Is there antifreeze in vaccines or not?

Is there antifreeze in vaccines or not?

http://freedom2question.blogspot.com...es-or-not.html

In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses
anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. He
especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on assertions
regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.


Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been repeating
that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in the interview linked
to earlier. That line is straight off of a number of antivaccination
websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed to restrain himself from
repeating "the "antifreeze in vaccines" gambit. I can only hope that it is
due to intellectual honesty, although I can't rule out the possibility that
he just didn't know about it.) One website in particular links to an MSDS
about Quaker State Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which
are ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There's no ethylene
or diethylene glycol in vaccines.
Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's called
2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines Infanrix, Deptacel,
Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, the other name for
2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl ether.

The MSDS on car antifreeze, the regular ethylene glycol, says that the
lethal oral dose to kill 50% of rats is 4700 mg/kg. The MSDS on
2-Phenoxyethanol, the vaccine ethylene glycol, says the lethal oral dose to
kill 50% of rats is 1260 mg/kg. Comparing apples to apples, the vaccine
ethylene glycol is a lot more toxic than car antifreeze--to rats anyway.

The debate shouldn't be on whether ethylene glycol exists in vaccines. It
does, period. The debate should be on whether this type of ethylene glycol
and this amount of ethylene glycol can cause the same adverse reactions as
those normally associated with car antifreeze.

It is a situation where both sides are bending and polarizing the truth to
suit their own agendas, while parents looking for honest, straightforward,
objective information are screwed. Is antifreeze in vaccines? Not
exactly--not the kind we put in our cars. Aha, then antifreeze is NOT in
vaccines? Not exactly--a type of ethylene glycol that is known to have
similar (actually higher) levels of toxicity to car antifreeze is found in
very small amounts in a number of childhood vaccines.

So word to the wise, parents. Do your own research. How do you sort it out,
when both sides are liberal with the truth-bending?

1. Look for precision. Science is precise. It is not whether A is true or
not true. Science defines A carefully, and then qualifies under what
conditions A is true and not true. Anyone who gives you a simple "fact" is
bending the truth, because reality is not simple.

2. Look for references. Someone says there is antifreeze in vaccines? What
makes them say that? Someone says it is NOT in vaccines? Where all have they
looked? Follow their research trail for arriving at that conclusion. (In
this case, if they had looked under the right chemical names, they would
have found it.)

3. Look for objectivity. Read the original research papers. Outline the
"plot"--what did they do in the study? Now to tease out confirmation bias,
blind yourself to the results. Switch the research findings so that the
results come out the opposite of what you would like to believe. If the
study finds no autism-vaccine connection, much to your relief, then pretend
it did. If the study finds a strong autism-vaccine connection, as you knew
it would, pretend it didn't find anything at all. Once the results are
disagreeable, the flaws in the research design and methodology come leaping
out like magic.

4. Trust no one but yourself. If you let other people do the thinking for
you, then you'll just end up with other people's thoughts--and prejudices,
and agendas. It's kind of obvious, but it needs to be said. This is what
this blog is all about: think for yourself.

For further research:
Vaccine excipient table sorted by vaccine.

john wrote:

Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's called
2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines Infanrix, Deptacel,
Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, the other name for
2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl ether.

This is the molecular structure of phenoxyethanol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2-...-Structure.svg

This is the structure of ethylene glycol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Et..._structure.png

Although there are some common features between these
two molecules, there are some very important differences.

Even a single atom can dramatically change the properties
of a molecule. These two molecules differ by much more
than a single atom. For one thing, phenoxyethanol would
be completely useless as an antifreeze.

The claim that there is antifreeze in vaccine is made
because anti-vaccinationists have so little evidence
that they can use against vaccines. This is among
the strongest arguments they can make, and as anyone
can see from the molecular structures, it is bogus.

"Mark Thorson" wrote in message
...
john wrote:

Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's
called
2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines Infanrix, Deptacel,
Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, the other name for
2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl ether.

This is the molecular structure of phenoxyethanol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2-...-Structure.svg

This is the structure of ethylene glycol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Et..._structure.png

Although there are some common features between these
two molecules, there are some very important differences.

Even a single atom can dramatically change the properties
of a molecule. These two molecules differ by much more
than a single atom. For one thing, phenoxyethanol would
be completely useless as an antifreeze.

The claim that there is antifreeze in vaccine is made
because anti-vaccinationists have so little evidence
that they can use against vaccines. This is among
the strongest arguments they can make, and as anyone
can see from the molecular structures, it is bogus.
Drugs drugs drugs, chemicals oh ya chemicals.

"john" wrote:

Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's called
2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines Infanrix, Deptacel,
Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, the other name for
2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl ether.

Oh, **** me roan!! You could light a city with the burning stupid.

Did this fool learn chemistry from Boyd Haley?

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

john wrote:
Is there antifreeze in vaccines or not?

http://freedom2question.blogspot.com...es-or-not.html

In "Toxic Myths About Vaccines," author David Gorski MD accuses
anti-vaccinationists of outright lying about toxins in vaccines. He
especially ridicules them for being "chemistry-challenged" on assertions
regarding one particular toxin: antifreeze.


Here's one example. The aforementioned Jenny McCarthy has been repeating
that there is "antifreeze" in vaccines, as she did in the interview linked
to earlier. That line is straight off of a number of antivaccination
websites. (Amazingly Mr. Heckenlively managed to restrain himself from
repeating "the "antifreeze in vaccines" gambit. I can only hope that it is
due to intellectual honesty, although I can't rule out the possibility that
he just didn't know about it.) One website in particular links to an MSDS
about Quaker State Antifreeze/Coolant, the principal ingredients of which
are ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol. Guess what? There's no ethylene
or diethylene glycol in vaccines.
Not so fast, Dr. Gorski. There IS ethylene glycol in vaccines. It's called
2-Phenoxyethanol, and is found in childhood vaccines Infanrix, Deptacel,
Pediarix, and Ipol, amongst others. You see, the other name for
2-Phenosyethanol is ETHYLENE GLYCOL monophenyl ether.

2-phenosyethanol is not ethylene glycol. They are different chemicals.

Jeff

In message , john wrote:

The MSDS on car antifreeze, the regular ethylene glycol, says that the
lethal oral dose to kill 50% of rats is 4700 mg/kg. The MSDS on
2-Phenoxyethanol, the vaccine ethylene glycol, says the lethal oral dose to
kill 50% of rats is 1260 mg/kg. Comparing apples to apples, the vaccine
ethylene glycol is a lot more toxic than car antifreeze--to rats anyway.

The debate shouldn't be on whether ethylene glycol exists in vaccines. It
does, period. The debate should be on whether this type of ethylene glycol
and this amount of ethylene glycol can cause the same adverse reactions as
those normally associated with car antifreeze.

Money on the table, dimwit. Make it worth my while and I'll drink
over 400 grams of polyethylene glycol in the course of an evening.

Money where your mouth is. I'll cover up to $3000 in bets over
whether I'm still posting a week later -- and I'll get the PEG
consumption witnessed.

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions -+