Vaccinate Your Children!

kbd512 · 2019-03-06 09:49:51

Louis,

The various governments of the world study vaccines extensively and they're funded by tax dollars, not donations from private companies or individuals. That's why it takes over ten years to get any new pharmaceutical product approved through the FDA. It's a very rigorous and methodical process. In contrast, licenses to manufacture and administer products can be withdrawn without so much as a court order.

louis · 2019-03-06 13:15:22

Addition of mercury was approved by that process...now it's not, thanks to - well, the same process.

It's not really something to fill you with confidence.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
The various governments of the world study vaccines extensively and they're funded by tax dollars, not donations from private companies or individuals. That's why it takes over ten years to get any new pharmaceutical product approved through the FDA. It's a very rigorous and methodical process. In contrast, licenses to manufacture and administer products can be withdrawn without so much as a court order.

GW Johnson · 2019-03-06 13:21:15

With reference to Louis's post #40: yes, there seems to be a lot more autism of late. No, vaccines almost certainly did not cause it. That leaves something in the environment or the lifestyle (or both) that cause this, allowing for the increased reporting, which really is a real effect, but not the whole story.

Lifestyle may play some role, but the point is we do not know. If there is a link, it might have something to do with not getting outside and dirty as a child, which stimulates the immune system. How that might relate, no one yet knows.

More likely is an unsuspected contaminant in the environment. There are many of those, which we put there, and which very few have been investigated. A good bet is that one or more of those may play a role in autism, and several other health problems, including Alzheimer's, and many more.

Nobody yet knows. "You places your bet, and you takes your chances", in the research.

The discredited vaccine-autism link is nothing but a conspiracy theory that plays on people's fears. It is popular precisely because it plays on people's fears. What research there is shows people forward falsehoods a lot more readily than they forward truth.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-03-06 13:23:00)

louis · 2019-03-06 16:21:02

Take a look at 23:00 on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0Cy3xi62m0

I don't really see how you can (a) entertain the hypothesis that not getting dirty and so not exercising the immune system can damage health but (b) reject out of hand the hypothesis that avoiding the evolved exercise of the immune system (evolved over tens of thousands of years, maybe longer) through vaccination has no effect.

It seems there is a difference between the vaccination response (TH2) and the response to childhood infection (TH1).

This is very good, quoting a study of the impact of DTP vaccine in Africa...led to hugely increase mortality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJh3TiCFJH4

GW Johnson wrote:

With reference to Louis's post #40: yes, there seems to be a lot more autism of late. No, vaccines almost certainly did not cause it. That leaves something in the environment or the lifestyle (or both) that cause this, allowing for the increased reporting, which really is a real effect, but not the whole story.
Lifestyle may play some role, but the point is we do not know. If there is a link, it might have something to do with not getting outside and dirty as a child, which stimulates the immune system. How that might relate, no one yet knows.
More likely is an unsuspected contaminant in the environment. There are many of those, which we put there, and which very few have been investigated. A good bet is that one or more of those may play a role in autism, and several other health problems, including Alzheimer's, and many more.
Nobody yet knows. "You places your bet, and you takes your chances", in the research.
The discredited vaccine-autism link is nothing but a conspiracy theory that plays on people's fears. It is popular precisely because it plays on people's fears. What research there is shows people forward falsehoods a lot more readily than they forward truth.
GW

Last edited by louis (2019-03-06 16:55:55)

GW Johnson · 2019-03-06 22:17:18

Louis, I get my data from the refereed science journals, not videos off youtube. There is a rather marked gap in credibility between the two.

GW

louis · 2019-03-07 03:54:47

Fair enough, if you don't want to consider the matter yourself, but you should at least query why you trust these scientific experts completely if these same experts have approved various vaccines as safe which have then, subsequently, had to be withdrawn from the market because of verified safety concerns.

I would also say that when you have data involving millions it can be very difficult to determine cause and effect. We are currently having a debate in the UK about rising knife crime and its causes. This is in many ways similar to the vaccine debate. You have a base population of millions (young/youngish people say aged say 11-30). Out of those millions a proportion carry knives. Of those a proportion are prepared to, or do, inflict injury on others. And of those a proportion kill or seriously maim other individuals. You then have a mass of potential causal pathways. What you see clearly is that people of a liberal-left orientation tend to emphasise socio-economic factors such as poverty, lack of employment opportunities, and failing social provision (education and youth clubs). On the other hand you have people on the right-conservative side of the debate who emphasise family breakdown, the drug trade, soft policing and so on. Academics analyse the problem in peer-reviewed papers.

