What is in those Vaccinations?????

"Mike McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Max C. wrote:
Your opinions and personal experiences = squat. Why don't you explain
how herd immunity through vaccination helped all of those that suffered
from smallpox?

Post verifiable data that I can research for myself or don't bother
posting.

Max.


When you get past the point of placing sarcastic quotes around science,
perhaps I'll do your research for you.

Now..let's recap.

Bryan Heit wrote:
On the upside, the anti-vaccine people provide scientists with an
invaluable tool. Because they don't get vaccinated, and thus tend to
get a lot of diseases that most of us don't, they provide us with an
excellent opportunity to study complex biological questions like herd
immunity, epidemiology in partially resistant populations, and I imagine
they keep the psychologists pretty busy as well.

Acutally, I'd be fascinated to read such studies. Could you please
rpovide the group with some?

Max.

Now...for the USUAL placing of blame...which YOU and the ILK are guilty of
EXACTLY.

It's the non vaccinated that helped determine that for vaccines to be
effective enough to prevent spread amongst the naieve population you
need vaccination around 70%

So basically as long as the proportion of the population that hates
vaccination as much as you do stays somewhere less than 30%, us vaccine
takers are keeping your lives safe.

Of course this rough value is different for different diseases and
vaccines, but the idea of herd immunity relative to ratio of vaccinated
to nonvaccinated is certainly interesting.

I've met them, and their ilk before. No different then the
anti-evolution crowd, the flat-earthers, and the fundies. Just goes to
show that if you stick your fingers into your ears, close your eyes, and
only pay attention to the things you want to listen to, you can believe
anything.

On the upside, the anti-vaccine people provide scientists with an
invaluable tool. Because they don't get vaccinated, and thus tend to
get a lot of diseases that most of us don't, they provide us with an
excellent opportunity to study complex biological questions like herd
immunity, epidemiology in partially resistant populations, and I imagine
they keep the psychologists pretty busy as well. Now if only we could
find a use for the anti-evolutionists...

Since you're new here, I feel compelled to inform you that your use of
logic, rationale and facts are not suitable for the anti-vac wackos.
You need to learn to use more disparaging comments, obfuscation, and
lies - those seem to be the only things they understand.

Jan "HAMAS" Drew wrote:

*H*arass
*A*buse
*M*align
*A*nnoy
*S*talk

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, Mike, I read about half way through your post and didn't see a
single source to support any of your ill-conceived opinions. I scanned
through the rest of it thinking you'd at least bother to post SOMETHING
to support yourself, but no, you didn't. So, I feel no need to dignify
your politically correct BS with specific responses. Until you take
the time to support your statements instead of just spewing your
opinion all over my screen, you're just another drug pusher to me.

Back up your statements with verifiable facts and we'll pick this up in
the future. Until then, buh bye.

Max.

OrgName: Defense Research Establishment
OrgID: DREO
Address: 3701 Carling Avenue, Shirley Bay
City: Ottawa
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: K1A-0Z4
Country: CA


References:

. com

.com

In-Reply-To:

Evidently, Bryan needs Mike to speak for him.

This part is 2222 funny....

Indeed you have to live with your choices, but I strongly recommend that
if you have children you should immunize them, especially if you live in
the states, cause like I said, if I became sterile thanks to an
irrational parent, I would sue their retirement out of them.


Funny, I was pretty sure that around half of the links quoted went
directly to conspiracy pages. Like I mentioned earlier when it comes to
your kids, you might want to err on the side of caution, and retaining
your retirement funds.

Mike McWilliams wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:

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).


But that's not what you said. You said "So listing them as ingredients
is an out-and-out lie." So either those that list them as ingredients
are lying or they're not. You can't have it both ways. Right from the
start of your post you're losing credibility by being so absolute. It
took me all of 20 seconds to find CDC literature to dispute your
statement.


The fact is they aren't ingredients anymore than bread makers should
list selenium or other trace elements. The fact is they don't have to
list trace elements, and shouldn't because it's simply not important.



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.

Hmm, theres plenty of ways. Dialysis to change buffers, molecular weight
cutoff filters. Take your pick. Protein purification is a collection of
well established methods, plenty of which can be used to remove
contaminants.




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.
Let me look again: No, I just looked and saw this "you'll find that
gelatin, egg protein, mouse serum protein (ick!), lactose, sorbitol and
yeast protein are listed." Maybe you're thinking of someone else.

Maybe he's thinking about the website you linked to which includes
ingredients used during the process, and not solely in the final
product. I went to that website you listed as "proof".



