Vaccinate Your Children!

kbd512 · 2020-05-22 14:45:04

Louis,

Claiming that vaccinations are the most profitable enterprise in the world, full stop, and claiming that pharmaceuticals companies are among the most profitable enterprises, and that vaccines are one of their most profitable products, are two entirely different things. The only vaccine being administered at a global level is the polio vaccine, but I think you also acquiesced to the necessity of that vaccine. Furthermore, multiple pharmaceuticals companies are manufacturing and distributing that vaccine, so it's not as if a singular company has complete control over the ingredients. Similarly, oil drilling, refining, and distribution is one of the most profitable enterprises in the world, yet no single company "controls" the price of oil. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown they don't control much of anything at all. It's not a given that there's something wrong with the profitability of pharmaceuticals or oil and gas, either, except in the minds of people with specific agendas. I would say, "Try painting with a smaller brush, whereupon you're more likely to paint a picture more closely approximating the truth."

If we consider the childhood deaths without vaccines vs the childhood deaths from asthma, allergies, and autism, there's really no comparison. The mothers of the dead children can attest to what life was like before the polio vaccine, for example. Irrespective of what you or I think is best, both pharmaceuticals companies and governments continue studies to determine if there's a link between those ailments with vaccines, so it's not as if they're simply ignoring the possibility. The possibility that we don't know as much as we think we know is ever-present. Evidence settles such arguments, though, not public debates. We can also have public debates on gravity, but you're only falling in one direction if you jump off a bridge. We've tried to link ASD to vaccines for at least two decades now, but we simply can't find compelling evidence. With respect to asthma and influenza vaccines, there seems to be an inverse correlation between that vaccine and asthma- the kids with an influenza vaccine onboard who suffer from asthma seem to do better than those without.

Any action taken on suspicion alone, without solid evidence, is likely to result in bad outcomes. Viewpoints that are logic-based demand a preponderance of evidence, else they're little different than dogma. I think dogmatic adherence to a belief with weak or non-existent evidence is ultimately bad for humanity because it causes us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do, such as not vaccinating our children. Those of us who share my point of view didn't arrive at the viewpoint that vaccinations are a net benefit for humanity overnight. Decades of development, research, and ongoing gathering of evidence have taken place. In the end, if sufficient evidence has been gathered to refute what existing evidence has shown, then I have to admit to the possibility of being wrong. I ask you, though, can you also admit to the possibility of being wrong?

GW Johnson · 2020-05-22 16:25:14

Kbd512:

You won't convince Louis with any facts. He is a true believer in the anti-vaccine belief system that we both know is utter nonsense.

GW

louis · 2020-05-22 17:01:23

And yet, and yet, it does move, said Galileo.

And yet, and yet, says I, children's health is in steep decline in the most advanced societies on Earth, the ones that swear blind mass vaccination programmes are improving chldren's health.

It is not possible to "consider the childhood deaths without vaccines vs the childhood deaths from asthma, allergies, and autism".
As I advised previously if you look at the graphs for people's health, you see steadily rising positive trends throughout the 20th century up to the real start of the mass vaccination programme in the mid 1950s. Improvements continued beyond that but we can't disentangle all the factors because the last 45 years of the century were also a period of a tremendous rise in prosperity, good quality housing, central heating, medical care and nutrition. All you can really do is look at people's health. In the case of children the facts are we have seen that there has been a tremendous rise in triple A: autism, asthma and allergies. It's not my fault that the people responsible for health services seem singularly uninterested in investigating what is causing this decline in children's health.

In my view we should take a precautionary approach. Administration of all vaccines should be reviewed and they should be kept to a minimum that supports good health. While I support polio vaccination, even that should be kept under review. If you look at the history of the disease, it is rather interesting and puzzling. It appears to have been a common and relatively harmless infection that suddenly got rocket boosters from somewhere. Some people suggest it was the rise in public swimming pool bathing that allowed it to mutate into something far more deadly. Who knows? But clearly viruses can change over time. I read also that syphilis as a tropical disease was also relatively harmless at one time. It spreads easily between semi-naked people whose skin is often touching others. But the arrival of clothes, meant it had to try harder and mutated into the dreadful disease we know today.