Its like being in a vast forest and trying to identify the forest path (or paths, plural) that connects A and B (or, alternatively, establishing that no path connects A to B), when there are thousands of paths going in all directions.

GW Johnson wrote:

Louis, I get my data from the refereed science journals, not videos off youtube. There is a rather marked gap in credibility between the two.
GW

kbd512 · 2019-03-07 10:25:25

Louis,

I have children of my own. Therefore, this is not an academic proposition to me. I do not wish to live in a world without my children, so I try to protect them to the extent that I have the power to do so. Part of the protection I attempt to provide includes vaccination against diseases. I would hope that other parents seriously consider the very real and potentially devastating consequences of failing to vaccinate their children. The results of doing nothing and hoping for the best can be debilitating at best and, sadly, lethal in some cases.

You seem to want a degree of certitude that simply doesn't exist within the medical profession, nor life in general. There is a reason medicine is called a practice. No amount of evidence could ever prove that vaccinations will never have any adverse health effects. All medical scientists can do is look at the available evidence and use their experience and good judgement. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have a "Rosetta Stone" to explain the intricacies of how human physiology works. If we did, then nobody would ever die of disease unless by choice.

The only thing I "trust" is that the entire body of evidence shows no causal link between vaccination and autism, despite numerous and repeated studies conducted around the world that have attempted to establish a link between the two. I also "trust" that if our only "tool" in our tool belt to defend against crippling or lethal childhood diseases is vaccination, then that's the tool for the job when it comes to protecting our children from these diseases. We can't reverse the health effects associated with Polio, for example. I wish we could, but as of yet medical science can't do that.

Furthermore, there is infinitely more money to be made by the pharmaceutical companies, and the medical profession as a whole, from treating diseases than there is from preventing them from ever happening to begin with. If vaccination efforts were a vast conspiracy to suppress evidence of the detrimental health effects associated with vaccination campaigns in order to make money off of vaccines, then it is indeed a very strange way to maximize profits and almost certain to result in financial ruin when the lawyers become involved.

I can't speak to the political or other motivations of liberals, if any, when it comes to vaccinations. As someone who quite plainly holds conservative viewpoints and makes no bones about it, I can relay my own conservative viewpoint on this matter. I didn't arrive at this decision based upon my politics. This decision was cold, hard, and unyielding logic. No amount of political ideology would make me change my mind about this. If the conservatives decided that vaccinations were against party rules, then I'd no longer be part of the party. So, here it comes. My logic for why it is that vaccinations are so necessary... Children will (not can, not might) die or be seriously maimed from otherwise preventable diseases if they are not vaccinated against those diseases. As a conservative, I judge permitting needless death and maiming of children from entirely preventable diseases as immoral and unjust. By extension, any person, institution of religion, institution of government, or other group that permits needless death and maiming of children is immoral and unjust.

Despite the fact that I'm an atheist, I do believe in the concepts of morality and justice. Perhaps that's an article of faith, no different from the various other religions I give no deference to, but there it is. Make of that whatever you will.

louis · 2019-03-07 11:00:45

Well I am partly motivated by the recollection of how a child of mine suffered a very high temperature, uncontrollable crying and a brief convulsive reaction a day or two after receiving the MMR vaccine. That's enough to convince me that other children could have even more serious reactions.

You say: "I would hope that other parents seriously consider the very real and potentially devastating consequences of failing to vaccinate their children. "

This is what you are told by the vaccine industry, that there would be devastating consequences. But in the pre-vaccine era mortality rates were already hugely reduced thanks to good sanitation, nutrition and housing. To that we could now add hugely improved medical intervention and intensive care compared with the 1950s.

There is no doubt vaccines do damage children because both government and companies have paid out compensation for such damage and there are a number of well established cases of specific vaccine damage.

So all you are talking about is the balance of risk. You choose to accept the assurances of the people who profit from vaccination. I don't think parents who choose otherwise can be criticised - seems a very rational choice to me.

