On edge, typing on my phone, but that last post was pretty good and I will address it when I am back on a computer. Thanks for your input.
Magick: your very last thing is a key point and the very genesis of this thread. The “where’s the evidence” question. There is absolutely no CREDIBLE evidence of harm from vaccines. When asked “where’s the evidence” the response is typically something like this survey from vaccineinjury.info or something of that nature.
After the original (falsified data!) autism paper, TONS of research was done to investigate potential harms of vaccines. They’re the most heavy regulated, most studied medications ever. I’m not at a computer now so it’s hard to link the studies. I’ll try to summarize them another time.
Recently, the anti-vaccine community put itself into a big furor over a supposed “whistleblower” from the CDC. That guy did his analysis wrong - like WAY wrong (something that the trained eye sees easily - first-year Biostat and Epi students could catch it - but something that can easily trick the unsuspecting public).
It would be the equivalent of a layperson walking into a chemistry lab, mixing a few random vials together, and telling you that he’d disproved the theory of relativity or something.
Several comprehensive takedown pieces were written. Of course, once someone has made their mind up about this, they usually don’t bother to read the takedown pieces or don’t believe them. I’ll try to cover this in more detail on Monday.
AG, did you hear back from your buddy on the chickenpox vaccine? Like I said, I am in no way an anti-vaxer but this one gave me pause for some reason, although I understand how it would be beneficial to some who are at risk for greater complications from chicken pox, I don’t know what to think about giving it to a healthy child who could develop the immunity naturally. Just something the wife and I have been really stuck on.
[quote]on edge wrote:
The first recommended vaccine on the CDC table is for HepB. It’s recommended at birth, one month and 12 months. It doesn’t contain mercury but it does contain aluminum. The average serum blood level of aluminum is 1-3 mcg/liter. One child dose of RecombivaxHB contains 250 mcg of aluminum! Remember, it’s recommended at birth and one month. At those ages a child probably doesn’t even have a half liter of blood.[/quote]
Actual blood levels are higher ~ 5mcg/L based on the studies I’ve read.
A newborn baby [u]already has[/u] a total body burden of aluminum ~380 mcg. It DOES NOT start from zero. The vast majority of this is in skeletal bone, which serves as a long term storage (multiple year) reservoir in both infants and adult humans as well as other species. It is exposed to aluminum in the womb, from the mother, for the duration of gestation. Breast milk also exposes the baby to aluminum. And so does baby formula (5 times that of breast milk on average). And soy formula. And water. And air.
Safe oral daily dose is considered 1mg/kg of bodyweight per ATSDR regulations. Human beings routinely ingest 10+ mg a day. Some study figures have daily dose at between 25-50mg/day although I used the lower ingestion figures in my previous post.
Injections do NOT result in instantaneous OR complete uptake of aluminum into the blood stream. The muscle is a barrier to entry, the aluminum is insoluble form and therefore deposited into the tissue where it is gradually solubilized over time by citrate counterions. It is then excreted in the urine or stored in bone.
I need not tell you that an infants bone mass radically and rapidly increases during the 1st 6 months from birth. I also need not tell you that ALL HUMANS EVERYWHERE, including the developing fetus, are exposed to aluminum and store it in their bone. This is NOT AVOIDABLE.
Following single injections, dermal irritation at site of injection is the ONLY adverse side published any of the literature.
Neurotoxicity is observed at high levels of aluminum load, yes. These are many many many fold higher than that observed in either infants or adults. Aluminum toxicity appears often in people with end stage kidney failure, and toxic loads are reported in animal studies (mice and rats). However there are multiple very significant differences to humans–the amount of injection, the long term injection vs. bolus single time, the species of aluminum (soluble) which is vastly different and more potent in animal studies, and not at all comparable to the salts used in vaccine, and route of injection (intraperitoneal).
Attached is a graph showing total body aluminum load over the first year of life from birth. Top line is the THEORETICAL maximum dose of 1mg/kg per safety limit for both average weight and vastly underweight babies. Below that in black is the load from vaccines + food + milk. Taken from Mitkus et al, 2011.
I do not know how else to tell you this has been extensively researched by parties very much different from “big pharma” with no conflicts of interest, then checked and rechecked by peer review and regulatory bodies.
I thought the thread was about the flu vaccine, which is absolute bullshit. Other vaccines I agree with, not however the flu vaccines.
[quote]streamline wrote:
I thought the thread was about the flu vaccine, which is absolute bullshit. Other vaccines I agree with, not however the flu vaccines.[/quote]
No, the thread was about vaccines as a whole.
[quote]streamline wrote:
I thought the thread was about the flu vaccine, which is absolute bullshit. [/quote]
Lets not get carried away. I don’t get the flu vaccine either, but absolute bullshit is a bit of an overstatement.
.
Also, those people with autoimmune diseases such as HIV, or those whose immune system is weakened from treatment for cancers or similar, are really at risk from the non vaxers.
“why should I have to vaccinate my kids?”
Because you could kill that guy over there who is fighting to beat cancer.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
AG, did you hear back from your buddy on the chickenpox vaccine? Like I said, I am in no way an anti-vaxer but this one gave me pause for some reason, although I understand how it would be beneficial to some who are at risk for greater complications from chicken pox, I don’t know what to think about giving it to a healthy child who could develop the immunity naturally. Just something the wife and I have been really stuck on. [/quote]
I’m afraid this is a “jury is still out” thing. While we have a full generation of people for whom the benefits of something like the polio vaccine is obvious (and the decreased incidence of polio would so drastically outweigh any consequences for an 80-something that it scarcely matters), we don’t have a full generation for whom the long term benefits of the chicken pox vaccine could be observed because, as noted, the real “benefit” to most people would really be “will I avoid shingles in later life” rather than “will I skip dealing with the stupid chicken pox for a few days.”