All I am saying is we need a rational debate and analysis of public policy on vaccination - not censorship on You Tube and Google.
"Vaccinations are good" is not a rational position when the Vaccine Court in the USA has paid out $4billion in compensation.

kbd512 wrote:

Louis,
Claiming that vaccinations are the most profitable enterprise in the world, full stop, and claiming that pharmaceuticals companies are among the most profitable enterprises, and that vaccines are one of their most profitable products, are two entirely different things. The only vaccine being administered at a global level is the polio vaccine, but I think you also acquiesced to the necessity of that vaccine. Furthermore, multiple pharmaceuticals companies are manufacturing and distributing that vaccine, so it's not as if a singular company has complete control over the ingredients. Similarly, oil drilling, refining, and distribution is one of the most profitable enterprises in the world, yet no single company "controls" the price of oil. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown they don't control much of anything at all. It's not a given that there's something wrong with the profitability of pharmaceuticals or oil and gas, either, except in the minds of people with specific agendas. I would say, "Try painting with a smaller brush, whereupon you're more likely to paint a picture more closely approximating the truth."
If we consider the childhood deaths without vaccines vs the childhood deaths from asthma, allergies, and autism, there's really no comparison. The mothers of the dead children can attest to what life was like before the polio vaccine, for example. Irrespective of what you or I think is best, both pharmaceuticals companies and governments continue studies to determine if there's a link between those ailments with vaccines, so it's not as if they're simply ignoring the possibility. The possibility that we don't know as much as we think we know is ever-present. Evidence settles such arguments, though, not public debates. We can also have public debates on gravity, but you're only falling in one direction if you jump off a bridge. We've tried to link ASD to vaccines for at least two decades now, but we simply can't find compelling evidence. With respect to asthma and influenza vaccines, there seems to be an inverse correlation between that vaccine and asthma- the kids with an influenza vaccine onboard who suffer from asthma seem to do better than those without.
Any action taken on suspicion alone, without solid evidence, is likely to result in bad outcomes. Viewpoints that are logic-based demand a preponderance of evidence, else they're little different than dogma. I think dogmatic adherence to a belief with weak or non-existent evidence is ultimately bad for humanity because it causes us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do, such as not vaccinating our children. Those of us who share my point of view didn't arrive at the viewpoint that vaccinations are a net benefit for humanity overnight. Decades of development, research, and ongoing gathering of evidence have taken place. In the end, if sufficient evidence has been gathered to refute what existing evidence has shown, then I have to admit to the possibility of being wrong. I ask you, though, can you also admit to the possibility of being wrong?

louis · 2020-05-22 17:10:33

I see a discrepancy between "vaccinations are improving our children's health" and "we have seen a serious decline in the health of children over the last 30 years". They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and it is possible both could be true but, if so, then we need a lot more research to demonstrate that to be the case. Personally, I feel the two statements are unlikely to both be true and we know the second to be true, so it is most likely the first is untrue. There are a small minority of scientists who agree that is the case and I am with that small minority.

I am not anti-vaccine. I am for a rational assessment of the benefits and costs to health of vaccine programmes. The US Vaccine Court has paid out $4 billion to vaccine victims. These courts are set up precisely to circumvent legal liability on the part of pharma companies - you'd soon find far fewer vaccines being produced if normal legal liablity was in play.

GW Johnson wrote:

Kbd512:
You won't convince Louis with any facts. He is a true believer in the anti-vaccine belief system that we both know is utter nonsense.
GW

SpaceNut · 2020-05-22 20:23:34

WHO,‘This is alarming’: 80 million kids under 1 at risk of diseases due to missed vaccinations

https://www.who.int/immunization/policy … tables/en/

https://www.foxnews.com/health/children … -illnesses

A vaccine for the virus may on day be available and if we do not give this to children we will be assuring that many children would die from covin….You may carry the virus for 2 days or up to 2 weeks before you notice symptoms.

elderflower · 2020-05-23 15:03:10

Louis. In the poor parts of the world infant mortality is very high compared to what happens in the developed countries. The weaker children die. Only the strong or lucky ones survive and the lucky include those who do get vaccines.