I was interested about what was said in one of the videos about how government agencies refuse to compare directly the health of vaccinated children and unvaccinated children. Why?

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
I have children of my own. Therefore, this is not an academic proposition to me. I do not wish to live in a world without my children, so I try to protect them to the extent that I have the power to do so. Part of the protection I attempt to provide includes vaccination against diseases. I would hope that other parents seriously consider the very real and potentially devastating consequences of failing to vaccinate their children. The results of doing nothing and hoping for the best can be debilitating at best and, sadly, lethal in some cases.
You seem to want a degree of certitude that simply doesn't exist within the medical profession, nor life in general. There is a reason medicine is called a practice. No amount of evidence could ever prove that vaccinations will never have any adverse health effects. All medical scientists can do is look at the available evidence and use their experience and good judgement. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have a "Rosetta Stone" to explain the intricacies of how human physiology works. If we did, then nobody would ever die of disease unless by choice.
The only thing I "trust" is that the entire body of evidence shows no causal link between vaccination and autism, despite numerous and repeated studies conducted around the world that have attempted to establish a link between the two. I also "trust" that if our only "tool" in our tool belt to defend against crippling or lethal childhood diseases is vaccination, then that's the tool for the job when it comes to protecting our children from these diseases. We can't reverse the health effects associated with Polio, for example. I wish we could, but as of yet medical science can't do that.
Furthermore, there is infinitely more money to be made by the pharmaceutical companies, and the medical profession as a whole, from treating diseases than there is from preventing them from ever happening to begin with. If vaccination efforts were a vast conspiracy to suppress evidence of the detrimental health effects associated with vaccination campaigns in order to make money off of vaccines, then it is indeed a very strange way to maximize profits and almost certain to result in financial ruin when the lawyers become involved.
I can't speak to the political or other motivations of liberals, if any, when it comes to vaccinations. As someone who quite plainly holds conservative viewpoints and makes no bones about it, I can relay my own conservative viewpoint on this matter. I didn't arrive at this decision based upon my politics. This decision was cold, hard, and unyielding logic. No amount of political ideology would make me change my mind about this. If the conservatives decided that vaccinations were against party rules, then I'd no longer be part of the party. So, here it comes. My logic for why it is that vaccinations are so necessary... Children will (not can, not might) die or be seriously maimed from otherwise preventable diseases if they are not vaccinated against those diseases. As a conservative, I judge permitting needless death and maiming of children from entirely preventable diseases as immoral and unjust. By extension, any person, institution of religion, institution of government, or other group that permits needless death and maiming of children is immoral and unjust.
Despite the fact that I'm an atheist, I do believe in the concepts of morality and justice. Perhaps that's an article of faith, no different from the various other religions I give no deference to, but there it is. Make of that whatever you will.

kbd512 · 2019-03-07 12:22:01

Louis,

If your child contracted Polio because you refused to have him or her vaccinated, your opinion would change overnight. Unfortunately, there'd be little that medicine could do about the consequences of that decision.

WHO says 550,100 people died from Measles in 2000 and 79,680 died in 2016. There were awards for 82 deaths and 1,176 injuries associated with all vaccines for which claims were filed with the federal government's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The 1989 to 1991 outbreak of Measles resulted in 123 deaths from 55,622 cases. That's more deaths from a single outbreak than deaths claimed under VICP. Then there were additional deaths later on from severe neurological damage associated with contracting Measles that resulted in subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). The end result is that they bury those children within 3 years, some much sooner than that.

Measles is kinda interesting in that even with the best healthcare systems in the world the death rate is still about 1 in 1,000 cases from the initial infection and then 1 in 1,700 to 1 in 3,300 from SSPE. Since we administer the MMR vaccine to many millions of children every year, it's pretty astonishing that there are so few deaths from MMR, yet such a predictable death rate associated with those who aren't protected.

Some people have died from being given saline solution. Not that many, all recipients considered, but it does happen. If not for saline solution, I posit that vastly greater numbers of people would've died from dehydration. Does that mean hospitals shouldn't administer saline solution to replace lost fluids? Should we stop giving saline to knife and gun club victims because some of them will die?

