Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Interested in discussing vaccines

I come from a family that is pro-vaccine as far as I can tell, and I have participated in vaccines in the past to a pretty thorough extent. I find myself strongly questioning the wisdom and propriety of vaccines in the modern West, but I would like to sharpen my understanding by talking to someone or more than one person who is pro-vaccine. I consider myself at this point just to the right of neutral on the question, just a shade more anti-vaccine than pro-.

A few questions I'm asking follow. Please pardon my ignorance. I learn best when talking to people, so I'd appreciate a modicum of respect in answering, though of course there is no requirement:

1) Why is it that reports continually emerge that vaccines contain ingredients that are poisonous, such as formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum, and the like?

2) Is there a good reason for parents of vaccinated children to be concerned if unvaccinated children attend the same government school as their vaccinated children? If so, why?

3) How is it justifiable to inject children with the body parts of other children who were murdered?

4) Why wouldn't the slow response of the medical community to things like the Gardasil debacle give a parent pause?

5) Why is it important to inoculate against minor maladies like measles?

43 comments:

Andrew said...

My answers are certainly not the final authority, but here they are, for whatever they are worth:

1) Why is it that reports continually emerge that vaccines contain ingredients that are poisonous, such as formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum, and the like?

If they do, that's bad. I'm not sure why those things would be included. My children are not vaccinated but that is my wife's preference. It's something I don't feel strongly enough about to make an issue out of. But this particular point, valid though it may be, doesn't have anything to do with whether vaccines as such are bad.


2) Is there a good reason for parents of vaccinated children to be concerned if unvaccinated children attend the same government school as their vaccinated children? If so, why?

Not as far as I can see. Unvaccination is not contagious according to everything I've read.

3) How is it justifiable to inject children with the body parts of other children who were murdered?

It's not. I would never knowingly take a vaccination, or anything else for that matter, that was the product of an abortion. But again, this doesn't really have to do with whether vaccination is good in and of itself.

4) Why wouldn't the slow response of the medical community to things like the Gardasil debacle give a parent pause?

It does give me pause. That whole thing seemed to me like it had more to do with the left trying to impose a worldview than any real medical necessity. The best HPV vaccine I am aware of is a zipper.

5) Why is it important to inoculate against minor maladies like measles?

It may or may not be. I think we can agree that vaccination has been a godsend in some cases though. Anybody you know die of polio lately?

Also, take a look at the statistics for new Hep B infections since the early '90s when the Hep B vaccination was first recommended for children. The drop off has been astronomical, particularly among poor and minority children.

My take on vaccines is basically that in and of themselves they are a good thing. But there is no reason to vaccinate for a disease that is spread by sinful behavior (just avoid the behavior) and I am unequivocally opposed to injecting poison or dead baby parts into my children.

Matthew C. Martellus said...

With respect to (5), at least, it is important for maintaining "herd immunity" and preventing the spread of the disease to those who are most at risk from it. The measles virus spreads very easily, and unvaccinated adults can easily spread the virus to unvaccinated children, who are at greater risk of dying from the disease. "Herd immunity" begins to break down when less than 95% of the population are vaccinated against a particular disease.

Matthew C. Martellus said...

I think a good argument can be made that, in general, people have a moral duty to get vaccinated, following from: (1) the moral duty we have to be good stewards of our bodies, and (2) love for our neighbors. Whenever you contract an illness, it not only affects you, but anyone else that also contracts the illness because of you. If you can reasonably and morally prevent the contraction of said illness, it would follow that you have a moral obligation to do so (or at the very least, a prima facie moral obligation in this regard).

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Yet another perspective for your pleasure...

1) Literally everything you touch or consume has ingredients that are poisonous given the right dose. Pointing out that something contains "OMG, FORMALDEHYDE!!!" when the level is low enough to have zero effect whatsoever (lower that what your body produces naturally, in fact) is scaremongering at its finest. Not to mention it would be a very bad idea to have live virus vaccines for certain things, and formaldehyde during production ensures a dead (but not shredded) virus.

2) Herd immunity.

3) Examples, please?

4) The Gardasil "debacle" is what we like to call a "manufacturoversy", but you're free to believe whoever you like on the subject. The Science Based Medicine website has covered the Gardasil thing many times, if I remember correctly.

5) Measles is not "minor" by any stretch, nor are mumps or whooping cough. To turn the question around, why would you choose to let a child suffer, and perhaps become disabled or even die, if you had an alternative that was almost 100% effective?

PChem said...

1) I think you need to look at the amounts in those vaccines. It is more than "look it has _____ in it!" You need to know the amount, whether or not the specific vector has an affect on toxicity, etc.

2) I agree that herd immunity is a strong reason for immunization for the reasons Matthew stated. Some of these diseases are pretty darn nasty. If nothing else, it could be pretty awful if your kid lost a bunch of their friends to polio, and it could have been prevented. I don't know enough about vaccines to be sure, but I vaguely remember my wife (who has delved into this quite a bit) saying that not all vaccines offer 100% protection. It can also depend on exposure. So, if your vaccinated kid hangs out with a bunch of unvaccinated kids who get sick, there may be a chance that the vaccinated kid will get it anyway. Vaccines wear off and often need to be boosted.