Also, what does it matter? None of those components are toxic to
people;


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

Everyone takes anaphylaxis seriously. Kids can't take peanut butter
sandwiches to school in many places anymore. Whats your point? There is
a risk to getting a vaccine. It's not going to go away. It's the
potential benefit that outweighs this consideration.


http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/110/6/e71
"Conclusion. Anaphylactic reactions to MMR in the United States are
rare. The reporting rate has the same order of magnitude as estimates
from other countries. Almost one fourth of patients with reported
anaphylaxis after MMR seem to have hypersensitivity to gelatin in the
vaccine. They may be at higher risk of developing anaphylaxis to
subsequent doses of other gelatin-containing vaccines. These people
should seek an allergy evaluation before such immunization."

Now, given the conclusion, and given that no one could possibly know if
an infant is one of these rare people, wouldn't it be prudent to test
for gelatin sensitivity before blindly giving vaccines to a new born?
Yes? Then why isn't it done?

The blame doesn't rest on the vaccine, nor does the responsisbility rest
on vaccine makers, but on physicians. You need to identify your targets
with more discretion.



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.
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.

This passage shows the shallowness of your understanding of vaccines.
You have to inject unmodified protein directy into the bloodstream for
the proper immunological response to occur. Period. Purified simple
polysaccharides are not a problem as indicated by Bryan earlier.

As for those trace ingredients, too bad, thats part of the vaccine
risk/benefit calculation. Read it and weep.




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!


Your arrogance just spilled out all over my keyboard. Your above
statement will serve this debate well. You seem to think that the
vaccine manufacturers couldn't possibly make another mistake... that
some sort of contaminant couldn't possibly make it through the system.
Everyone reading this debate knows that accidents happen. Besides, the
point of my statement was to address your statement: "So complaining
about microbial components in your vaccines is rather stupid." My
point being that people infected with SV40 have every right to
complain.

Your complete disregard for the good vaccination does has spilled out
all over the keyboard. You're right, humans make mistakes, nothing is
perfect. People can't expect perfection, but they can expect the best
performance given the state of knowledge at the time. Indeed there will
be mistakes made with vaccines in the future, but arguing that just
because mistakes are made, that people shouldn't be vaccinated is
naieve. The benefits outweigh the risks.

Also for future reference, microbial components are often part of
adjuvants, bacterial LPS is known to elicit a stronger immune response.






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.


You seem to think pubmed is the end-all, be-all of information. 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. A good example would be the number of
conflicting studies (hundreds) posted on the effects of certain
artificial sweeteners. Be that as it may, I use it whenever possible
and have often cited it to support my position.

You don't know what you're talking about. Pubmed is an aggregator site
which ties together research from many journals. You're right that not
everything in pubmed is going to be true, but your false positive rate
is going to be orders of magnitude less than random websites off the
net, simply because these people have to get papers reviewed, their
research has to hold up to scientific scrutiny, and therefore the
quality is higher.

Im sure the reason bryan quotes pubmed is because any average conspiracy
nut with an internet connection can access and search it.



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


The above study proves my point that depending on pubmed leaves no room
for logical thinking. Let's look at a piece of this link:

"Simian virus 40 (SV40) has been detected in different human tumours in
numerous laboratories. The detection of SV40 in human tumours has been
linked to the administration of SV40-contaminated polio vaccines from
1954 until 1963. Many of these reports linked SV40 to human
mesothelioma. Some studies have failed to detect SV40 in human tumours
and this has caused a controversy."

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? According to
this link:

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.

you're being quite shortsighted here. Mesothelioma no doubt has many
origins, suggesting that there are only two is basically dumb.


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


You should really try reading your citations before posting them. The
last 3 lines of the above study say the following:
"The analysis of specific cancer sites is largely inconclusive because
of substantial problems that most studies have had in reliably defining
exposure, defining latency effects, or dealing with confounding and
other biases. A new generation of molecular epidemiologic studies is
necessary to properly address these issues."

In other words, the studies used in the meta-analysis need work.
Enough said.



or translated again, the work isn't easy. Hence why they call it research.




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


Are you posting the above study to support your position? Seriously?
It does the exact opposite! Let's take a look at some key sentences
from it:

"G Klein and C Croce, who chaired the final panel that reviewed all the
published evidence linking SV40 to human tumors, stated that 'the
presence of SV40 in human tumors has been convincingly demonstrated'
(Klein et al., 2002). In addition, a workshop organized by the
Biological Carcinogenesis Branch of the National Cancer Institute,
Bethesda, MD, chaired by J Pagano, has reached similar conclusions
(Wong et al., 2002). Therefore, three independent scientific panels
have all agreed that there is compelling evidence that SV40 is present
in some human cancers and that SV40 could contribute to the
pathogenesis of some of them."

Of course the next sentence says this:
"It should be noted that the presence of SV40 in mesothelioma and other
human tumor types has been challenged by a research team that has
consistently reported negative findings (Strickler et al., 2001)."

Well DUH! We're not trying to implicate SV40 in ALL cancer cases.
That would just be stupid. It then goes on to say this:

"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.


