupid? The conflict with SV40 is that there
is no clear link between it and cancer. You do see it in a percentage
of some tumors, but the problem is that people without the virus develop
the same tumors at nearly the same rate. As such it is nearly
impossible to identify any link between the virus and cancer, as there
isn't much of a difference between people who are infected verses those
who are not.



http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/Cance...agnosis/Causes
"Up to 9 out of 10 cases of mesothelioma are caused by exposure to
asbestos."

Now would YOU expect to find SV40 in asbestos created mesothelioma? I
wouldn't... but then, that would require logical thinking.

Ahh, but in therein lies the rub. SV40 is seen in some of these
asbestos-induced tumors, and it's found in some of the non-asbestos
tumors, and you also see both asbestos-induced and independent tumors
without SV40. And there isn't a significant difference in rates of SV40
vs SV40 free tumors. Which is why it is so difficult to confirm (or
disprove) a link between SV40 and cancer. Just because it is in the
tumor doesn't mean that it's causing the tumor.


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

Are you posting the above study to support your position?

Actually I am. I have not claimed that SV40 is not a cause of cancer.
Rather, I was pointing out that it is not clear if SV40 is involved, and
therefore you claim that SV40 caused cancer was incorrect. And I've
done this by presenting both sides of the story - something you've
constantly failed to do. As you can clearly see from the links I've
posted, the idea that SV40 causes cancer is highly controversial in the
scientific/medical fields. And as such, you claim that SV40 causes
cancer is wrong. We do not know if it causes cancer. Period.


"However, a member of this research team has recently acknowledged - in
sworn testimony -sensitivity problems and possible irregularities that
raise concerns about these negative reports (MacLachlan, 2002). These
revelations, together with the conclusions of the three independent
panels mentioned above, appear to bring to an end the apparent
controversy about the presence of SV40 in human mesotheliomas and brain
tumors."

So there you have it. The controversy has been brought to an end...
and it's all thanks to YOUR link. I'm going to skip over the next two.
They really don't seem necessary now.


Except for one thing - the controversy still rages. If you continue
looking through my links, as well as pubmed, you'll that the flurry of
publications about the *potential* link between SV40 and cancer has
continued to today. They authors claim to have settled the dispute, but
they're just hyping themselves up. The controversy is far from closed,
and may never be resolved. That the problem with multifactorial disease
- sometimes answers elude even the most rigorous and sensitive of studies.



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 are describing a condition known as leaky gut.

No, I am not. Sugars are absorbed as sugars directly into the blood.
They are not processed into other forms prior to absorption. You are
correct that lactose is usually broken down, but it is a complex sugar.
Simple sugars (i.e. glucose, fructose, sorbitol) are absorbed as is.
So are some complex sugars (sucrose).


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.


OR, you COULD get rid of diabetes by cutting out all of the refined
crap from your diet and keeping the money you'd pay your doctor for a
BS vaccine in your pocket.


That's fixes one type of diabetes, but the autoimmune forms can occur
even if you eat a perfect diet. Some forms of childhood-onset diabetes
being a perfect example. And proper diet doesn't even begin to deal
with other autoimmune diseases like MS, lupus, myasthenia gravis,
rheumatoid arthritis, IBD, and so forth.


Of course, I'm assuming you're talking
about Type II diabetes. If you've somehow developed a shot that would
allow a type I diabetic's pancreas to again produce insulin, I'd be
fascinated and would love to read more.


The University where I work has one of the largest research projects on
earth trying to do just that. Unfortunately, one of the groups founders
Dr Yoon recently passed away, but I'm certain the work will continue.

It looks like the best bet for those patients is islet transplantation,
although before he died Dr. Yoon demonstrated a form of gene therapy
which could be used to restore normal insulin production in diabetic
animals.

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


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...


That's an interesting sheet. I found this part very interesting:
"Incompatibilities: Strong oxidizers, acids." It makes me wonder what
the "incompatibility" is


Incomparability means that the chemical will be broken down if it comes
into contact with those substances, but the breakdown occurs in such a
way as to not be dangerous or release dangerous breakdown products
(otherwise the MSDS would contain warnings in regards to by-products,
vigorous reactions, etc).