Regardless, if enough people stop immunizing then those diseases will begin to reappear in the population. That can result in significant harm and also produce a large financial drain due to increased medical costs.

I think a person should be wise about these sorts of things. Not all immunizations are created equal. My wife lost an aunt at age 12 most likely due to complications from an immunization. So, there is a compelling reason to actually look at the risks involved. This, unfortunately, will require people to start reading some of the primary literature on these topics and draw their own conclusions. That in its own right is a good reason for a scientifically literate populace, but I digress.

3) As far as aborted children, this is one of the stronger reasons to not vaccinate to me. At a minimum, people should investigate whether or not alternative formulations exist that are not derived from aborted children. And, we should put pressure on the manufacturers to reformulate vaccines using ethical practices. They won't do it now because there isn't a compelling financial reason to do so. As abolition takes root though, we could build up enough pressure to force the issue.

4) I don't know enough about this to comment. Other than possibly to say, how do you define "slow"? Maybe it was as fast "the medical community" could move to responsibly respond. I don't know.

5) Probably not important to vaccinate against minor things. I was irritated when my daughter's pediatrician vaccinated her against chicken pox even though she had already had it. He did it "just to be safe" and we let it go because it was mixed with something we wanted her to have at that time. That goes back to needing to research exactly what is available and how things are formulated.

In spite of all of this, we are skeptical of vaccinating, but lean more towards it being a good idea than not. I understand your trepidation.

Rhology said...

I'll lump the responses by question.

1) Yes, those reports come out frequently.
I've never encountered anyone who had measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, smallpox, polio. When I was 16 I was told that I had eaten at a Braum's where an employee was infected with hepatitis, and that's it.
So, going fwd from RIGHT NOW, why would I inject poisonous substances into my child's bloodstream when I've had ONE SINGLE CONTACT with any of these diseases in 36 years?

It's not a question of why they are included. All that matters is that they are in there.

There's a huge difference between coming into contact with a dangerous or non-sterile substance or environment and injecting it intentionally into my bloodstream. How in the world can we know that the level is too small to affect anything? If it's too low to affect ANYTHING, why is it in there? My body produces formaldehyde? Mercury? That's news to me. Does it inject those things directly into my bloodstream in one swell foop? I doubt it.
If a poison is required to kill the virus, I don't see how we're getting anywhere good. "Here, drink this bleach so you can get over your dysentery." Nope.


Rhology said...

2) Seems like it's not too hard to limit exposure to tons of other adults for young children. Don't put them in guvmint skule (well, that's pretty much a given). Don't put them in private school either. Don't send them to daycare. Make sure people who want to hold them and feed them wash their hands and stuff. Ask people not to cough or sneeze on your child. Doesn't that cover it pretty decently?

If your vaccinated kid hangs out with a bunch of unvaccinated kids who get sick and gets it anyway, it sounds like there is no reason to get vaccinated in the first place.

How could these diseases reappear in the populace? Is it that there remain a few unvaccinated people at this point in time and as the population of unvaccinated people increases b/c ppl refuse them, eventually the disease will spread? That seems pretty remote at this point. Like I said, I've never encountered anyone with any of those diseases. Am I naive to think that this is not something my kids will have to deal with either?

Rhology said...

3) Chickenpox vaccine, for example.
Here.

Rhology said...

4) Yes, you guard against HPV with self-control and preventive measures.
Same as you prevent other diseases - hygiene.

I'm unsure how the Gardasil controversy was manufactured. A big pharma company comes up with a shot to reduce consequences of immoral sex, and makes tons of $$ in the process. Why would it be a surprise to learn they cut corners and it came back to bite them in the backside?

I define "slow" to mean that more than a year later it's still controversial, the company covering its rear rather than doing the right thing and withdrawing all the vax.

Rhology said...

5) No, I've never encountered polio. What I don't know is why I should ascribe credit to the current non-importance of polio to vaccines. Why not improved hygiene practices?

As for Hep B, you get it thru more-than-social contact, like sharing needles. Again, better hygiene and not doing drugs or sleeping around will achieve the same effect, no?

Measles are minor when compared to sudden screams, convulsions, and collapsing into unconsciousness, as has been experienced by some children who were given the MMR vax.
And we have modern medical care to help people get better if they get sick.
And then when they get over it, they have lifetime immunity, and they didn't have to inject poison into their bloodstream to get it.

And PChem's anecdote about his family doctor is something that worries me an awful lot. His child ALREADY HAD CHICKENPOX AND THE DOCTOR VAX'D HER ANYWAY. What the heck!??!
"Just to be safe". I think what we ought to say is "just to get more $$".
And we've been deceived into thinking that it's fine if we mix the vaxes together. Each of my children have had like four shots in one doctor visit. I remain outraged by this fact. What tests have been run to ensure that getting FOUR shots AT A SINGLE TIME is a good idea? Is this not live-population experimentation? Yet why do regular people do it? Because the dr says so. Why does the dr say so? B/c he's been fed a line from above him and I fear he didn't think it thru. How can anyone look at four shots of viruses at a time and think that it's fine, that they're JUST SURE that the YOUNG CHILD's body can handle it without any adverse effects?