GW Johnson · 2020-05-24 13:48:20

Quoting Louis: "There are a small minority of scientists who agree that is the case and I am with that small minority."

My observation: betting with a small minority is not a very smart bet. Particularly in science, where the small minority being right is a very rare occurrence indeed. Not that it hasn't happened, it is just rare. The odds are way heavily against you, Louis.

Quoting Louis again: "I see a discrepancy between "vaccinations are improving our children's health" and "we have seen a serious decline in the health of children over the last 30 years"."

My observation: there's nothing in those words to specify that they refer to the same thing, other than in a most general sense (which is useless for any sort of comparison). Only Louis implies that they refer to the same thing.

Actually, if they refer to different detailed problems, then they could very easily both be true. The first one clearly refers to the effects of childhood immunizations. The second one could just as easily refer to the obesity epidemic. If it does, or it in fact refers to something (anything) other than vaccines, then Louis's arguments fall apart. NOTHING in the words refers to vaccines in that second statement. Wherever he got it.

The early 1950's were the time of a polio epidemic in the US. I fortunately got through the first grade without a polio vaccine, and without getting the disease. My cousin did not. The very first polio vaccine reached my school in my second grade. That ended my vulnerability to that disease.

At that time in history, we had the brand-new polio shot (Salk's injection, Sabin's sugar cube was still 3 years away). We had a smallpox vaccination. We had a diptheria (whooping cough) vaccination. We had nothing else. So I had everything else (mumps, chickenpox, both kinds of measles). A couple of those I had twice, because the first case was too mild to induce immunity.

Now there is a vaccination for shingles, which 1/3 of chickenpox victims like myself will get. So I had the shingles immunization, which is two injections about a year apart. Now I need no longer worry about shingles.

The nonsense about mercury preservatives or metals in vaccines is just that: debunked nonsense propagated on conspiracy-theory sites, mostly by people unqualified to hold those opinions. It is all firmly-debunked, arrant nonsense. I see NO downside to vaccines from a health standpoint, excepting those tiny few with damaged immune systems.

The only feasible downside would be corporations ripping people off. That is not a function of a vaccine, it is a function of a lack of corporate ethics. Different problem.

Louis, if you are looking for a problem to ballyhoo, THAT is the one you should address.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-05-24 13:52:30)

SpaceNut · 2020-05-24 16:31:52

It appears that we have found the ‘Skinny gene’ promises to be weapon against obesity
A gene whose mutated form is associated with cancer in humans turns out to have a role in burning …

So not caused by vaccines…

Declining infection rate provides challenge for Oxford coronavirus vaccine: Just days ago, scientists leading the University of Oxford's coronavirus vaccine development …UK researchers warn of only '50 percent' success for COVID vaccine

louis · 2020-05-25 12:22:02

Good to see Dr Fauci, the US's foremost immunologist telling a little of the truth about vaccines:

White House immunologist Dr Anthony Fauci offered the warning while giving an update on efforts to develop vaccines at an online US Senate hearing on Tuesday. He said: ‘I must warn that there’s also the possibility of negative consequences, where certain vaccines can actually enhance the negative effect of the infection.’

https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/12/americas … to=cbshare

It is very rare for any medic to say anything negative about any vaccine in public. So he deserves some credit for doing so.

Dr Fauci is referring to cases where negative consequences are pretty clear cut. But in anyone rational that should raise the questions: "Are there negative consequences that don't show up as red flags during extended trials but which might reveal themselves several years later, when it will be very difficult to make a link with the vaccine?" , "Could vaccines be responsible for ill health effects that may be subtle and sub-optimal but not specific or serious enough to be flagged up in a trial?" and "Could vaccine damage occur in people with specific genetic susceptibilities, which again will not show up as statistically significant in a trial?

louis · 2020-05-25 12:25:18

There were very few obese people in the UK in the 1930s and 1940s, as can easily be confirmed by looking at photos or video of street scenes. So while genetics may be part of the explanatory framework for obesity it cannot be primarily genetic. Accordingly vaccine effects are not ruled out, although I have never seen anything convincingly linking vaccines to obesity.