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


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 are describing a condition known as leaky gut. For someone who
preaches down to me about the basics of anatomy, you don't seem to know
your stuff very well, nor do you support it well.

http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddise...seintolerance/
"Normally, when lactose reaches the digestive system, the lactase
enzyme breaks it down into glucose and galactose. The liver then
changes the galactose into glucose, which enters the bloodstream and
raises the person's blood glucose level. If, however, lactose is
incompletely broken down, the blood glucose level does not rise and a
diagnosis of lactose intolerance is confirmed."


You're so not even wrong, but what you've just posted there is well...
completely irrelevant.


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.


See above.

as stated, not even wrong. but certainly not right.
vaccines are usually adjuvant, osmotic balancers, protein (antigen).
This is quite different. IT would be like saying I wouldn't be able to
inject amino acids, and simple sugars.



You need to read on what adjuvents do.


You need to not assume so much. Your preachy attitude isn't going to
win over any fans. You forget one of the groups you're posting to is
an alternative health group.

It's also not very reassuring that you didn't even spell adjuvant
correctly. For those wishing to know:

ad·ju·vant Audio pronunciation of "adjuvants" ( P ) Pronunciation
Key (j-vnt) n.
1. A pharmacological agent added to a drug to increase or aid its
effect.
2. An immunological agent that increases the antigenic response.

I'm never one to call out typos, since Lord knows I make my fair share,
but this one seems fairly important to me, since you claim to be "in
the business." It's not like the "a" and "e" keys are right next to
each other.

Just because you can quote the definition doesn't mean you understand it.




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. 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.


Ok, sure, but now tell me how you solve lupus and MS by diet alone?
If an immunologist can provide a tool to help lazy, fat people why
shouldn't they? It's like arguing that we shouldn't need antibiotics,
because smart people never cut and get infections.

Or that lung transplants shouldn't be given to smokers, even if the
lungs are available. Why don't we all take a leap back to the stone age
when the age of 40 is considered to be maximal. I'd be fascinated to
hear more of your luddite philosophy.



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.


And you accuse me of preaching death and destruction. Since 1979, the
only cases of polio in the US have been CAUSED by the vaccine (except
for the 6 or so that were flown in.) Would you care to share with
everyone the death rates in the past 100 years in the US from measles
and mumps? Because I have already, and it's clear that the death rates
were already WAY down, if not non-existant, BEFORE the vaccines were
introduced.

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs...rint_list_item

Feel free to look at the rest of the graphs on the site:
http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php


Although many children didn't die from mumps measles polio or hepatitis,
There are often far more expensive conditions which arise. The cost of
vaccinating hundreds of people doesn't even come close to the cost of
hepatitis and liver transplantation for one person.

Then theres the whole sterility thing. If I became sterile because my
parents didn't believe in vaccination, I'd probably take them to court
if I lived in the USA.

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.


Perhaps, rather than just giving us your opinion, you could point us to
some long term studies proving the safety of receiving the number of
vaccines our children currently receive. What? There aren't any?
No kidding?

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... and if it has anything to do with the
suggested carcinogenic effect. Of couse, that would probably only
apply to it being ingested, not injected.

Your point here?


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 the people who know about vaccination point out that the benefits
outweigh the risks on many levels. Sure there is the individual
suffering, but when a virus sweeps a population, other things happen,
services break down, life as we know it gets chaotic. The predicitions
for the next flu pandemic are not encouraging, neither are the
historical records of the past few.

Due to globalisation, north america is no longer feeding itself, what
happens when the supply chain breaks down? Now instead of the risks
presented by vaccines, which are noted to be small, you get seriously
damaging situations. It's like insurance.



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.


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 (maybe *especially* them) since
they have to be paid by someone. I am also willing to consider
anecdotal evidence to try to get another side of the story... any story
That does not mean that I automatically go with anecdotal evidence. I
weigh it with what I know and what "science" has to say about it and
come to my own logical conclusions. Of course, they may only be
logical to me, but that's all I'm concerned about. My choices are the
only ones I have to live with.

The difference is that scientists often have the tools and methodologies
to make informed choices, whereas websites can be set up for free by any
kook with access to a library card.

You may also want to rethink using anecdotal evidence as a primary
source. If you want to use anecdotes, use them in the context of
statistics.

Indeed you have to live with your choices, but I strongly recommend that
if you have children you should immunize them, especially if you live in
the states, cause like I said, if I became sterile thanks to an
irrational parent, I would sue their retirement out of them.




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

Because, once again, I get the impression you didn't read your own
link. In a link you posted below, I read:
"Alcohol dehydrogenase provides a line of defense against a common
toxin in our environment. But this protection carries with it some
dangers. Alcohol dehydrogenase also modifies other alcohols, often
producing dangerous products. For instance, methanol, which is commonly
used to "denature" ethanol rendering it undrinkable, is converted into
formaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase. The formaldehyde then does the
damage, attacking proteins and embalming them. Small amounts of
methanol cause blindness, as the sensitive proteins in the retina are
attacked, and larger amounts, perhaps a glassful, lead to widespread
damage and death."