Also, we shouldn't forget the trade-offs. There is what seems to me to be strong evidence connecting much-elevated occurrence of autism in MMR-vax'd children.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Your tone, Rho, suggests that you didn't really want a discussion but rather validation for the opinions you already had. I could have totally misread, but regardless I'm willing to discuss any of the points anyway if you really do want a discussion.

Matthew C. Martellus said...

I've never encountered anyone who had measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, smallpox, polio.

Which should be all the evidence you need that vaccination is, in general, a good thing. You most likely would not have had this experience if a significant portion of the previous generation had decided not to vaccinate their children against these diseases.

So, going fwd from RIGHT NOW, why would I inject poisonous substances into my child's bloodstream when I've had ONE SINGLE CONTACT with any of these diseases in 36 years?

This is the kind of mindset that, if it is adopted and acted upon by enough people, sets up society for costly and/or deadly epidemics that could otherwise have been easily avoided.

And once again, "poison" is not a very meaningful term in this context apart from a specification of dosage. Many substances are helpful to the body in certain amounts that would be poisonous and deadly in other amounts.

Mother and Grandmother said...

1) because people are beginning to question their doctors and conventional medicine. Mothers are researching. Autism and childhood cancer are exploding and enquiring minds want to know.

2) absolutely not! If your child is vaccinated, and you believe that your child is safe from these childhood diseases, why are you concerned. Truth be told, your child is actually exposing MY child to the actual disease your child has been vaccinated against.

3) there is NEVER a reason use one cell of an aborted baby for any use whatsoever, even if it would cure every disease on the planet. Jesus Christ died, He alone is the cure.
4) slow response? How about no response. They still push it on teenage girls and now for some unknown or nefarious reason they want to inject boys. Having taken anatomy, boys do not have a cervix. Maybe it might be found out that the vaccine was fast tracked with less than six months testing. And HPV does not always cause cervical cancer.

5) I had the measles, mumps and I am 54, and I was vaccinated, and it is impossible for me to every su comb to the viruses, I have TRUE immunity.
I will make a statement on polio.
This sounds hard, but, wait for it, polio is still around, it has just been renamed paralysis. Here are the symptoms of polio:
Fever, headache, sore throat, and vomiting. Some victims of this intestinal virus develop neurological complications, including stiffness of the neck and back, weak muscles, pain in joints and paralysis of one or more limbs or respiratory muscles. It can be fatAl due to this paralysis. 95 percent of everyone exposed to this virus will not exhibit symptoms. It is very contagious, however, yet it is a virus, viruses can not be eliminated. The remaining percentage recover and may be naturally immuned to this virus. To read the the truth of the inventor of the polio vaccine, I would recommend Dr. Mary's Monkey. 70,000 school children became seriously I'll after receiving salk's vaccine. Many contracted polio and died, from the vaccine. The lowering of polio came from better hygiene and nutrition. Actually if you look at the graph, polio makes a comeback when this vaccine is pushed on the public.

No child should be receiving 38 of anything before the age of 18 months injected into the purest blood on he planet. And last I looked, no one is deficient in mercury, aborted babies, aluminum, formaldehyde, bovine secretions, dyes, and many many other additives in all the vaccines given to children today.
Vaccinating of the public is causing auto immune response including allergies, asthma, intestinal problems, I believe cancer, learning problems. Just one vaccine actually lowers the immunity and shifts it to what is called TH2
Immune suppression. Check out
blaylockhealthchannel.com for more on this.



A//∀ - www.abolishhumanabortion.com

Disappointed said...

This must be a set up?? After all the analysis of others' positions, all the debate and discussion on religious topics that you have engaged in, you regurgitate anti-vaxxer sloganeering, and don't even open the conversation with an honest statement of your position? How you think this meshes with your defense of your faith, I don't know

Mother and Grandmother said...

What is anti-vaccine sloaneering? For that matter, what is pro-vaccine sloganeering, Disappointed?
I fear that the truth, no matter what the subject, is a problem for the "side" either person is on.
I want the truth when it comes to vaccines, faith, or where is the best place to get my haircut. I believe this is where rho is coming from. Disappointed, do you know everything about everything, or just a little about a lot? Maybe this question asked of rho is a matter of faith.....

Rhology said...

I said I'm a bit against vax. And until I see a good reason to think that vaxes don't contain poison, I'm going to keep weighing the potential positives against the fact that you're injecting poison into your child's bloodstream.


You most likely would not have had this experience if a significant portion of the previous generation had decided not to vaccinate their children against these diseases.

What worries me is that we not ascribe causation to a mere correlation.
We have superior hygiene practices and medical care now; why do we give all the credit to vax?


sets up society for costly and/or deadly epidemics that could otherwise have been easily avoided.

I can't but note here that autism is, while not deadly, quite costly. And so are many other things that vax sometimes provoke.