SpaceNut wrote:

It appears that we have found the ‘Skinny gene’ promises to be weapon against obesity
A gene whose mutated form is associated with cancer in humans turns out to have a role in burning …
So not caused by vaccines…
Declining infection rate provides challenge for Oxford coronavirus vaccine: Just days ago, scientists leading the University of Oxford's coronavirus vaccine development …UK researchers warn of only '50 percent' success for COVID vaccine

SpaceNut · 2020-05-25 13:36:02

People of that era were seeing a shift from not having enough to allowing over indulgence.

https://www.livestrong.com/article/3596 … n-america/

In the past, your ancestors struggled with food scarcity; whereas, today, Americans enjoy an overabundance of available food sources.

louis · 2020-05-25 14:19:54

Indeed plus labour saving devices in the home, growth in car ownership, explosion in processed foods and, most recently, the expansion in home delivery of food.

SpaceNut wrote:

People of that era were seeing a shift from not having enough to allowing over indulgence.
https://www.livestrong.com/article/3596 … n-america/
In the past, your ancestors struggled with food scarcity; whereas, today, Americans enjoy an overabundance of available food sources.

kbd512 · 2020-05-25 14:31:05

SpaceNut,

Do you want to go back to some kind of artificially created scarcity model, or do you like having options?

SpaceNut · 2020-05-25 14:36:10

go back to Louis claim that vaccines caused the issue...

GW Johnson · 2020-05-25 15:07:26

Negative effects of vaccines are part of what the testing and trials are supposed to uncover. While it doesn't always work, it usually does. The risk is rushing that process, which can cause it to fail to uncover any negative effects.

The usual case (over 99% of the time) is that vaccines stop disease, but vaccines only cause problems with very rare and unusual problems, such as damaged immune systems, or allergy to a component in the vaccine. Such is rare, and worthy of the exemptions.

The links to autism and heavy metal damage have long been totally discredited. Any other health damage links seem to be those of desperate believers grasping at any possible straw, near as I can tell. Indeed the paper most usually cited among anti-vaxxers was not only discredited, but officially retracted as "wrong", long ago. And its writer had his MD license revoked.

Nothing is perfect, granted. But these things really work, and quite well, too. The odds are with you, to get vaccinated without any problems. And by a very wide margin.

I should be just as valid a "minority" as any other person or group Louis might quote. My vaccine experience tale is in post 157 above. And it is in line with the majority odds on this issue. I'm still here. My polio victim cousin is not.

Them's just the facts. Sorry, Louis!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-05-25 15:11:51)

kbd512 · 2020-05-25 17:18:15

SpaceNut,

I've specifically asked what type of study or what preponderance of evidence would ever cause Louis to reconsider his point of view regarding vaccinations. I received no actual response because he doesn't have an actual answer to that question. Public debates don't settle questions that revolve around observation and counting, which would be the big and small of vaccinating vs not vaccinating. Far fewer people died after being vaccinated than before the vaccines existed and they also required far less extremely expensive disease treatment. Unless he responds with a direct answer, then I will presume that Louis has already made up his mind and no amount of evidence that runs counter to his belief system will change his opinion. The very person claiming others are practicing religion is, in point of fact, practicing his own dogmatic religion. It doesn't seem to matter to him that all the studies continually refute his beliefs. There has to be some other explanation for that other than the simplest explanation, which is, "We tried to determine if a causative link existed between X and Y, but we couldn't find any."

This is no different than the belief that a battery and solar panel or wind turbine must be the answer to every energy problem. It's the oil company's fault, or we haven't spent enough money on it (purposefully ignoring the trillions of dollars already spent), or insert your favorite reason why it doesn't work right now but will work the instant some magical event occurs that has yet to transpire (magical thinking, plain and simple). When people want something to be true so badly that they willfully ignore basic math and the mountain of evidence that's literally burying their argument for why it doesn't work, they fall back on dogmatic religious beliefs. That's my primary beef with all forms of organized religion- and the fact that most of them can't explain why they believe whatever it is they believe since someone else put the idea in their heads.