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?

Regardless of the specifics, Bryans point is that the amount of
formaldehayde present in a vaccine is of such a low level, that you
won't end up suffering embalmation of proteins to a dangerous level.


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

http://www.nontoxic.com/nontoxic/formaldehyde.html

which said: "Formaldehyde that enters the blood stream can produce
effects similar to drinking too much alcohol. Animal studies have shown
increased nasal cancers in rats and mice who inhaled high levels of
formaldehyde for a long time. Because of this, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency has classified formaldehyde as a
probable human carcinogen (cancer causing agent). This means there is
enough evidence that formaldehyde causes cancer in animals, but not
enough evidence that it causes cancer in humans. Human studies are
inconclusive because it is not known whether observed increases in
cancer are due to formaldehyde exposure or to other factors, such as
smoking."


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. What you're really doing is showing your
arrogance to every reader of this thread. You'd be better served in
the future to not assume so much.


He's not demeaning you, or showing arrogance, just pointing out that
basic education is required for the arguments you're trying to make.



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


Which didn't support you at all. Try reading your links first.


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.


Heh... you haven't read a single post I've ever made, have you? I can
tell, because if you had, you'd know that I don't rely on conspiracy
pages to support my choices. I have children that depend on my
decisions. I would never trust their lives to conspiracy pages. So,
care to try again?

Funny, I was pretty sure that around half of the links quoted went
directly to conspiracy pages. Like I mentioned earlier when it comes to
your kids, you might want to err on the side of caution, and retaining
your retirement funds.




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.


I'll let YOU bathe in it. Get back to me with the results. The MDSD
specifically stated that the effects are cumulative.


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. The people dealing with children already harmed by
thimerosal will be more interested in past literature.


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.

How is quoting an MSDS making up BS?



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.


How about an entire book, supported by research that was published at
the time? The book is titled "Diet Prevents Polio" by Dr Benjamin P
Sandler, MD.

In the late 1940's, the most common lab animal (possibly the only
animal) they could get the polio virus to take hold in was a monkey.
Rabbits had been tested, but polio would not take hold in them. Dr.
Sandler began to suspect that a huge drop in blood sugar may be key in
contracting polio. To test this theory, he took rabbits that were, to
that point, immune to polio. He noted that their blood sugar levels
never fell to the levels seen in humans. He injected them with large
amounts of insulin and waited for the blood sugar levels to reach their
lowest points. Then he injected them with polio and the rabbits showed
polio symptoms within 8 hours. It had never been seen in rabbits
before.

Dr. Sandler mentions which publications his findings were published in,
but I don't recall. It's in his book. Feel free to look it up.


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.


He is. I play guitar with him on Saturday nights. He can't move his
hips the way he used to, but he can still jam.

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.

Except for the ones that become sterile or disfigured.


Don't bother pulling out your scare monger flags about shingles and
sterility unless you're willing to provide numbers along with them...
AND show the diets of children who became sterile. I've already
researched the numbers.

Then you ought to show why doctors are wrong about the complications if
you've done such thorough research.... or wait wait wait, let me guess
it comes from an anti vaccine webpage and you didn't want to quote it.


Max.

"Mike McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Max C. wrote:
Well, Mike, I read about half way through your post and didn't see a
single source to support any of your ill-conceived opinions. I scanned
through the rest of it thinking you'd at least bother to post SOMETHING
to support yourself, but no, you didn't. So, I feel no need to dignify
your politically correct BS with specific responses. Until you take
the time to support your statements instead of just spewing your
opinion all over my screen, you're just another drug pusher to me.

Back up your statements with verifiable facts and we'll pick this up in
the future. Until then, buh bye.

Max.


I specifically refer you to the use of anecdotal evidence as sufficient
for your beliefs. Therefore there is no point in backing up anything with
any reference. Especially since you lack the ability to interpret them
anyways. People who use quotes around science like it's a joke don't
deserve the benefits. I encourage you to never take antibiotics again
because clearly they don't actually work, and healthy people never get
infections.


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 (maybe *especially* them) since
they have to be paid by someone. I am also willing to consider
anecdotal evidence to try to get another side of the story... any story
That does not mean that I automatically go with anecdotal evidence. I
weigh it with what I know and what "science" has to say about it and
come to my own logical conclusions. Of course, they may only be
logical to me, but that's all I'm concerned about. My choices are the
only ones I have to live with.



As for my politically correct BS, the onus is on you to present how much
harm is being avoided by not taking vaccines relative to how much harm is
being avoided by taking vaccines. You will need to read up on the
epidemiology and herd immunity concepts to answer that one.

Until you can present data that supports your view, you are arguing from
the losing side. Vaccination works, bottome line. Is avoiding disease more
adaptive than suffering with them? I suppose it all depends on your value
system.


lol.... but...Mike has a reason NOT to back up anything he or Bryan stated.