Many substances are helpful to the body in certain amounts that would be poisonous and deadly in other amounts.

I don't think that's really true of mercury and formaldehyde.


you regurgitate anti-vaxxer sloganeering

So disprove it.


don't even open the conversation with an honest statement of your position?

I did.


Ben said...

I don't think that's really true of mercury and formaldehyde.

Formaldehyde is produced by our bodies and is necessary for life. The amount present in vaccines is less than a child's body will produce every day.

http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2012/04/demystifying-vaccine-ingredients.html

I can't but note here that autism is, while not deadly, quite costly. And so are many other things that vax sometimes provoke.

The link between vaccines and autism is very tenuous so far. The original paper making the link was fraudulent and the author lost his medical license over it. There have been a few studies since showing a possible link, but more showing there isn't one. It's something to continue to watch, but it's not certain there's any link at all yet.

Even if there's a link between autism and vaccines you'd still need to do a cost benefit analysis to see if the harm of potentially getting autism outweighs the benefit provided by the vaccine.

The benefits of vaccines can be seen by their effects in countries that previously didn't have them. A country has wide spread polio, they begin to vaccinate, and they significantly reduce the number of polio cases.

You also see outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases as vaccine rates fall. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/vaccine-refusal-fuels-whooping-cough-outbreaks-study-finds-f8C11301986

Some vaccines may be dangerous and some exist to reduce the harm of sinful behaviors. I also wouldn't use a vaccine that was a product of an abortion. But there are many vaccines that are beneficial without the ethical issues.

Mother and Grandmother said...

The Carcinogens Background Document found the following:

Formaldehyde ingestion results in severe corrosive damage to the gastrointestinal tract followed by CNS depression, myocardial depression, circulatory collapse, metabolic acidosis and multiple organ failure. The toxic effects of formaldehyde in experimental animals include irritation, cytotoxicity, and cell proliferation in the upper respiratory tract, ocular irritation, pulmonary hyperactivity, bronchoconstriction, gastrointestinal irritation, and skin sensitization. Other reported effects include oxidative stress, neurotoxicity, neurobehavioral effects, immunotoxicity, testicular toxicity, and decreased liver, thyroid gland, and testis weights (IARC 2006, Asian et al. 2006, Sarsilmaz et al. 2007, Golalipour et al. 2008, Ozen et al. 2005, Majumder and kumar 1995). [My emphasis added]
MANMADE formaldehyde. Ammonia is also made in the body, try injecting that into yourself. www.vactruth.com

You are referring to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, from the UK, who has been COMPLETELY proven to be correct in the LINK, between autism and the MMR vaccine.
Also there are two whistleblowers from the CDC saying that the link was found and covered up ten years ago. www.ageofautism.com, www.cnn.com

I suggest you visit www.nvic.org for a full, unbiased read on every vaccine, schedule recommended by our government, ingredient list and possible side effects of the vaccine and the disease being vaccinated for.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

And this (above) is what you get when you cross total cock-surety on a subject with a complete lack of knowledge in the relevant material.

That's what? Three comments explaining that formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body, and this commenter responds by, apparently, completely ignoring it.

She also has a very warped sense of Wakefield, where "COMPLETELY proven to be correct" is synonymous with "admitted to fraud in his research and had his license stripped."

One more: the "x number of vaccines before x months" thing is hilarious in the extreme... fact is, you are exposed to hundreds, if not thousands or more, of potential pathogens every day from the day you're born until you die, and these are natural pathogens (read: not weakened or dead vaccine strains). 30-something spread out over 18 or more months is nothing. However, most reasonable pediatricians will alter the vaccine schedule within reason if you really are that concerned.

Mother and Grandmother said...

No, I did NOT ignore it.....I posted what what happens in the body when injected with! As I emphasized, MANMADE formaldehyde is injected into the body. "Complete lack of knowledge on the subject"? Really? Too bad you haven't been with me on my journey of this study as I prayed and grieved over my own grandchildren being injected with these poisons! I have poured over information, both sides, and your time spent studying, listening, watching those parents who have lost children because of vaccines, and not just to death.
Anton, did you visit those sites, or are you just reading pediatric journals written by people who are paid to skew their papers? As for Dr. Wakefield, he did not admit to fraudulent research. At the risk of repetition, and I'll speak slowly, the CDC, C. D. C., has two whistleblowers that have admitted to cover up of the link with the MMR and autism. Now there in lies my cock-surety. I'm not here to advance Dr. Andrew Wakefield, he is just a man who cares deeply for these damaged children and is helping families find answers and help. Try asking a pediatrician for help after your child is injected and suffers horrible side effects, literal denial. My friend has a daughter in the first grade who just out of curiosity obtained her vaccination records, 66 vaccinations since birth. Do you really think that is not a problem?
You truly need to research how the body reacts to natural pathogens and injected man made viruses, sir. This actually lowers immunity. This new virus children are experiencing, are ONLY effecting FULLY VACCINATED children. Why? Because vaccinations destroy the immunity system because it simply isn't true immunity. Viruses enter the body and end up in the GUT, where 70% of the immunity system lies. Injecting bypasses this normal action and just simply doesn't work, regardless of what is told.
I suggest that you go get your vaccinations, because your "protection" is gone. You go and see how you feel, fever headache, ringing in the ears, too many to list here. You go get 66 in the next 6 years and let's see how your body reacts.
Let me know how that works for you.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Let's try this from the bottom: please explain to me the difference between man-made and naturally-occurring formaldehyde. We'll go on from there.