So, getting back to my question to you...

We can make food so expensive that most people can't afford to become obese, give more food away to other countries with starving people to reduce the supply, or stop pretending that the average person can even control what they choose to shove down their throat, which should be a major reason for them to refrain from attempting to shove their own ideology down anyone else's throat.

My question was directed at what you want to do about the problem, seeing as how it's getting worse by the year, rather than fixing itself. Sometimes having more options is a good thing and sometimes having fewer options results in more focused thinking about how to solve a problem. If you only had the option of eating a reasonably balanced meal and didn't have the option to massively over-consume food, then in the long run you'll tend to be healthier. I'm sure my belief on this will be wildly unpopular with nearly everyone.

SpaceNut · 2020-05-25 17:22:35

If there is a gene that is broken then lets fix it but if its all in one's head we need better mental health care as well a lot more on dietitians on food.

louis · 2020-05-25 19:33:10

"Long since" discredited? Prof Exley's paper demonstrating strong evidence of links between aluminium and autism/alzheimers was only published in 2017! Exley has provided lots of circumstantial evidence for causality as well. Sometimes when we suffer a wound (and a vaccine is a wound, which is why it swells and goes red) protective cells migrate from the brain and help out with the body's defences and then return to the brain...except of course in the case of most vaccines they will now be full of aluminium and are taking it back to the brain...which has never been designed by natural selection to deal with such intrusions. In some people with genetic predisposition this can lead to rapid deterioration in health.

Exley was then subjected to a lot of professional abuse by the vaccine mafia and of course the usual nit-picking (you can nit-pick any scientific paper, I guarantee you...the paper that is accepted as having proved Einstein's theories back in 1919 has been nit-picked and found to contain lots of inaccuracies) which is only applied with such vigour when people want to trash something. But no one has discredited his paper. To discredit it, would mean they had shown he did not find what he said he found in the brains of autistic and alzheimer individuals.

What Exley did was difficult - IIRC he was working with cadaver brain material, not readily available for research. He's one of the most foremost experts on the planet in toxicology in humans. The fact he's been trashed and ignored tells you everything you need to know about the vaccine culture we live in. In a rational culture his paper would set off alarm bells and would have seen 100s of millions of dollars go into follow-up research. It ain't happened and it won't.

I would be persuaded that our vaccine mania was in fact perfectly rational if chldren's health began to improve dramatically.
It should be improving, given all the diseases now allegedly under control thanks to vaccines. But it isn't. You will claim that's due to other co-factors. I will claim that's suspicious. I would say it was analogous to an individual overdosing on a vitamin or mineral well beyond the RDA, so they are in reality poisoning themselves, even though they keep telling themselves it is vital to health...it is in a way, but not in that amount.

I note your anecdotal evidence about the effectiveness of vaccination. No doubt true in the past, but I do doubt that many people would die of polio in the advanced countries today, thanks to Intensive Care interventions and the like. When polio was a big killer intensive care medicine was really in its infancy. Whether more people would make effective recoveries from the disease is an open question, I guess. Even in the past, most people did.