"Max C." wrote:

Well, Mike, I read about half way through your post and didn't see a
single source to support any of your ill-conceived opinions. I scanned
through the rest of it thinking you'd at least bother to post SOMETHING
to support yourself, but no, you didn't. So, I feel no need to dignify
your politically correct BS with specific responses. Until you take
the time to support your statements instead of just spewing your
opinion all over my screen, you're just another drug pusher to me.

Back up your statements with verifiable facts and we'll pick this up in
the future. Until then, buh bye.

Max.

And yet again Max runs away with his tail firmly between the cheeks of
his well-spanked arse.

Hey, Max, tell us again how using Google is "the lazy man's way" to
find stuff and you can do better.

While you are at it you might like to explain why the Nobel committee
have been publishing Nobel lectures since 1901 when "it doesn't make
sense" that such lectures exist.


Mike McWilliams wrote:
Max C. wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:

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).


But that's not what you said. You said "So listing them as ingredients
is an out-and-out lie." So either those that list them as ingredients
are lying or they're not. You can't have it both ways. Right from the
start of your post you're losing credibility by being so absolute. It
took me all of 20 seconds to find CDC literature to dispute your
statement.


The fact is they aren't ingredients anymore than bread makers should
list selenium or other trace elements. The fact is they don't have to
list trace elements, and shouldn't because it's simply not important.



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.

Hmm, theres plenty of ways. Dialysis to change buffers, molecular weight
cutoff filters. Take your pick. Protein purification is a collection of
well established methods, plenty of which can be used to remove
contaminants.




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.
Let me look again: No, I just looked and saw this "you'll find that
gelatin, egg protein, mouse serum protein (ick!), lactose, sorbitol and
yeast protein are listed." Maybe you're thinking of someone else.

Maybe he's thinking about the website you linked to which includes
ingredients used during the process, and not solely in the final
product. I went to that website you listed as "proof".



Also, what does it matter? None of those components are toxic to
people;


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

Everyone takes anaphylaxis seriously. Kids can't take peanut butter
sandwiches to school in many places anymore. Whats your point? There is
a risk to getting a vaccine. It's not going to go away. It's the
potential benefit that outweighs this consideration.


http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/110/6/e71
"Conclusion. Anaphylactic reactions to MMR in the United States are
rare. The reporting rate has the same order of magnitude as estimates
from other countries. Almost one fourth of patients with reported
anaphylaxis after MMR seem to have hypersensitivity to gelatin in the
vaccine. They may be at higher risk of developing anaphylaxis to
subsequent doses of other gelatin-containing vaccines. These people
should seek an allergy evaluation before such immunization."

Now, given the conclusion, and given that no one could possibly know if
an infant is one of these rare people, wouldn't it be prudent to test
for gelatin sensitivity before blindly giving vaccines to a new born?
Yes? Then why isn't it done?

The blame doesn't rest on the vaccine, nor does the responsisbility rest
on vaccine makers, but on physicians. You need to identify your targets
with more discretion.



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.
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.

This passage shows the shallowness of your understanding of vaccines.
You have to inject unmodified protein directy into the bloodstream for
the proper immunological response to occur. Period. Purified simple
polysaccharides are not a problem as indicated by Bryan earlier.

As for those trace ingredients, too bad, thats part of the vaccine
risk/benefit calculation. Read it and weep.




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!


Your arrogance just spilled out all over my keyboard. Your above
statement will serve this debate well. You seem to think that the
vaccine manufacturers couldn't possibly make another mistake... that
some sort of contaminant couldn't possibly make it through the system.
Everyone reading this debate knows that accidents happen. Besides, the
point of my statement was to address your statement: "So complaining
about microbial components in your vaccines is rather stupid." My
point being that people infected with SV40 have every right to
complain.

Your complete disregard for the good vaccination does has spilled out
all over the keyboard. You're right, humans make mistakes, nothing is
perfect. People can't expect perfection, but they can expect the best
performance given the state of knowledge at the time. Indeed there will
be mistakes made with vaccines in the future, but arguing that just
because mistakes are made, that people shouldn't be vaccinated is
naieve. The benefits outweigh the risks.

Also for future reference, microbial components are often part of
adjuvants, bacterial LPS is known to elicit a stronger immune response.






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.


You seem to think pubmed is the end-all, be-all of information. 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. A good example would be the number of
conflicting studies (hundreds) posted on the effects of certain
artificial sweeteners. Be that as it may, I use it whenever possible
and have often cited it to support my position.

You don't know what you're talking about. Pubmed is an aggregator site
which ties together research from many journals. You're right that not
everything in pubmed is going to be true, but your false positive rate
is going to be orders of magnitude less than random websites off the
net, simply because these people have to get papers reviewed, their
research has to hold up to scientific scrutiny, and therefore the
quality is higher.

Im sure the reason bryan quotes pubmed is because any average conspiracy
nut with an internet connection can access and search it.