The current prevailing belief, summarized:
Chicken pox vaccines contain weakened live varicella virus. The vaccine strain of virus can reactivate later in life and cause shingles (as does the “real” virus; this is how elderly people get shingles nowadays). The CDC has officially stated that the risk of getting shingles in later-life from the vaccine strain virus is lower than the risk of getting shingles after natural infection with wild-type varicella virus.
FWIW, it is likely that we will see a TEMPORARY increase in shingles cases because the vaccine’s institution means fewer kids walking around with chicken pox, which means that adults aren’t getting that little natural boost in immunity from bumping into little kiddos with chicken pox (re-activating their own immune system’s antibodies against that strain of virus). Folks like me, who got the chicken pox the old fashioned way, are still walking around with the dormant varicella virus living in our nerve cells, and we get a little boost in immunity every time we come into contact with a kid carrying the real thing (sort of a natural booster shot). Since we don’t run into many of those kids any more, we don’t get that natural booster, and might have a little higher risk of shingles later on, although there is also a shingles vaccine that has been proven to reduce shingles prevalence in the elderly; it’s recommended around 60 years of age. This increase in shingles incidence will likely pass in a generation or two, once we’re at the point when most people got the vaccine as kids and thus are carrying the weakened vaccine strain of virus instead of the wild-type virus.
One more note in response to this particular comment:
“although I understand how it would be beneficial to some who are at risk for greater complications from chicken pox…”
To reframe this a bit, it’s not so much that those “at risk” will benefit from receiving vaccine themselves (in fact, they probably can’t even get the vaccine) as much as they’ll benefit from having most other children receiving the vaccine, because it will be far less likely that they will contact someone with the disease. There’s been something like a 90 percent decrease in chicken pox cases nationwide since the introduction of the vaccine. So now Little Larry Leukemia is a lot less likely to encounter someone with chicken pox as long as most kids are vaccinated, and even though he can’t get the vaccine himself, he probably won’t get chicken pox. He would have been at much higher risk if there were still 4 million kids/year walking around with chicken pox instead of a few hundred thousand.
So if any of your kids’ friends suffer from serious diseases, I would definitely recommend it.
Take all of the above for what it’s worth. I’m not a virologist or biologist.
Ah, now we’re in Aragorn’s wheelhouse. Well done, sir.
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
Ah, now we’re in Aragorn’s wheelhouse. Well done, sir.
[/quote]
Thank you sir. I found my lost patience (I think). All I needed was a break from the 70 hr work week and a fair amount of weekend scotch :).
For what it’s worth, I think you’ve put together a much better case than I have so far with my rants. Also I highly recommend the study by Mitkus that I pulled the figure from in my last post. It is very well done. Obviously one would always like to see even more robust analysis, so more studies always = better, but I can’t think of a stone that they left unturned within their study scope and I consider it very thorough.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
So you think we’d all be better off without ever inventing or using the smallpox vaccine? I haven’t seen anyone in here argue that a flu shot is a lock or that it should be mandatory.
[/quote]
I never said they didn’t sometimes work. I just said they are not necessary.
The funny thing is that they don’t necessarily work and inoculated people still get sick and still spread diseases.
People put too much faith it them.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t agree with either the science behind vaccines
[/quote]
Based off of what?[/quote]
It’s not a good idea to try to mimic the body’s immunological response to disease with toxic chemicals.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t agree with either the science behind vaccines
[/quote]
Based off of what?[/quote]
That it is a good idea to try to mimic the body’s immunological response to disease with toxic chemicals.[/quote]
Any studies to back up your “hunch”?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t agree with either the science behind vaccines
[/quote]
Based off of what?[/quote]
That it is a good idea to try to mimic the body’s immunological response to disease with toxic chemicals.[/quote]
Any studies to back up your “hunch”?[/quote]
Not so much studies that demonstrate what I say but argument’s against studies that have been misrepresented by public health officials to make vaccines seem more safe and effective than they actually are.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Not so much studies that demonstrate what I say but argument’s against studies that have been misrepresented by public health officials to make vaccines seem more safe and effective than they actually are.[/quote]
How many people die from Small Pox in the last 35 years in America?
How many kids got Polio since, say, 1985?
And how many have died from Vaccines?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t agree with either the science behind vaccines
[/quote]
Based off of what?[/quote]
That it is a good idea to try to mimic the body’s immunological response to disease with toxic chemicals.[/quote]
Any studies to back up your “hunch”?[/quote]
Not so much studies that demonstrate what I say but argument’s against studies that have been misrepresented by public health officials to make vaccines seem more safe and effective than they actually are.[/quote]
Tell me another health issue that 99.99% of doctors agree on?
Besides cancer is bad.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Not so much studies that demonstrate what I say but argument’s against studies that have been misrepresented by public health officials to make vaccines seem more safe and effective than they actually are.[/quote]
How many people die from Small Pox in the last 35 years in America?
How many kids got Polio since, say, 1985?
And how many have died from Vaccines?[/quote]
Is lack of death your only criteria for something being “good” for us?
Wow.
Anyway, people still get sick, live lives that could have been better, and still die. Since 1988 over 15,000 people have filed claims for vaccine related injury/death and have had $2.6 billion in total compensation from US government paid to them. It’s hard to find sources that are not biased one way or anther.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html
I’ll go with the low probability of actually getting sick than worrying about vaccine statistics.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Not so much studies that demonstrate what I say but argument’s against studies that have been misrepresented by public health officials to make vaccines seem more safe and effective than they actually are.[/quote]
Tell me another health issue that 99.99% of doctors agree on?
Besides cancer is bad.[/quote]
Which is the whole point of publication. The problem lies mostly with who is funding and carrying out the studies.