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
I've specifically asked what type of study or what preponderance of evidence would ever cause Louis to reconsider his point of view regarding vaccinations. I received no actual response because he doesn't have an actual answer to that question. Public debates don't settle questions that revolve around observation and counting, which would be the big and small of vaccinating vs not vaccinating. Far fewer people died after being vaccinated than before the vaccines existed and they also required far less extremely expensive disease treatment. Unless he responds with a direct answer, then I will presume that Louis has already made up his mind and no amount of evidence that runs counter to his belief system will change his opinion. The very person claiming others are practicing religion is, in point of fact, practicing his own dogmatic religion. It doesn't seem to matter to him that all the studies continually refute his beliefs. There has to be some other explanation for that other than the simplest explanation, which is, "We tried to determine if a causative link existed between X and Y, but we couldn't find any."
This is no different than the belief that a battery and solar panel or wind turbine must be the answer to every energy problem. It's the oil company's fault, or we haven't spent enough money on it (purposefully ignoring the trillions of dollars already spent), or insert your favorite reason why it doesn't work right now but will work the instant some magical event occurs that has yet to transpire (magical thinking, plain and simple). When people want something to be true so badly that they willfully ignore basic math and the mountain of evidence that's literally burying their argument for why it doesn't work, they fall back on dogmatic religious beliefs. That's my primary beef with all forms of organized religion- and the fact that most of them can't explain why they believe whatever it is they believe since someone else put the idea in their heads.
So, getting back to my question to you...
We can make food so expensive that most people can't afford to become obese, give more food away to other countries with starving people to reduce the supply, or stop pretending that the average person can even control what they choose to shove down their throat, which should be a major reason for them to refrain from attempting to shove their own ideology down anyone else's throat.
My question was directed at what you want to do about the problem, seeing as how it's getting worse by the year, rather than fixing itself. Sometimes having more options is a good thing and sometimes having fewer options results in more focused thinking about how to solve a problem. If you only had the option of eating a reasonably balanced meal and didn't have the option to massively over-consume food, then in the long run you'll tend to be healthier. I'm sure my belief on this will be wildly unpopular with nearly everyone.

Terraformer · 2020-05-26 02:36:39

louis, they might not *die* of polio, but getting vaccinated in order to avoid needing an iron lung is still worth it.

Not every country struggles with obesity. Japan has their national waistline under control. Perhaps because they don't consume anywhere near as much sugar, walk more, and shame fatness,

louis · 2020-05-26 03:31:54

Sorry I meant to post a fresh link to that article about Prof Exley's research which I previously linked to:

https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1 … tional2018

He's one of the world's top toxicologists. He finds a clear link between aluminium and autism. His research has been ignored. His University are embarrassed by the research. All signs we are in the grip of a non-scientific narrative.

GW Johnson · 2020-05-26 08:27:52

Louis, the "long-discredited" person of who I spoke was Mark R. Geier (and his son), who did the non-credible studies claiming a link between thimerosal preservative in vaccines and autism. Thimerosal has ethyl mercury in it, not methyl mercury, upon which the mercury exposure criteria were based. Ethyl mercury is nowhere near as poisonous, and clears from the body far faster.

Thimerosal was removed from most vaccines anyway, just to eliminate any further concerns, which anti-vax believers like you quote as "proof" there was a problem with thimerosal. Such precaution is simply not "proof" of a problem, and the medical community has maintained for more than a decade after these events that there is, and was, no problem with thimerosal in vaccines.

That history entirely discredits anti-vaxxer claims of vaccine-induced autism. I suggest you look up Geier. He's in Wikipedia for a startpoint.

I looked up your Professor Exley. He is a chemist, not a doctor. He studied the effects of aluminum, not mercury. Aluminum, like most metals, causes problems at very high concentrations in the body. As for the aluminum-autism link, statistical association is not causality, and his research is disputed by others in the field.

I don't doubt the case of the woman with too much aluminum in her brain was real. I don't doubt it caused her lots of problems. Lead is even worse. And there are several others. Where Exley's reputation has since been tarnished the most, is his recommendations tantamount to prescriptions to people for how to clear metals from the body. That is essentially practicing medicine without a license.

There's just not that much aluminum in an injection of any kind. That woman's aluminum came from some other source than medical injections, most likely contaminated water, although there is a suspected but unconfirmed path via aluminum cooking pans.

Exley's work has nothing to with vaccines. Again, you are the victim of a false belief system. For you belief outweighs facts. Take a good look at yourself. Why else would you deny and distort the facts, grasping at any straw to support your belief system?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-05-26 08:30:13)

louis · 2020-05-26 13:29:30

Professor Exley is a biologist not a chemist. To quote from his own University profile:

"I am a Biologist (University of Stirling) with a PhD in the ecotoxicology of aluminium (University of Stirling)."

Biologists are allowed to hypothesise about such matters as toxicity in living organisms and how toxins are removed from bodies.