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


The above study proves my point that depending on pubmed leaves no room
for logical thinking. Let's look at a piece of this link:

"Simian virus 40 (SV40) has been detected in different human tumours in
numerous laboratories. The detection of SV40 in human tumours has been
linked to the administration of SV40-contaminated polio vaccines from
1954 until 1963. Many of these reports linked SV40 to human
mesothelioma. Some studies have failed to detect SV40 in human tumours
and this has caused a controversy."

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? According to
this link:

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.

you're being quite shortsighted here. Mesothelioma no doubt has many
origins, suggesting that there are only two is basically dumb.


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


You should really try reading your citations before posting them. The
last 3 lines of the above study say the following:
"The analysis of specific cancer sites is largely inconclusive because
of substantial problems that most studies have had in reliably defining
exposure, defining latency effects, or dealing with confounding and
other biases. A new generation of molecular epidemiologic studies is
necessary to properly address these issues."

In other words, the studies used in the meta-analysis need work.
Enough said.



or translated again, the work isn't easy. Hence why they call it research.




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


Are you posting the above study to support your position? Seriously?
It does the exact opposite! Let's take a look at some key sentences
from it:

"G Klein and C Croce, who chaired the final panel that reviewed all the
published evidence linking SV40 to human tumors, stated that 'the
presence of SV40 in human tumors has been convincingly demonstrated'
(Klein et al., 2002). In addition, a workshop organized by the
Biological Carcinogenesis Branch of the National Cancer Institute,
Bethesda, MD, chaired by J Pagano, has reached similar conclusions
(Wong et al., 2002). Therefore, three independent scientific panels
have all agreed that there is compelling evidence that SV40 is present
in some human cancers and that SV40 could contribute to the
pathogenesis of some of them."

Of course the next sentence says this:
"It should be noted that the presence of SV40 in mesothelioma and other
human tumor types has been challenged by a research team that has
consistently reported negative findings (Strickler et al., 2001)."

Well DUH! We're not trying to implicate SV40 in ALL cancer cases.
That would just be stupid. It then goes on to say this:

"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.


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


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 are describing a condition known as leaky gut. For someone who
preaches down to me about the basics of anatomy, you don't seem to know
your stuff very well, nor do you support it well.

http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddise...seintolerance/
"Normally, when lactose reaches the digestive system, the lactase
enzyme breaks it down into glucose and galactose. The liver then
changes the galactose into glucose, which enters the bloodstream and
raises the person's blood glucose level. If, however, lactose is
incompletely broken down, the blood glucose level does not rise and a
diagnosis of lactose intolerance is confirmed."


You're so not even wrong, but what you've just posted there is well...
completely irrelevant.


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.


See above.

as stated, not even wrong. but certainly not right.
vaccines are usually adjuvant, osmotic balancers, protein (antigen).
This is quite different. IT would be like saying I wouldn't be able to
inject amino acids, and simple sugars.



You need to read on what adjuvents do.


You need to not assume so much. Your preachy attitude isn't going to
win over any fans. You forget one of the groups you're posting to is
an alternative health group.

It's also not very reassuring that you didn't even spell adjuvant
correctly. For those wishing to know:

ad·ju·vant Audio pronunciation of "adjuvants" ( P ) Pronunciation
Key (j-vnt) n.
1. A pharmacological agent added to a drug to increase or aid its
effect.
2. An immunological agent that increases the antigenic response.

I'm never one to call out typos, since Lord knows I make my fair share,
but this one seems fairly important to me, since you claim to be "in
the business." It's not like the "a" and "e" keys are right next to
each other.

Just because you can quote the definition doesn't mean you understand it.




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. 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.


Ok, sure, but now tell me how you solve lupus and MS by diet alone?
If an immunologist can provide a tool to help lazy, fat people why
shouldn't they? It's like arguing that we shouldn't need antibiotics,
because smart people never cut and get infections.

Or that lung transplants shouldn't be given to smokers, even if the
lungs are available. Why don't we all take a leap back to the stone age
when the age of 40 is considered to be maximal. I'd be fascinated to
hear more of your luddite philosophy.



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.


And you accuse me of preaching death and destruction. Since 1979, the
only cases of polio in the US have been CAUSED by the vaccine (except
for the 6 or so that were flown in.) Would you care to share with
everyone the death rates in the past 100 years in the US from measles
and mumps? Because I have already, and it's clear that the death rates
were already WAY down, if not non-existant, BEFORE the vaccines were
introduced.

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs...rint_list_item

Feel free to look at the rest of the graphs on the site:
http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php


Although many children didn't die from mumps measles polio or hepatitis,
There are often far more expensive conditions which arise. The cost of
vaccinating hundreds of people doesn't even come close to the cost of
hepatitis and liver transplantation for one person.

Then theres the whole sterility thing. If I became sterile because my
parents didn't believe in vaccination, I'd probably take them to court
if I lived in the USA.