... and if it has anything to do with the
suggested carcinogenic effect.


As I pointed out before, there are no medical evidence for cancerogenic
effects. In fact the opposite is true - polysorbate 80 is being
considered as a potential tool for delivery of cancer therapy agents:

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


Of couse, that would probably only
apply to it being ingested, not injected.


The breakdown due to acids would be limited to ingestion. It is
theoretically possible that a severe inflammatory reaction could also
mediate the same effect, as our inflammatory cells can and do produce
some incredibly powerful oxidants. But polysorbate is hardly unique in
being susceptible to these molecules - I cannot think of an organic
molecule that isn't sensitive to these chemicals. That's why our immune
system uses them - there is nothing bacteria can make that would be
resistant to them.



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.


I'd rather not at the moment. There are far worse things in vaccines
to worry about. My point was that vaccine ingredients aren't as benign
as you make them out to be.


And yet you failed to substantiate your claims on the particular
component you chose to pick on. You claimed that polysorbate was toxic
and a carcinogen - I provided clear evidence to the contrary. Care to
try again?



Again your arrogance is showing. Do you really think that the "real
story" can only be obtained from pubmed? The difference I can see
between the two of us is where we place our skepticism. I place mine
everywhere, including the scientists


I'm skeptical of everyone, including science. You don't go very far in
science without being critical of yours, and other work. If we just
accepted everything our peers said as fact science would get very far.
This is why we put so much emphasis on reproducibility, substantiation,
and the presence of a consensus. Trust me - if 80% of scientists all
agree on something then it is probably true.


(maybe *especially* them) since
they have to be paid by someone.


Right, it is all a conspiracy. I'll let you in on a little secret -
well it's not actually a secret as these things are open to public
scrutiny. Most scientists are paid by the people of the country they
work in - i.e. through taxes. And the people who decide which
scientists get what money are other scientists. Not biotech companies,
not special interest groups, not politicians. For a scientist to get
money he/she has to convince a panel of their peers that their ideas
have merit, that their experimental plan will answer the questions, and
that they are capable of undertaking the research they propose.

I'd trust someone who's paycheck is dependent on a process like that
over someone paid by a special interest group, or wherever it is you get
your "facts".


I am also willing to consider
anecdotal evidence to try to get another side of the story... any story


But anecdotal evidence is notorious for being wrong. So you're
deliberately selecting for the information which is most likely to be
erranous.



The part where you said "Every 3 hours your liver will produce about
the same amount of formaldehyde that is present in an vaccine."


It's a commonly touted value used in many biochemistry and physiology
texts. I was unable to find a weblink, but if you can get a copy of
"Biochemistry, 1st Edition", published by Prentis Hall, you can find
this information on pages 8.29-8.32, including some of the chemical
reactions which occur. I don't have a newer edition, so I cannot tell
you where/if the info is in newer editions.

You can also find production rate information in many of the texts on
laboratory animal care. Obviously human info won't be in there, but you
can extrapolate from the primate section. I'm not at work so I don't
have the title of our guide handy, but ask me Monday and I'll dig it up.


So, what type of food or drink would be required to produce "about the
same amount of formaldehyde that is present in an vaccine" every 3
hours? Are you saying that our livers produce that level of
formaldehyde every day no matter what we eat or drink?


Yes, which is why I put in the chemical pathway of formaldehyde
formation. Basically, any time your body breaks down an organic
molecule which contains an alcohol group as a side chain there is the
possibility that it'll get turned into methanol. Basically, enzymes in
your liver (alcohol dehydrogenases) will convert the alcohol group to an
aldehyde group. At that point enzymes such as aldolases, succinyl-CoA
transferase and others can cleave off the group, forming formaldehyde.
This is a rare event - most of these groups will be first converted to
less toxic keytones, but some formaldehyde is produced (about
30ng/hour). Over a three hour period this produces an amount of
formaldehyde equivalent to the maximum level allowed in vaccines (20PPM,
approximately 1ug per injection).



Every link I read while searching to validate your above position
stated that formaldehyde production is the byproduct of alcohol
ingestion (or aspartame.)

Both of which are true. I havent' been able to find a biochemistry page
on methanol production as a natural product of our metabolism, but I did
find it in Wikipedia. Given your stated preference for non-pubmed
sources, you should believe this:

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

"(b) methanol and formaldehyde are already a by-product of human metabolism"

First sentence in the "Methanol" section. There is also two links to
pubmed in relation to that section. They may address the natural
production of formaldehyde; I didn't look.



The stuff on the formation of formaldehyde is readily found
in any biochemistry textbook;


I can only assume that you keep referring to textbooks as a way of
trying to demean me.


Hardly, I'm just pointing out where the information is available. The
problem with a lot of this basic biochemistry was it was worked out in
the 40's and 50's, so the original material isn't readily available.
Hence why I direct you to the textbooks, where that material is
summarized in great detail, but usually without citation...



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


Irrelevant.


Only because you disagree with it. Had I posted something which
supported your point you'd have jumped all over it and called it gold.



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.


And often they realize that lawsuits are coming and they need to change
their position. And often they change the chemical itself. And often,
people just make up BS to try to support their position, like we both
just did.


Wow, the conspiracy angle again. By law MSDS's have to be updated
frequently (varies by country, less then a decade in most countries).
And the info in the MSDS's are usually overstated by the companies to
cover their asses. After all, if the company understated the risk, and
was found to be wrong, they'd be facing lawsuits from millions of people
exposed to the substance. But by overstating the toxicity they cover
their arses. Just check out the MSDS for some relatively harmless
chemicals:

Sodium chloride (table salt):
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/S3338.htm
Supposed to wear protective clothing, gloves, eye protection, and have
an eye wash station near by. If you spill it on your skin you need to
immediately wash it with soap and water, and if you swallow it you need
medical attention! So get out your protective clothing and goggles -
it's time to fry some eggs!

Sodium bicarbonate (baking powder):
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s2954.htm
You must wear protective clothing, gloves and eye protection when using
this. And if you spill it, ventilate! Sorry Johnny, no biscuits for
you; mommy might inhale some bicarb.

Water:
http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/saf...ATER-MSDS.html
Inhalation and skin contact have health hazards. And if you get it in
your eyes you're supposed to wash your eyes out with water for 15
minutes (yep, the cure for water in your eyes is . . . more water). And
if you drink it you need to call a medical doctor - IMMEDIATELY!!! And
don't forget to store it in a sealed container in a ventilated place -
those water fumes sure are dangerous! I'm kinda curious what I'm
supposed to do with the 70%-ish part of my body which is water?

So in a way you are right - the companies overstate tings in their
MSDS's to prevent being sued. In fact, they overstate things to the
maximum point allowed. Really puts "your" MSDS into question now,
doesn't it. Particularly when you look at the new and improved MSDS,
which is already understated in comparison to yours.



Really? Please provide ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC article proving that
nutrition is as effective as vaccination.


How about an entire book, The book is titled "Diet Prevents Polio" by
Dr Benjamin P
Sandler, MD.


Not a peer-reviewed publication, but...


supported by research that was published at
the time?

Published in 1951, and based on papers written from 1923 through 1942:

http://www.whale.to/v/sandler.html
http://www.whale.to/v/sandler14.html

As in most of the data used was gathered before the cause of polio was
identified. As in the book was published four years before the first
polio vaccine was invented. Good proof! I'm curious exactly how you
can even make the comparison, given that there was no vaccine to compare
the diet to? So how exactly does that prove that nutrition is a good as
vaccination? Especially when you take into consideration that the first
vaccines weren't EVEN AVAILABLE YET?

And for that matter, we can look at the book (at least it's on-line
version) and see the following:
http://www.whale.to/v/sandler8.html

Anyone familiar with scientific study will immediately notice some
rather poor conclusions made by Sandler (i.e. the assumption that
without the dietary plan there would have been the exact same number of
death on any given week as the exact same week two years prior). But
even though his methodology and conclusions are shaky, lets just assume
he was right. Based on his model there was an average weekly decrease
in lethality by ~15% over a 8 week period.