If this discussion devolves into the Ford Pinto part replacement paradigm regarding whether we should or shouldn't vaccinate, then the numbers of deaths from diseases vs vaccinations do not support your arguments. I see that you're still stuck on the profit motive, but many of the companies involved actually lose money on making the vaccinations. Are the seat belt manufacturers profiting off the sale of seat belts, knowing full well that the overwhelming majority of the time their products aren't necessary?

GW Johnson · 2019-03-07 12:28:38

Louis:

You cannot have it both ways. Either there is some vast conspiracy to foist unsafe medicines upon people, or there is not.

Sources not credible (because they are NOT QUALIFIED TO KNOW) say there is such a conspiracy, sources that are credible precisely because they are trained and practiced in the subject say there is not.

That credibility gap argues very strongly against your anti-vax beliefs. I wish you would get your medical information from real doctors and real researchers, and not off lying social media.

As for your child's symptoms, you zeroed in on one close-by event, an MMR vaccination. You did not apparently consider that (1) your child's symptoms might have been brought on by a disease no one noticed, (2) might have been a food allergy of some kind, (3) might have been an allergy to some environmental pollutant or factor, or (4) might have been a reaction to the egg in which the vaccine was made, not the vaccine itself.

I've already told you how the reaction-to-a-vaccine is usually held to the 1/100-thousand to 1/million rates by the procedures we here in the US use. There are exceptions, usually traceable to greed overwhelming ethics, as I already told you. THAT is what legal regulation is for, and what the persnickety development procedures are all about.

I can't speak as to vaccines developed outside the US, or vaccines deployed in Africa that are still experimental, and should not have been so used (except maybe in an emergency, expecting some bad outcomes).

All I can tell you is that I believe what real MD's say, and what I read in refereed science journals, and NOT some brainless celebrity shooting off their ignorant mouth on TV or youtube.

Choose your sources carefully and rationally. You'll make far better decisions that way. Analyze! Use reason!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-03-07 12:30:12)

louis · 2019-03-07 17:28:39

But who are the 1 in 1000 children dying from measles? Are they previously healthy children or are they children with leukemia or compromised immune systems following chemotherapy? Clearly in those cases vaccination will make far more sense. You have to realise health ministries and the media won't give you honest information about who is really at risk of death from measles.

You're just claiming, without knowing, there are no deaths from MMR and other vaccinations through the mechanisms described by vaccine sceptics: the compromised immune system resulting in infections that lead to death e.g. meningitis or through food allergy and asthma reactions. Until governments agree to undertake proper comparative scientific studies of the health outcomes of children who are vaccinated and those who are not, I won't really trust your conclusions.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
If your child contracted Polio because you refused to have him or her vaccinated, your opinion would change overnight. Unfortunately, there'd be little that medicine could do about the consequences of that decision.
WHO says 550,100 people died from Measles in 2000 and 79,680 died in 2016. There were awards for 82 deaths and 1,176 injuries associated with all vaccines for which claims were filed with the federal government's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The 1989 to 1991 outbreak of Measles resulted in 123 deaths from 55,622 cases. That's more deaths from a single outbreak than deaths claimed under VICP. Then there were additional deaths later on from severe neurological damage associated with contracting Measles that resulted in subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). The end result is that they bury those children within 3 years, some much sooner than that.
Measles is kinda interesting in that even with the best healthcare systems in the world the death rate is still about 1 in 1,000 cases from the initial infection and then 1 in 1,700 to 1 in 3,300 from SSPE. Since we administer the MMR vaccine to many millions of children every year, it's pretty astonishing that there are so few deaths from MMR, yet such a predictable death rate associated with those who aren't protected.
Some people have died from being given saline solution. Not that many, all recipients considered, but it does happen. If not for saline solution, I posit that vastly greater numbers of people would've died from dehydration. Does that mean hospitals shouldn't administer saline solution to replace lost fluids? Should we stop giving saline to knife and gun club victims because some of them will die?
If this discussion devolves into the Ford Pinto part replacement paradigm regarding whether we should or shouldn't vaccinate, then the numbers of deaths from diseases vs vaccinations do not support your arguments. I see that you're still stuck on the profit motive, but many of the companies involved actually lose money on making the vaccinations. Are the seat belt manufacturers profiting off the sale of seat belts, knowing full well that the overwhelming majority of the time their products aren't necessary?

kbd512 · 2019-03-07 19:25:42

Louis,

What on Earth are you talking about?