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.


Perhaps, rather than just giving us your opinion, you could point us to
some long term studies proving the safety of receiving the number of
vaccines our children currently receive. What? There aren't any?
No kidding?

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... and if it has anything to do with the
suggested carcinogenic effect. Of couse, that would probably only
apply to it being ingested, not injected.

Your point here?


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 the people who know about vaccination point out that the benefits
outweigh the risks on many levels. Sure there is the individual
suffering, but when a virus sweeps a population, other things happen,
services break down, life as we know it gets chaotic. The predicitions
for the next flu pandemic are not encouraging, neither are the
historical records of the past few.

Due to globalisation, north america is no longer feeding itself, what
happens when the supply chain breaks down? Now instead of the risks
presented by vaccines, which are noted to be small, you get seriously
damaging situations. It's like insurance.



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.


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 (maybe *especially* them) since
they have to be paid by someone. I am also willing to consider
anecdotal evidence to try to get another side of the story... any story
That does not mean that I automatically go with anecdotal evidence. I
weigh it with what I know and what "science" has to say about it and
come to my own logical conclusions. Of course, they may only be
logical to me, but that's all I'm concerned about. My choices are the
only ones I have to live with.

The difference is that scientists often have the tools and methodologies
to make informed choices, whereas websites can be set up for free by any
kook with access to a library card.

You may also want to rethink using anecdotal evidence as a primary
source. If you want to use anecdotes, use them in the context of statistics.

Indeed you have to live with your choices, but I strongly recommend that
if you have children you should immunize them, especially if you live in
the states, cause like I said, if I became sterile thanks to an
irrational parent, I would sue their retirement out of them.




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

Because, once again, I get the impression you didn't read your own
link. In a link you posted below, I read:
"Alcohol dehydrogenase provides a line of defense against a common
toxin in our environment. But this protection carries with it some
dangers. Alcohol dehydrogenase also modifies other alcohols, often
producing dangerous products. For instance, methanol, which is commonly
used to "denature" ethanol rendering it undrinkable, is converted into
formaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase. The formaldehyde then does the
damage, attacking proteins and embalming them. Small amounts of
methanol cause blindness, as the sensitive proteins in the retina are
attacked, and larger amounts, perhaps a glassful, lead to widespread
damage and death."

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?

Regardless of the specifics, Bryans point is that the amount of
formaldehayde present in a vaccine is of such a low level, that you
won't end up suffering embalmation of proteins to a dangerous level.


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

http://www.nontoxic.com/nontoxic/formaldehyde.html

which said: "Formaldehyde that enters the blood stream can produce
effects similar to drinking too much alcohol. Animal studies have shown
increased nasal cancers in rats and mice who inhaled high levels of
formaldehyde for a long time. Because of this, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency has classified formaldehyde as a
probable human carcinogen (cancer causing agent). This means there is
enough evidence that formaldehyde causes cancer in animals, but not
enough evidence that it causes cancer in humans. Human studies are
inconclusive because it is not known whether observed increases in
cancer are due to formaldehyde exposure or to other factors, such as
smoking."


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. What you're really doing is showing your
arrogance to every reader of this thread. You'd be better served in
the future to not assume so much.


He's not demeaning you, or showing arrogance, just pointing out that
basic education is required for the arguments you're trying to make.



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


Which didn't support you at all. Try reading your links first.


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.


Heh... you haven't read a single post I've ever made, have you? I can
tell, because if you had, you'd know that I don't rely on conspiracy
pages to support my choices. I have children that depend on my
decisions. I would never trust their lives to conspiracy pages. So,
care to try again?

Funny, I was pretty sure that around half of the links quoted went
directly to conspiracy pages. Like I mentioned earlier when it comes to
your kids, you might want to err on the side of caution, and retaining
your retirement funds.




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.


I'll let YOU bathe in it. Get back to me with the results. The MDSD
specifically stated that the effects are cumulative.


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. The people dealing with children already harmed by
thimerosal will be more interested in past literature.


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.

How is quoting an MSDS making up BS?



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.


How about an entire book, supported by research that was published at
the time? The book is titled "Diet Prevents Polio" by Dr Benjamin P
Sandler, MD.

In the late 1940's, the most common lab animal (possibly the only
animal) they could get the polio virus to take hold in was a monkey.
Rabbits had been tested, but polio would not take hold in them. Dr.
Sandler began to suspect that a huge drop in blood sugar may be key in
contracting polio. To test this theory, he took rabbits that were, to
that point, immune to polio. He noted that their blood sugar levels
never fell to the levels seen in humans. He injected them with large
amounts of insulin and waited for the blood sugar levels to reach their
lowest points. Then he injected them with polio and the rabbits showed
polio symptoms within 8 hours. It had never been seen in rabbits
before.

Dr. Sandler mentions which publications his findings were published in,
but I don't recall. It's in his book. Feel free to look it up.