Pro tip: there is only one correct answer.

Rhology said...

OK, it sounds like there's no diff in them.
Does it make a difference that
1) the formaldehyde in vax is injected directly into the bloodstream from an external source
2) it's not just formaldehyde we're injecting?

Rhology said...

. fact is, you are exposed to hundreds, if not thousands or more, of potential pathogens every day from the day you're born until you die

Injected directly into the bloodstream? I doubt it.



30-something spread out over 18 or more months is nothing.

How do you figure? 30 is a lot.

What's wrong with vaxing later in life? Like starting around, say, 10 years old?

Ben said...

OK, it sounds like there's no diff in them.
Does it make a difference that
1) the formaldehyde in vax is injected directly into the bloodstream from an external source
2) it's not just formaldehyde we're injecting?


There doesn't seem to be any evidence that that's the case. And what we know about formaldehyde makes it very unlikely it'll cause issues. formaldehyde is most dangerous when it's inhaled. That's when it's carcinogenic. Everyone already has formaldehyde in their bloodstream. Also the negative effects of formaldehyde are generally reversible. And we're talking about such small amounts. Less than is already in the blood stream and less than is in an apple.

http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fa/files/formaldehyde.pdf

It's not useful to say that an ingredient is poisonous without explaining it. I can correctly say that water is poisonous. But that's not useful unless I also explain how much it takes to poison you. It'd be especially silly if I said water is poisonous so I only let my kids drink lemonade. You see the same thing with vaccines. People don't want them because they contain formaldehyde or mercury, but they're giving their kids more than is in the vaccine when they give them fruit or meat.

Rhology said...

I don't really want to put stuff that is carcinogenic when inhaled directly into my bloodstream via needle. Am I crazy to think that?


Everyone already has formaldehyde in their bloodstream

Yes, I hear you. But the amount that gets into the bloodstream is regulated by the bodily organs.


Also the negative effects of formaldehyde are generally reversible

We hope. :-)


Less than is already in the blood stream and less than is in an apple.

I don't inject applesauce via hypodermic needle.


People don't want them because they contain formaldehyde or mercury

We haven't discussed mercury much yet.
Pregnant women aren't supposed to eat much fish b/c it contains mercury. But let the baby grow a bit more and be born and suddenly it's fine to inject mercury into their bloodstream?

Ben said...

Injected directly into the bloodstream? I doubt it.

They're not injected into your bloodstream, but they get into it easily enough.

How do you figure? 30 is a lot.

It's not a lot compared to the thousands you're regularly exposed to.

I'm open to the possibility that some vaccines are dangerous, but I want to see evidence that that's the case. The typical anti vaccine case is similar to how people argue for conspiracy theories. You throw around some scary sounding facts, ignore evidence that goes against your position, and play some spooky music.

Also remember that you need to not only show that there are potential negatives to vaccines. You also need to show that the negatives outweigh the benefits of vaccines.

Yes mercury is dangerous and I'd be an idiot to inject it into my child for no reason even in small amounts. But that's different from giving them some meat or a vaccine that I know will contain some amount of mercury.

Ben said...

I don't really want to put stuff that is carcinogenic when inhaled directly into my bloodstream via needle. Am I crazy to think that?

Is there evidence that injecting it is especially dangerous? I agree it does sound scary and it's certainly something to investigate further. However the evidence so far is that it's not harmful in the amounts we use.

Rhology said...

Do they get into the bloodstream in comparable amounts?

And as far as the thousands to which I'm regularly exposed,
1) we're not vaxed for those others
2) they're not as contagious as the ones against which these vax exist, no?



I want to see evidence that that's the case

I hear you. But when we're talking about injecting mercury into the blood, and when we see infants, immediately upon injection, suddenly scream aloud and collapse into a coma, that's evidence.


You also need to show that the negatives outweigh the benefits of vaccines.

Yes; that comes thru weighing the evidence for and against.
It's what I'm trying to do here. I'd love to be inoculated against every single malady that exists out there. What's the trade-off?



Yes mercury is dangerous and I'd be an idiot to inject it into my child for no reason even in small amounts.

Whoa whoa, remove "for no reason" and let's take another look at that statement.
Yes mercury is dangerous and I'd be an idiot to inject it into my child even in small amounts.


Rhology said...

However the evidence so far is that it's not harmful in the amounts we use.

Well, the anti-vax people think they do have evidence it is harmful.

Here's some.

Some related thoughts.

Ben said...

Whoa whoa, remove "for no reason" and let's take another look at that statement.
Yes mercury is dangerous and I'd be an idiot to inject it into my child even in small amounts.