I NEVER claimed that kids with or without compromised immune systems were dying from these diseases. Statistically speaking, 1 in 1,000 people who contract Measles WILL DIE. What about that statement was unclear?

The death rate statement is a compilation of historical mortality data from Measles in the US. Unless you're rolling with the assertion (without evidence) that all of the kids who died had compromised immune systems, then the insights we can obtain from available historical data do not support such conclusions. Worldwide, there were not a half million people dying per year with compromised immune systems. At some point, logic has to take over and you must start attributing those deaths to that nasty little disease that leaves that rash all over those corpses.

Define what type of study would satisfy your standards for "proof" / "evidence" that a proper examination of mortality and causes or contributing causal factors was made. Our medical scientists have been studying mortality for many decades. They didn't invent vaccines because they were bored or lookin to make money. Jonas Salk never gave a damn about money.

louis · 2019-03-07 19:55:06

You framed this as a moral question for the parent of a child...

You referenced your own children. You presumably live in an advanced country with good sanitation, nutrition and housing.

My point is if your child is otherwise healthy, you have to take account of that.

The vast majority of measles deaths in an advanced country with good sanitation, nutrition and housing occur in children whose immune system is already severely compromised. In other words, there is virtually no risk of mortality to a healthy child. Obviously as I said before, if you were a parent of a child in a Nairobi slum you might take a different view.

We're talking about now, and clearly not referencing the health situation 50 or 100 years ago.

I'm asking for a study that simply looks at the health outcomes for vaccinated children and unvaccinated children and then examines the data in closer data - taking into account socioeconomic, ethnicity, gender, urban/rural and so on. But the most interesting thing would be to simply compare the general health outcomes. Because you are stating quite explicitly that if you don't vaccinate a child their health outcome will (on average) be worse. I very much doubt that - but it seems that the governmental and health agencies are keen NOT to make the comparison. Why?

Perhaps you should this paper I came across - might shake up your thinking:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5455042/

These kids (with severe immunocompromised systems) died from measles infection even though they had received measles vaccine 1-3 times before.

The government and health agencies then tout such deaths as evidence of a risk to normal, healthy children.

It's what used to be called a lie.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
What on Earth are you talking about?
I NEVER claimed that kids with or without compromised immune systems were dying from these diseases. Statistically speaking, 1 in 1,000 people who contract Measles WILL DIE. What about that statement was unclear?
The death rate statement is a compilation of historical mortality data from Measles in the US. Unless you're rolling with the assertion (without evidence) that all of the kids who died had compromised immune systems, then the insights we can obtain from available historical data do not support such conclusions. Worldwide, there were not a half million people dying per year with compromised immune systems. At some point, logic has to take over and you must start attributing those deaths to that nasty little disease that leaves that rash all over those corpses.
Define what type of study would satisfy your standards for "proof" / "evidence" that a proper examination of mortality and causes or contributing causal factors was made. Our medical scientists have been studying mortality for many decades. They didn't invent vaccines because they were bored or lookin to make money. Jonas Salk never gave a damn about money.

Last edited by louis (2019-03-07 20:04:17)

louis · 2019-03-07 20:02:24

[See above

Last edited by louis (2019-03-07 20:04:55)

kbd512 · 2019-03-07 21:39:34

Louis,

Maybe you will choose to justify what you've done based upon personal experience, but personal experience is not the same as general or normative experience. Normative experience often paints a very different picture of what kills.

Half a million people is a moderately-sized city in Texas. If we have that many kids with compromised immune systems, then they most definitely need to be vaccinated so that something like Measles doesn't rear its ugly head and add to the list of ailments that ultimately leads to their deaths. The kids who died in the study died from pneumonia or liver failure. That said, contracting Measles when they were already ill didn't help one bit.

If you feel justified in what you did, then good for you. In the grand scheme of things, vaccinations have saved millions of lives from horrible deaths and excruciating suffering. Flippantly dismissing what they've done for humanity on the basis of the very few bad experiences is irresponsible at best.