Today, with the polio vaccine initiative in full swing, deaths due to
polio in the US have been reduced to essentially 100% - as in people
rarely die from it. So how exactly is it that diet is better then
vaccine? Last time I checked 100% was better then 15%...


As for the rest, I personally wouldn't want diet to *prevent* many
diseases vaccines are available for. Chicken pox, measles and mumps
are fine to contract, and a proper diet will help the child pull
through them in no time... and then they'll have lifetime immunity.


Fair enough. But what about deadly diseases we can prevent with
vaccination - HepA, HepB, polio, tetanus, meningitis, etc. And what if
they travel to developing countries - will you protect them from yellow
fever, sleeping sickness, etc, or will they just have to tough it out?


Bryan

vernon wrote:

As a former member of NIH,

I suppose you can substantiate this rather outlandish claim. Shouldn't
be too hard - the NIH has public records and pretty much all of their
major workers, past and present...

Bryan

Jan Drew wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
Jan Drew wrote:
Do prove you are a scientist.. please.
This may appear 2x - my news reader is acting up...

My scientistness is a matter of public record. My written publications
can be found through any academic search engine, such as the pubmed.gov
search engine I keep providing you links to. Other engines which would
have this info include google scholar, biological abstracts, cisti,
medline, and many more. From pubmed:

I didn't ask what you had co-authored, neither does that prove you are a
scientist.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~girg/faculty/kubesp.html

Dr. Paul Kubes
BSc, PhD

Professor
Department of Physiology & Biophysics and Medicine
Immunology, Gastrointestinal Research Group

AHFMR Scientist
CRC Chair
Chair, Immunology Research Group
Chair CIHR Training Program in Immunology, Immunopathogenesis and
Inflammation
Director, Institutes of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation


Personnel

Graduate Trainee
Bryan Heit

Which far exceeds your education in the sciences.






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


You may also be able to find abstracts of presentations I have presented
at various scientific meetings by searching the web pages of the relevant
organizations. This includes meetings of the American Association of
Immunology, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB), the Canadian Society for Immunology, the Brazilian Society For
Immunology (SBI), the Gordon research conferences, the Keystone
conferences, and the Immunet network.

Bryan

Jan Drew wrote:
I didn't ask what you had co-authored, neither does that prove you are a
scientist.

So what does then? I work in a scientific institute. I both author and
co-author papers, present at scientific meetings, work in a scientific
field, plan and implement studies, and am paid by a scientific funding
agency. I'm not exactly sure what else you need to do to be a
scientist, but I'm curious to hear.

And well were on the subject, what exactly qualifies YOU to interpret
scientific evidence? Do even have high school science?

Bryan

Bryan Heit wrote:

Because to develop anaphyaxis you first need to be exposed to the
antigen which induces the response (i.e. animal gelatin). Since infants
cannot be exposed to this until after birth, and are vaccinated soon
after birth, they do not have an opportunity to develop an Anaphylaxis
response. given the time it takes for the immune system to set up for
such a response, the childhood vaccines can be safely given early on
without this being a concern. That is one of the underlying reasons why
so many vaccines are given in the first few weeks of life.

Let me see if I have this correct...

Parents who delay vaccines to "protect" their child are actually placing
them at greater risk for a more serious reaction.

Correct?

Bryan Heit wrote:
Jan Drew wrote:
I didn't ask what you had co-authored, neither does that prove you are
a scientist.

So what does then? I work in a scientific institute. I both author and
co-author papers, present at scientific meetings, work in a scientific
field, plan and implement studies, and am paid by a scientific funding
agency. I'm not exactly sure what else you need to do to be a
scientist, but I'm curious to hear.

And well were on the subject, what exactly qualifies YOU to interpret
scientific evidence? Do even have high school science?

This is PRICELESS!

Jan was a day care center operator for 38 years.