I could have said "I'd be an idiot to cut my child for no reason". But if they have a tumor it's the best thing for them and the cut will heal.

You can't just remove the "for no reason". If the risk is small and the benefit is large then it's a good thing to do. Even if it's not something you'd do for it's own sake.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

This may take a bit so forgive me if I can't shorten it too much.

First, Rho, you keep bringing up the "directly into the bloodstream" as if that's of critical importance. It really isn't. Think of the bloodstream as simply a highway. Unless something is acutely toxic to blood components, it's the destination that matters. Toxic substances produced by your cells are dumped into the blood all the time, where they're filtered and excreted - that's what your kidneys are for. Things delivered via blood to your cells get there in all sorts of ways, whether directly placed in the blood or not. Essentially what I'm saying, using the formaldehyde example, is that your cells dump the stuff into the bloodstream every day. Blood is not the end-all here at all... it's the destination that matters, and what the destination cells do with it.

On the "body parts of murdered children" thing, I can respect your (and others') moral objections. However, is it your opinion that a cell line generated from a single aborted fetus 30 or more years ago, and propagated in a petri dish ever since (with no further dead babies as a source), is exactly the same as "injecting a child with murdered baby parts"? Sure, the source material is morally repugnant to many, which I get, but an immortalized cell line has almost nothing in common with the original source cell. In fact, and immortalized cell line in you body is what you'd call "cancerous". Fortunately, we are very close to the point where we can custom-build human cell lines without any objectionable sources.

As for things like mercury, almost all childhood vaccines in the US have either zero or only trace mercury, and because thimerosal is an organic mercury compound, it means that not all mercury is created equal. In fact, the mercury in vaccines is of a type that has little evidence to suggest any adverse effects other than localized allergic reactions lasting only a short time (days at most).

As far as delaying the vax schedule, many pediatricians will do just that upon request (shop around a bit... in your part of the country you should find one willing to discuss options and hear every one of your concerns without judgement or arguing... there's probably even a web resource for you). However, some should not be delayed. You keep, for instance, bringing up screaming and seizures. Of the two, only one is a severe adverse reaction. Consider the balance: measles itself is more commonly lethal to a child than the total occurrence of all severe adverse reactions combined - that's seizure, coma, etc. You might not like the gamble, but the vaccine is less likely to cause any of these things than the likelihood of your child outright dying. Good gamble, if you ask me.

Now, as far as what you're exposed to every day, lots of it would love to kill you, but your various layers of bodily protection are pretty good, for most people. What we vaccinate against are the things that we can't fight well without help, and that have a good chance of causing serious issues.

To finish off, the pathogens we inject in a vaccine are either weakened so they are no longer pathogenic, or outright dead - which is the reason for the various preservatives and chemicals. Many pathogens only need to be intact, but not alive, for the immune system to find something about them worth recognizing. Some need to be live, and sometimes you can even just use a few parts of them and not the whole. Either way, there are tons of people looking for new ways every day, and tons just looking for new preservatives, new chemical solutions, and non-objectionable cell line sources.

Bottom line: it's getting better all the time, and will keep doing so as long as we keep looking.

Hope this helps a little, and Ben's answers have been pretty good as well.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

One more thing, regarding one of your two links:

So, a ruling by a foreign judge, despite loads of clinical data, is evidence that MMR and autism are linked?

Let's turn that around: a few years ago a judge ruled that Intelligent Design is repackaged creationism and not science and therefore does not belong in classrooms. Is that a correct ruling?

Bottom line: courts aren't where science and medicine happen.

David said...

Ah - so much misinformation, so little time!

1. Vaccines are NOT injected "directly into the bloodstream." They are give SQ (deposited in the subcutanoueous layers of the skin) or IM (intramuscularly - deposited into a large group of muscle cells in the arm or buttock or thigh). The contents of the injection then migrate/osmose into the blood stream much like the sugar in a Twinkie migrates into the bloodstream via the chorionic villi of the intestines.

2.Formaldehyde is naturally occurring in the body in much larger amounts than in any vaccine. A glass of apple juice will cause the production of many times more. Toxicity is dose dependent. Always. (see the remark about water above). Dose. Dose. Dose.

3. Why is "in the bloodstream" such a scary proposition anyway? How else do you think that the body filters and removes waste products (like the formaldehyde produced by your OJ this morning) from the body anyway? FedEx? UPS? Nope. It filters them through the liver and kidneys and expels them. How to get to the highly vascular liver? That's right - THE BLOODSTREAM!

4. No mercury containing compounds have been used in childhood vaccines for over 10 years. If you ate any catfish or salmon anytime this past month you've ingested mercury (that got into your bloodstream the exact same way vaccines get into your bloodstream)

5. There is NO link between autism and vaccines as has been shown by hundreds of studies here and abroad.

Rhology said...