SpaceNut · 2019-03-12 21:08:23

MMR out break watch CDC: At least 228 measles cases in US this year

372 cases of measles were reported in all of 2018, which was the second highest annual total for cases of the disease in more than two decades

update on nations Italy makes children prove they are vaccinated

Under a new law in Italy, parents could be fined $560 if their children turn up at school and they cannot prove they have been vaccinated.

louis · 2019-03-13 17:56:51

Number of children with new diagnosis of autism in one year in USA - 69,000 (my calculation from incidence rates and child population). I'd be a lot more worried about that, together with food allergies, asthma and a host of other auto-immune conditions.

SpaceNut wrote:

MMR out break watch CDC: At least 228 measles cases in US this year
372 cases of measles were reported in all of 2018, which was the second highest annual total for cases of the disease in more than two decades
update on nations Italy makes children prove they are vaccinated
Under a new law in Italy, parents could be fined $560 if their children turn up at school and they cannot prove they have been vaccinated.

louis · 2019-03-13 19:23:45

People probably need to have a view of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeORYSHoRUc

This is the sort of discussion that is essentially being censored by our media, academia and governments.

[It's a long video - take a look from 15:40 where the Prof talks about his analysis of aluminium in the brain...]

Last edited by louis (2019-03-14 02:36:59)

SpaceNut · 2019-03-14 19:28:08

Here is how vacines fail over time as the bacteria finally over come them by changing.
Whooping cough vaccine less effective because the bacteria is mutating, study suggests

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed lab samples from patients with whooping cough between 2000 and 2013 and found Bordetella pertussis, which causes whooping cough, has gone through genetic changes over time.

So if bacteria can change genitically then so can the human body in which its may not have been for the good..

GW Johnson · 2019-03-14 19:35:27

I have said before that youtube videos totally lack credibility as accurate information sources, relative to the refereed science journals.

The anti-vaxxers base their arguments on non-credible sources, such as totally unpoliced youtube videos, and still make use of a long ago discredited and retracted science paper (the one and only that ever made claims that vaccines are not safe).

Sorry, Louis, your arguments are just not credible.

GW

louis · 2019-03-15 02:45:21

The video I linked to was an interview with a Professor Christopher Exley at Keele University in the UK, a professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry.

He is described in one of our serious newspapers (the Telegraph) as a "leading authority" on aluminium toxicity in humans. That seems to be a fair summation. He has been used as a expert witness in court cases.

He has published many scientific papers including prestigious journals like Nature Research. Here is a reference to a key one:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/natures- … 00159.html

I think it's you who are being unscientific by refusing to engage with his arguments and findings.

The key points he makes, as far as I can understand them, is that aluminium is highly toxic in concetrated form. Whilst the amount involved in a vaccination shot is small, it is in a very concentrated form. The body seeks to deal with the toxicity. The defence cells that the body uses to deal with the injury site (where the injection takes place) can also be called into action in the brain (ie crossing the usual blood-brain barrier) when there is a trauma or inflammation event. His hypothesis is that aluminium can be delivered in concentrated form to the brain (and aluminium has been found in v. high levels in the brains of autistic individuals). He suggests that only a minority of individuals, children in particular, are susceptible. He completely rejects the view of the vaccine authorities that "collateral damage" is acceptable to achieve herd immunity. He argues we need to undertake major research to identify who is at risk and why so they can be screened out of vaccination programmes.

In the article linked to above there is this telling paragraph about the way vaccines are approved for use (ie with no proper test control over the aluminium adjuvants):

"Professor Exley adds that there are no clinically-approved aluminum adjuvants only clinically approved vaccines which use aluminum adjuvants. This makes it imperative that all vaccine trials which use aluminum salts as adjuvants must not use the aluminum adjuvant as the control or placebo. This has been common practice for many years and has resulted in many vaccine-related adverse events due in part or in entirety to aluminum adjuvants being unaccounted for in vaccine safety trials. This is in violation of the regulatory requirement that, "An adjuvant shall not be introduced into a product unless there is satisfactory evidence that it does not affect adversely the safety or potency of the product."

Since Exley started publishing about aluminium toxicity in relation to vaccines he has been subjected to a personalised campaign of abuse, not just from outside the scientific community but from within. This is always the pattern. It is totally unscientific.