I don't think you are in a position to tell Professor Exley what his work relates to. He does, very clearly and very bravely, state that it does relate to vaccination in that he has a hypothesis about how aluminium in vaccines can affect people (who may well have a genetic susceptibility) in a catastrophic way.

Professor Exley also draws a sharp distinction between aluminium that enters the digestive system and other routes into the body. The body has had millions of years of evolution to cope with aluminium in the digestive system. But aluminium being injected directly into muscle tissues (something that could hardly happen in nature) is an entirely different matter. It might be a relatively tiny amount but the body clearly sees it as a great threat (and that is the whole point about why it is used in vaccinations - in order to excite a massive response, which then allow the vaccine as well to promote an antibody response). If Exley is right - and he is a world expert in this field - then in some individuals protective cells pass from the brain to help fight the aluminium invasion but, tragically they then return to the brain where they cause longer term damage.

I haven't heard a single person put up any sort of reasonable evidence to show this hypothesis is crazy or false or not deserving of much further research. All we see is that the vaccine lobby go after the man and try to destroy him professionally.

GW Johnson wrote:

Louis, the "long-discredited" person of who I spoke was Mark R. Geier (and his son), who did the non-credible studies claiming a link between thimerosal preservative in vaccines and autism. Thimerosal has ethyl mercury in it, not methyl mercury, upon which the mercury exposure criteria were based. Ethyl mercury is nowhere near as poisonous, and clears from the body far faster.
Thimerosal was removed from most vaccines anyway, just to eliminate any further concerns, which anti-vax believers like you quote as "proof" there was a problem with thimerosal. Such precaution is simply not "proof" of a problem, and the medical community has maintained for more than a decade after these events that there is, and was, no problem with thimerosal in vaccines.
That history entirely discredits anti-vaxxer claims of vaccine-induced autism. I suggest you look up Geier. He's in Wikipedia for a startpoint.
I looked up your Professor Exley. He is a chemist, not a doctor. He studied the effects of aluminum, not mercury. Aluminum, like most metals, causes problems at very high concentrations in the body. As for the aluminum-autism link, statistical association is not causality, and his research is disputed by others in the field.
I don't doubt the case of the woman with too much aluminum in her brain was real. I don't doubt it caused her lots of problems. Lead is even worse. And there are several others. Where Exley's reputation has since been tarnished the most, is his recommendations tantamount to prescriptions to people for how to clear metals from the body. That is essentially practicing medicine without a license.
There's just not that much aluminum in an injection of any kind. That woman's aluminum came from some other source than medical injections, most likely contaminated water, although there is a suspected but unconfirmed path via aluminum cooking pans.
Exley's work has nothing to with vaccines. Again, you are the victim of a false belief system. For you belief outweighs facts. Take a good look at yourself. Why else would you deny and distort the facts, grasping at any straw to support your belief system?
GW

SpaceNut · 2020-05-26 16:39:11

What age is the person that is accumulating aluminum, what is that source of where we are getting it...

GW Johnson · 2020-05-27 08:21:48

Louis:

I suggest you do a google search for "aluminum poisoning".

The second item in the search list is www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828/
which is a US national institutes of health publication of a German article on the subject. It is typically German: both long and thorough.

The 5th item in the search list is atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34
which is a public health statement on the dangers of aluminum exposure from the US CDC. This is shorter, simpler, and clearer for a quick read by a layman.

There are a whole bunch of articles uncovered by this search. Any from the first page woyuld be good bets for detailed research.

The consensus upshot from all these is that the biggest source of aluminum poisoning problems is an aluminum compound involved in dialysis. The second biggest exposure seems to be workplace exposures for workers in industries: manufacture, welding, that sort of thing, which involves inhalation of powders or fumes.

Exposure from aluminum cooking pans is not considered to be a credible risk, excepting perhaps grudgingly the extreme rare case of cooking something very acidic in an aluminum pan. The aluminum adjuvant in some (NOT ALL) vaccines is ranked far lower than the aluminum cooking pan risk.

That's the consensus of millions of scientists, doctors, and medical researchers. There are a tiny minority who worry about vaccine aluminum adjuvant exposure. I'm glad someone looks at this like your Prof. Exley, but the odds are long indeed against there being any sort of problem.