Ah yes, but is the benefit large? I wouldn't call a much-elevated risk of autism or of sudden violent collapse into a coma a positive development.
Or... the benefit is that they might not catch the disease against which they were vax'd... even though that apparently happens a fair amount... even though these diseases are nowhere around me and so the risk of actually contracting the disease is pretty low...


the reason I bring up the bloodstream is that the body regulates what gets into the bloodstream when I eat stuff or breathe stuff. there's a reason why people choose to inject most illegal drugs rather than to swallow them - it produces a stronger effect, a better high, b/c the body can't filter it as well before it crosses the blood/brain barrier. I'm pretty nervous about adding mercury and other human-cellular elements to my kid's brain.

You ask:
However, is it your opinion that a cell line generated from a single aborted fetus 30 or more years ago, and propagated in a petri dish ever since (with no further dead babies as a source), is exactly the same as "injecting a child with murdered baby parts"?

Of course it is the same.


we are very close to the point where we can custom-build human cell lines without any objectionable sources.

Well, then, let's do that rather than do evil that good may result.


almost all childhood vaccines in the US have either zero or only trace mercury

I remind you that I am asking honest questions and not trying to ape the knee-jerk anti-vax person that you may assume I am: Why do anti-vax people claim that vax contain mercury?


measles itself is more commonly lethal to a child than the total occurrence of all severe adverse reactions combined

It is, with modern medical treatment? Or it was back in the day?


a ruling by a foreign judge, despite loads of clinical data, is evidence that MMR and autism are linked?

Funny that we noted the same irony here about the evolution vs Intelligent Design - all the Darwinians were quick to do the victory jig when a judge ruled that ID is not science.
Anyway, do you know why his decision was wrong? What of the claims of cover-up?



Anton Q. Mouse said...

Forgive me, Rho, but my time this week has been pretty well soaked this week so far. I will try to have some food-for-thought for you later this evening.

One item:
I remind you that I am asking honest questions and not trying to ape the knee-jerk anti-vax person that you may assume I am:

I have not assumed that here at all, and am not planning to start any time soon. Personally, I think this discussion has been much more interesting and productive than what I'm used to regarding this topic.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Ugh, that first sentence of mine makes me cringe... preview! Preview!

(Guess that's what I get for posting first thing in the morning without being truly awake)

Rhology said...

I have not assumed that here at all, and am not planning to start any time soon. Personally, I think this discussion has been much more interesting and productive than what I'm used to regarding this topic.

Glad to hear it! :-)

Anton Q. Mouse said...

Ok, here are a few numbers for your perusal...

In the US, right now, your chances of dying if you contract measles are about 2-3/1000, with slightly higher chances of permanent blindness or deafness. The most at-risk groups are 5 and under, and over 25. Your chances of both catching it and dying are roughly the same as your chances of having a severe adverse reaction to MMR (coma, long-term seizures, etc.) if you are not vaccinated. Also, if you are not vaccinated, your chances of contracting measles in the first place are about 300 times higher, and the chance of an infection causing hospitalization is about 25%, with a 30% rate for severe measles complications of one sort or another. The chance of dying from measles in developing countries ranges from pretty low to as high as 28% or thereabouts.

Probably the best argument for the effectiveness of herd immunity is in the numbers as well, with unvaxed kids in the US being about 200 times less likely to catch measles than those in countries without comprehensive vaccine programs. The infection rate in the US, prior to the vaccine program, was nearly 100% by the time a child was 15 years old. Better sanitation and healthcare took care of a lot of that, but not all.

On another note (regarding abortion-derived cell lines), you seem to have a very binary way of looking at the world, particularly when it comes to even good things resulting from evil things, but I can respect that. In fact, I respect the hell out of your consistency on the issue, though I'm not sure I am even capable of putting my thinking in your shoes, so to speak. So, in short, I have to give you serious kudos on that front.

As for designer cell lines, things don't move quickly in medicine and biotech, for reasons both good and bad, but I'd say we're 5-10 years away at this point, and I hope it's even sooner.

Anyway, for the CDC whistleblower claims, I'd hate to barf a bunch of links at you right now, but you should check out Science-Based Medicine or Respectful Insolence for some pretty detailed coverage of the issue. The involved authors love to write obscenely long articles, but I've known a couple of them for nearly a decade now and they're worth reading (sure, Orac from R.I. is a bit prickly, but who isn't when they care deeply about a topic?).

I'll chat more with you as time allows. I've enjoyed this so far, so thanks!

Rhology said...

What do you think of this?
article

Rhology said...

Your chances of both catching it and dying are roughly the same as your chances of having a severe adverse reaction to MMR (coma, long-term seizures, etc.) if you are not vaccinated.

I hear you... I guess I'm just wondering about a couple of things on that:
-if I get measles, with modern medical care I have a hard time believing that the symptoms would be all that bad
-as a bonus if I get it and recover then I'm immune for life pretty much
-I have a sneaking suspicion that it's in the medical establishment's best interest to under-report significant bad reactions to a cash cow like the MMR vax.


with unvaxed kids in the US being about 200 times less likely to catch measles than those in countries without comprehensive vaccine programs

OK.
At the same time, I don't really fear that as much, since I homeschool my kids. I'd do pretty much anything I had to do to keep them out of the guvmint skuulz, so that should help quite a bit, don't you think?