GW Johnson wrote:

I have said before that youtube videos totally lack credibility as accurate information sources, relative to the refereed science journals.
The anti-vaxxers base their arguments on non-credible sources, such as totally unpoliced youtube videos, and still make use of a long ago discredited and retracted science paper (the one and only that ever made claims that vaccines are not safe).
Sorry, Louis, your arguments are just not credible.
GW

GW Johnson · 2019-03-15 11:34:49

Lois:

A little reality for you. The toxicity of aluminum has been known for years. It takes significant amounts to have the effect. That's a whole bunch of frequent exposures to small (but not tiny !!!) amounts. You get frequent exposures to very tiny amounts from aluminum cook pots. You've gotten that all your life. We all have. Aluminum cook pots are everywhere.

That hurts nothing, or such pots would have been outlawed as a health hazard long ago. I'm old enough to remember that question actually coming up as a public issue. The answer was "no, it is not a hazard", settling that issue. It was studied and reported in the journals.

What you would get from the occasional vaccination (if such aluminum compounds were used at all) is quite incredibly small in comparison to the exposures from aluminum cook pots. That's because it is very tiny indeed, and very infrequent to boot.

The same is true of the mercury sometimes used in the "thimerosal" preservation compounds in vaccines (not all of them, and not always). In doses that tiny and that infrequent, it's just not a problem. That has been studied and reported in the journals.

You get more mercury exposure from the amalgam in your tooth fillings. However, before you go off the deep end about "dangerous" tooth fillings, 5 centuries (CENTURIES !!!) experience using amalgam says "no problem", quite clearly and very distinctly. It's been studied and reported in the journals.

And THAT is why I prefer refereed science journals to youtube videos and internet sensations for my science and medical information!

GW

louis · 2019-03-15 13:14:21

Well if you are saying your understanding of the subject transcends that of a Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry who is an expert in aluminium toxicity, then there's not much to be said. But I would point out that Professor Exley points out the difference between aluminium being taken into the gut and then processed through the liver compared with direct injection into the skin and bloodstream. If you watch the video interview, you'll see he explains how aluminium can cause problems as part of a vaccination process. As for thimerosal, which you claim is safe, that has as I understand it been completely withdrawn from vaccinations by the manufacturers.

GW Johnson wrote:

Lois:
A little reality for you. The toxicity of aluminum has been known for years. It takes significant amounts to have the effect. That's a whole bunch of frequent exposures to small (but not tiny !!!) amounts. You get frequent exposures to very tiny amounts from aluminum cook pots. You've gotten that all your life. We all have. Aluminum cook pots are everywhere.
That hurts nothing, or such pots would have been outlawed as a health hazard long ago. I'm old enough to remember that question actually coming up as a public issue. The answer was "no, it is not a hazard", settling that issue. It was studied and reported in the journals.
What you would get from the occasional vaccination (if such aluminum compounds were used at all) is quite incredibly small in comparison to the exposures from aluminum cook pots. That's because it is very tiny indeed, and very infrequent to boot.
The same is true of the mercury sometimes used in the "thimerosal" preservation compounds in vaccines (not all of them, and not always). In doses that tiny and that infrequent, it's just not a problem. That has been studied and reported in the journals.
You get more mercury exposure from the amalgam in your tooth fillings. However, before you go off the deep end about "dangerous" tooth fillings, 5 centuries (CENTURIES !!!) experience using amalgam says "no problem", quite clearly and very distinctly. It's been studied and reported in the journals.
And THAT is why I prefer refereed science journals to youtube videos and internet sensations for my science and medical information!
GW

kbd512 · 2019-03-15 16:10:09

Louis,

There's no squirrel in this tree. I'm sorry, but it's just not there. We can still bark at the tree until the cows come home if you want to, but the squirrel won't appear. The amount of Aluminum and Mercury in things you'd randomly come into contact with as a child, such as toys made in China, is so far above the levels found in vaccination preservatives that the two aren't even comparable with each other. The amount of metal preservatives in vaccines is far below the level you'd get simply by cooking in metal pots, yet we do that every day without a second thought.

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with your child's vaccinations. Truly, I am. When things go wrong in medical practices, they can, and all too often do, go horribly wrong. I get that and have also experienced things that went wrong, but not with vaccinations. Even for the things that did go wrong, those incidents were atypical. I assure you that such experiences with vaccinations are very atypical. My wife and I, along with all three of our kids, have our vaccinations, and will continue to get them at every opportunity presented, because we firmly believe that the benefits of having those vaccinations vastly outweigh the potential risks of getting them based upon empirical evidence. All or nearly all of the kids at the school they attend have had vaccinations, too. It's absurdly cheap insurance against a very ugly death or crippling illness.