BTW, the Wikipedia article I looked at on Exley didn't seem to list his degrees, but listed his profession as "biochemist". It described his work on the woman with brain damage from aluminum, but said nothing that I could find about vaccines. His focus seems to be more on aluminum poisoning in general, and not so very much about vaccines specifically. Which is why I said what I said.

As for mercury in thimerosal, that has been resolved for more than a decade now, that ethyl mercury in thimerosal was nowhere near a significant risk. Even so, in an overabundance of caution, the medical community deleted that preservative from most vaccines, accepting the low shelf life problems instead.

You'd be a lot smarter to accept the odds, and accept these vaccinations as the disease-prevention boon that they have well-proven to be. Simple as that.

(Spacenut, I think that answers your question about where the aluminum poisoning risks are coming from, too.)

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-05-27 08:24:54)

louis · 2020-05-27 12:08:31

This is a helpful interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyAeQKtVr6U

GW Johnson wrote:

Louis:
I suggest you do a google search for "aluminum poisoning".
The second item in the search list is www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828/
which is a US national institutes of health publication of a German article on the subject. It is typically German: both long and thorough.
The 5th item in the search list is atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34
which is a public health statement on the dangers of aluminum exposure from the US CDC. This is shorter, simpler, and clearer for a quick read by a layman.
There are a whole bunch of articles uncovered by this search. Any from the first page woyuld be good bets for detailed research.
The consensus upshot from all these is that the biggest source of aluminum poisoning problems is an aluminum compound involved in dialysis. The second biggest exposure seems to be workplace exposures for workers in industries: manufacture, welding, that sort of thing, which involves inhalation of powders or fumes.
Exposure from aluminum cooking pans is not considered to be a credible risk, excepting perhaps grudgingly the extreme rare case of cooking something very acidic in an aluminum pan. The aluminum adjuvant in some (NOT ALL) vaccines is ranked far lower than the aluminum cooking pan risk.
That's the consensus of millions of scientists, doctors, and medical researchers. There are a tiny minority who worry about vaccine aluminum adjuvant exposure. I'm glad someone looks at this like your Prof. Exley, but the odds are long indeed against there being any sort of problem.
BTW, the Wikipedia article I looked at on Exley didn't seem to list his degrees, but listed his profession as "biochemist". It described his work on the woman with brain damage from aluminum, but said nothing that I could find about vaccines. His focus seems to be more on aluminum poisoning in general, and not so very much about vaccines specifically. Which is why I said what I said.
As for mercury in thimerosal, that has been resolved for more than a decade now, that ethyl mercury in thimerosal was nowhere near a significant risk. Even so, in an overabundance of caution, the medical community deleted that preservative from most vaccines, accepting the low shelf life problems instead.
You'd be a lot smarter to accept the odds, and accept these vaccinations as the disease-prevention boon that they have well-proven to be. Simple as that.
(Spacenut, I think that answers your question about where the aluminum poisoning risks are coming from, too.)
GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2020-05-22 14:45:04

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#152 2020-05-22 16:25:14

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#153 2020-05-22 17:01:23

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#154 2020-05-22 17:10:33

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#155 2020-05-22 20:23:34

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#156 2020-05-23 15:03:10

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#157 2020-05-24 13:48:20

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#158 2020-05-24 16:31:52

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#159 2020-05-25 12:22:02

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#160 2020-05-25 12:25:18

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#161 2020-05-25 13:36:02

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#162 2020-05-25 14:19:54

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#163 2020-05-25 14:31:05

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#164 2020-05-25 14:36:10

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#165 2020-05-25 15:07:26

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#166 2020-05-25 17:18:15

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#167 2020-05-25 17:22:35

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#168 2020-05-25 19:33:10

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#169 2020-05-26 02:36:39

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#170 2020-05-26 03:31:54

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#171 2020-05-26 08:27:52

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#172 2020-05-26 13:29:30

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#173 2020-05-26 16:39:11

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#174 2020-05-27 08:21:48

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

#175 2020-05-27 12:08:31

Re: Vaccinate Your Children!

Board footer