On another note (regarding abortion-derived cell lines), you seem to have a very binary way of looking at the world, particularly when it comes to even good things resulting from evil things

Yes, I strive to be consistently Christian in all things, not doing evil that good may result.


I have to give you serious kudos on that front.

Appreciated.
This consistency and good can be yours, too, you know.
Take a moment to check this.


you should check out Science-Based Medicine or Respectful Insolence

Thanks.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

For your linked article, I am skeptical of anything regarding vaccines that comes from someone a) not working, trained, or educated in the relevant fields and b) who embraces some pretty wacky health related stuff. You may remember a video making the rounds on FB a year or two ago by a lady calling herself "Patriot Nurse" explaining why she didn't want to vaccinate (she got almost a perfect hat-trick of everything wrong). However, I promise to read the article with as little bias as possible and see if I can come up with anything worth saying about it.

Moving on, I have seriously mixed feelings on home schooling. On the plus side, I've met some of the best and brightest students, even while teaching in college, who were homeschooled for varying amounts of time. One student - a 17 year old Jewish sophomore in college - took the top score out of 6 sections of a microbiology class I was teaching last spring, and that was against some serious competition.

On the downside, homeschooling up to college seems to severely stunt social growth, which you may or may not think is a big deal, but consider: there are lots of different types of predators out there, and socially stunted kids tend to make easy targets. Not to mention, we are social as a species (I took up bartending for a while after graduate school just to hone my social skills and get out of the "nerd rut"). Also, the effectiveness of homeschooling depends on the competency of the teacher. What happens, for instance, when your child gets into math that you can't really help with or effectively teach? If your area has a good support network for homeschoolers that addresses this sort of thing, I say go for it!

Remember, though, that life doesn't exist in a vaccuum. You are certainly lowering disease risks by a substantial (sorry, no solid numbers but my estimate is probably by half or more) amount by staying out of state-run, overcrowded schools, but what about the things you (or your wife) contact in your daily life and bring home?

Given what I've learned of your situation thus far, in your shoes (as far as I can place myself in them which, granted, isn't that great of a metric) I'd probably be on the fence and maybe even leaning away as well, and this is coming from someone who is 100% pro-vax with degrees in the relevant fields, for what it's worth. I still suggest you sit down with a pediatrician who's willing to listen to your concerns, and explain things just as you have done with me. You might be pleasantly surprised (hey, if you can influence my position on your situation with a rational set of concerns, you can do the same with most anyone).

One final note: with adverse vaccine reaction reporting, the opposite from what you suspect is actually the case. The adverse event reporting system is wide-open with no quality controls for correlation, so over-reporting is a huge problem. Basically, your kid could get a vaccine and get the runs a few hours later from a bad sandwich, you could report it as a vaccine reaction, and it would go into the database as such. Unfortunately, there isn't really a better system at the moment that's not unnecessarily cumbersome or invasive of privacy. If you come up with one, the medical establishment would probably thank you for it.

Rhology said...

You are certainly lowering disease risks by a substantial (sorry, no solid numbers but my estimate is probably by half or more) amount by staying out of state-run, overcrowded schools, but what about the things you (or your wife) contact in your daily life and bring home?

True, you can't live your life in a bubble. And true, I bring stuff home from work and the kids are oot and aboot with friends and with the church and such.
However, I don't see how that's remotely comparable to being in a gubmint skuul. In an elementary/primary school setting, we're talking potential contact with 200+ other kids per day, not to mention teachers who are not necessarily of ideal health themselves. Plus, the surfaces that all those kids have touched, and bad hygiene, and pretty much non-existent handwashing before lunch, etc. A skuul building is a disease's dreamhouse.

I'm keeping my kids out of such a place and setting. I don't think it reduces their danger of exposure by a little; I think it reduces it an astronomical amount. Do you think I'm wrong there?


I'd probably be on the fence and maybe even leaning away as well, and this is coming from someone who is 100% pro-vax with degrees in the relevant fields, for what it's worth

That's fair.


I still suggest you sit down with a pediatrician who's willing to listen to your concerns, and explain things just as you have done with me. You might be pleasantly surprised

Not a bad idea.


If you come up with one, the medical establishment would probably thank you for it.

To be 100% honest here, and again, I'm not trying to be snide, that doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence.

Anton Q. Mouse said...

I'm keeping my kids out of such a place and setting. I don't think it reduces their danger of exposure by a little; I think it reduces it an astronomical amount. Do you think I'm wrong there?

No, I absolutely agree with you. However, when I don't have solid numbers at my disposal, I tend to err on the very conservative side of risk assessment.

To be 100% honest here, and again, I'm not trying to be snide, that doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence.

Consider that the issue with correlating vaccine reactions suffers from a number of things. The big one of course being reporting without independent confirmation. Unfortunately, I don't know of a better way without some serious invasions of patient privacy and unacceptable encroachment of government into everyone's medical care decisions. What I meant by "finding a better system" is finding one that is more efficient, more accurate, takes nuance into account and doesn't trample on patient rights. The last item there is the tough part.