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.


He is. I play guitar with him on Saturday nights. He can't move his
hips the way he used to, but he can still jam.

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.

Except for the ones that become sterile or disfigured.


Don't bother pulling out your scare monger flags about shingles and
sterility unless you're willing to provide numbers along with them...
AND show the diets of children who became sterile. I've already
researched the numbers.

Then you ought to show why doctors are wrong about the complications if
you've done such thorough research.... or wait wait wait, let me guess
it comes from an anti vaccine webpage and you didn't want to quote it.


Max.

--
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

"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.

Mike McWilliams wrote:
I specifically refer you to the use of anecdotal evidence as sufficient
for your beliefs. Therefore there is no point in backing up anything
with any reference. Especially since you lack the ability to interpret
them anyways. People who use quotes around science like it's a joke
don't deserve the benefits. I encourage you to never take antibiotics
again because clearly they don't actually work, and healthy people never
get infections.

Ah yes. I get this reply often. It's always from those too lazy to do
real research. It also helps me to point out to other readers in the
group those that are too lazy to read my entire posts. As anyone with
the ability to do a search can tell, I provide evidence for my
position... and rarely is it anecdotal. I said I use anecdotal
evidence to try to see things from every angle. *YOU* took that to
mean that I only use anecdotal evidence. Your inability to distinguish
between the two OR to validate any of your positions is all I need to
show future readers that you're just a wind bag with no substance. As
I have done in this thread, I always post data to support myself. You
do not. Like it or not, that's all I need to show others your opinion
is worthless. You can go on and on with BS like you just posted, but
in the end, it's STILL just your opinion, and as such, worthless.


As for my politically correct BS, the onus is on you to present how much
harm is being avoided by not taking vaccines relative to how much harm
is being avoided by taking vaccines. You will need to read up on the
epidemiology and herd immunity concepts to answer that one.

I've already done that numerous times in numerous threads... using data
from credible sources such as the CDC and the US Census Bureau. Since
you didn't even bother to make sure that wasn't the case before spewing
out the line of garbage above, I again rest my case knowing that future
readers will see you as nothing more than a blow hard.

Until you can present data that supports your view, you are arguing from
the losing side. Vaccination works, bottome line. Is avoiding disease
more adaptive than suffering with them? I suppose it all depends on your
value system.

It has nothing to do with a "value system" (whatever that is.) It has
to do with facts. Why don't you show everyone here the data that
proves smallpox was eradicated by vaccination. Just remember, before
you do, I've already provided ample, credible evidence to the contrary.
Make sure you brush up on my side of the story before shooting your
mouth off.

The earth is overpopulated, but methinks there is a more pleasant
solution than allowing our healthcare to slip into the state it was in
in the late 1800's.... perhaps condoms.

Can't happen. I've already provided tons of evidence showing that many
of the so-called vaccine preventable diseases were already well on
their way out LONG before vaccines were introduced. The most likely
reason is improved sanitation. Now, just to prevent you from taking
the usual "There's no way disease X was prevented by improved
sanitation" stand, please reread this paragraph, because I didn't say
"every disease."

You're predictable. I've debated your kind before. You're too lazy to
do your own research so you take a position that makes you think you
don't HAVE to do research. Suffice it to say, in every case, other
readers have always seen people like you for what you are... a
bigheaded, lazy know-it-all.

Buh bye.
Max.

"Max C." wrote in message
ps.com...


Can't happen. I've already provided tons of evidence showing that many
of the so-called vaccine preventable diseases were already well on
their way out LONG before vaccines were introduced.

Bull****. The only related evidence that you or anyone else has posted here
is statistical evidence that the DEATH rate from some of the
vaccine-preventable diseases declined in the years before the introductions
of vaccines. This is attributable to better medical treatment of children
with those diseases, and, to some extent, to the normal wide variation in
death rates going back many years. That a long way from "well on their way
out."


The most likely
reason is improved sanitation. Now, just to prevent you from taking
the usual "There's no way disease X was prevented by improved
sanitation" stand, please reread this paragraph, because I didn't say
"every disease."

One of the diseases that John "Whaleto" likes to trumpet as declining before
vaccination is polio. The paralytic polio epidemic in the U.S. has been
shown to have actually been CAUSED by improved sanitation.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Rich wrote:

One of the diseases that John "Whaleto" likes to trumpet as declining before
vaccination is polio. The paralytic polio epidemic in the U.S. has been
shown to have actually been CAUSED by improved sanitation.

Recommended: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/polio.pdf

"flesh-eating dragon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Rich wrote:

One of the diseases that John "Whaleto" likes to trumpet as declining
before
vaccination is polio. The paralytic polio epidemic in the U.S. has been
shown to have actually been CAUSED by improved sanitation.

Recommended: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/polio.pdf


That's great! Kind of a "Classics Illustrated" of the history of infectious
disease.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

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:

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