All that said, I'm going to look into what your expert claims. I believe in being thorough and try to keep an open mind about things. If I find something about the claim that holds water, then there should be numerous other instances where this issue of metal toxicity presents itself, given how much Aluminum is used in food preparation and by industry. We probably can't find any kids in the western world who haven't consumed quite a bit of soda contained in Aluminum cans, for example.

I read the other report you posted a link to in its entirety. Nothing about what was stated or postulated in that report contradicted the idea that the vaccinations were good for patients with compromised immune systems to have onboard. As I recall, it recommended booster shots for patients who were immunocompromised specifically because of their deficient immune responses.

louis · 2019-03-15 16:53:30

Mass public health is good public health. Mass medicine is never good medicine.

I would recommend you go through that video interview with Prof Exley. There is a lot of confusion about contact aluminium, aluminium in the gut and aluminium getting into the body by other routes e.g. vaccination. The fact that most people are exposed to quite high aluminium levels but don't suffer clear ill effects is irrelevant. Once a very concentrated form of aluminium is inside the body it causes toxicity (hence the soreness that people often experience - nothing to do with the pin prick of the injection itself). The hypothesis is that macrophages or similar absorb the aluminium and then in some vulnerable individuals are brought into the brain, crossing the blood brain barrier, and cause damage in the brain (as observed by Prof Exley in the brains of deceased people with autism).

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
There's no squirrel in this tree. I'm sorry, but it's just not there. We can still bark at the tree until the cows come home if you want to, but the squirrel won't appear. The amount of Aluminum and Mercury in things you'd randomly come into contact with as a child, such as toys made in China, is so far above the levels found in vaccination preservatives that the two aren't even comparable with each other. The amount of metal preservatives in vaccines is far below the level you'd get simply by cooking in metal pots, yet we do that every day without a second thought.
I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with your child's vaccinations. Truly, I am. When things go wrong in medical practices, they can, and all too often do, go horribly wrong. I get that and have also experienced things that went wrong, but not with vaccinations. Even for the things that did go wrong, those incidents were atypical. I assure you that such experiences with vaccinations are very atypical. My wife and I, along with all three of our kids, have our vaccinations, and will continue to get them at every opportunity presented, because we firmly believe that the benefits of having those vaccinations vastly outweigh the potential risks of getting them based upon empirical evidence. All or nearly all of the kids at the school they attend have had vaccinations, too. It's absurdly cheap insurance against a very ugly death or crippling illness.
All that said, I'm going to look into what your expert claims. I believe in being thorough and try to keep an open mind about things. If I find something about the claim that holds water, then there should be numerous other instances where this issue of metal toxicity presents itself, given how much Aluminum is used in food preparation and by industry. We probably can't find any kids in the western world who haven't consumed quite a bit of soda contained in Aluminum cans, for example.
I read the other report you posted a link to in its entirety. Nothing about what was stated or postulated in that report contradicted the idea that the vaccinations were good for patients with compromised immune systems to have onboard. As I recall, it recommended booster shots for patients who were immunocompromised specifically because of their deficient immune responses.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2019-03-06 09:49:51

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#52 2019-03-06 13:15:22

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#53 2019-03-06 13:21:15

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#54 2019-03-06 16:21:02

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#55 2019-03-06 22:17:18

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#56 2019-03-07 03:54:47

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#57 2019-03-07 10:25:25

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#58 2019-03-07 11:00:45

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#59 2019-03-07 12:22:01

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#60 2019-03-07 12:28:38

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#61 2019-03-07 17:28:39

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#62 2019-03-07 19:25:42

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#63 2019-03-07 19:55:06

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#64 2019-03-07 20:02:24

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#65 2019-03-07 21:39:34

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#66 2019-03-12 21:08:23

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#67 2019-03-13 17:56:51

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#68 2019-03-13 19:23:45

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#69 2019-03-14 19:28:08

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#70 2019-03-14 19:35:27

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#71 2019-03-15 02:45:21

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#72 2019-03-15 11:34:49

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#73 2019-03-15 13:14:21

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#74 2019-03-15 16:10:09

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#75 2019-03-15 16:53:30

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

Board footer