Heather White
 
I can list a ton of examples but one in particular is creating a lot of attention and is woefully inaccurate.
Picture
On January 14, 2012 an RN explains why she would never vaccinate infants in this video.  It's about 9:30 min long and her explanation covers limited topics regarding vaccines.  She uses a pseudonym to protect her identity and all comments to her video are closed.  The video has currently received over 30,000 hits.  Her pseudonym to protect her privacy is The Patriot Nurse.

Then on January 17, 2012, Shot of Prevention, News & Views on Vaccines submitted this article; Responsible Nurses, and Then There's This by Christine Vara.  This is quite possibly the worst attempt at spin and misinformation that I've seen in a long time.  

The first few paragraphs are a bunch of blah, blah I can't believe a nurse of all people doesn't agree with my vaccine religion.  Then Christine does something utterly despicable.  She gives the full name of the Patriot Nurse and place of employment completely, links included ignoring the courtesy of privacy.  The Patriot Nurse is now being harassed and this group of obnoxious people are trying to get her fired.  That my friends is apparently how we're doing things in America if you don't follow the herd.  

Then she ever so politely hands the majority of the article over to an anonymous Canadian nurse and lists her/his credentials that we cannot check.  How disingenuous especally since transparency seems to be important to Christine.  What's even more low-some is the anonymous RN completely dives into a dish of spin and misinformation.  Let's go thru it point by point.

Picture
Point #1 Spin

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"As we all know there is no mercury in vaccines - there was never mercury in vaccines.  There WAS thimerosal, which is a mercury compound"

That is true thimerosal is a mercury compound.  When scientists and our health authorities discuss thimerosal and the amount of the mercury compound present in vaccines it is often described as "mercury" just as the Patriot Nurse described.  

Evidence:

From the vaccine manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur, Fluzone
Page 22 Table of Ingredients and Quantity (per dose)
Multi-Dose Presentation (Thimerosal)
Fluzone 0.5 mL Dose 25 mcg MERCURY

You see this time and time again throughout peer-review and public health statements.  This is a nit picky attempt to discredit and distract from the issues.  So is a "mercury compound" non-toxic or less toxic then mercury?  They both are quite toxic.

Evidence:

From the EPA; Hazard Summary-Created in April 1992; Revised in January 2000
"Mercury exists in three forms:  elemental mercury, inorganic mercury compounds (primarily mercuric chloride), and organic mercury compounds (primarily methyl mercury).  ALL FORMS OF MERCURY ARE QUITE TOXIC, AND EACH FORM EXHIBITS DIFFERENT HEALTH EFFECTS."

Point # 1 Summary

Thimerosal is classified as an organic mercury compound and is often described by our health authorities and scientist when discussing in context of vaccines as mercury.  It is quite toxic in any form and requires a skull and crossbones label, symbol for death on it's packaging - see photo above for evidence.  

Picture
Point # 2 Spin

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"She gives an example of a tuna sandwich.  She may claim that because the "gut" is a semi-permeable membrane that eating fish with mercury would be different than injecting mercury."

Two issues:

a) As discussed, there is no mercury in vaccines.  and the two types of "mercury" you're discussing are not molecularly similar."

I would first like to point out that the anonymous Canadian RN is not using her literal description of mercury that she was so critical to point out in Point # 1 Spin.

The first portion "As discussed, there is no mercury in vaccines" has been completely discredited as spin.  

Now let's look at the second.  Although methyl mercury (tuna fish) and ethyl mercury (vaccines) are not molecularly similar they are compared to each other by our health authorities, scientist and researchers.  This professional body finds them to be similar enough to not study the toxic threshold of ethyl mercury and only go off what we know regarding methyl mercury.  So you clarified the Patriot Nurse's stand  "that eating fish with mercury would be different than injecting mercury."  Because #1 the routes are different and #2 "the two types of "mercury" you're discussing are not molecularly similar."

We have made common ground here, how about that.  Now let's hear the exact quote from the Patriot Nurse which does not exactly match what you've stated.

Time Stamp 2:58

"The pro-vaccines side tends to say that the mercury present in these vaccines is no more toxic than what you would ingest in your average dish of tuna."

The evidence of this is abundant.  Her statement is absolutely true and I don't feel that it's necessary to time stamp and link to all the statements made by pro-vaccine apologists that substantiate her claim.  Paul Offit among others always brings up this media talking point to justify mercury compounds in vaccines.  Even-though as you state they are not the same and as I say the routes are completely different.  

Time Stamp 3:20

"As a nurse I do not see that there is ever an acceptable time to inject, bypassing the bodies natural defense mechanisim by the way thru the gut......"

Injecting mercury is toxic no matter what route it's given, but aluminum is not as easily absorbed when ingested.  Injecting aluminum and mercury is exactly as she says not acceptable.  

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"b) The gut does NOT stop mercury from reaching the bloodstream."

This is true but if we look at the science when comparing ingestion of methyl mercury and injection of ethyl mercury we see that the ethyl mercury monkeys had higher levels of mercury in the kidneys when compared to the methyl mercury monkeys.  Ethyl mercury clears the blood at a higher rate but both mercury compounds uptake in tissues  about the same (~4-7 ng/g and ~10 ng/g, respectively).  The concentration of total inorganic mercury in the brain of the thimerosal-exposed monkeys was much higher.

Here is the study:  Burbacher, "Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccine containing Thimerosal", Environmental Health Perspectives, Aug 2005. 

Excerpt from study:

The concentration of total inorganic mercury in the brains of the thimerosal-exposed monkeys is up to 4.6 times higher than in the blood at 2 days after the last injection.  The ratio increased as the sacrifices were performed at longer duration from the last dose.

Also they discovered that thimerosal injected monkeys had higher uptake of disposition fate of INORGANIC MERCURY PARTICULARLY IN THE BRAIN that was associated with microglia activation.  Inorganic mercury can stay in the brain for the duration of a patients life! 

Microglia activation via thimerosal injection is also big deal because this causes neural damage or inflammation.

Point # 2 Spin Summary 

Your loosely quoted claim from the Patriot Nurse is not literally accurate.  You again criticize the use of her term mercury but use it yourself.  You focus on ingestion of mercury compounds but ignore that all forms of mercury are highly toxic.  You disagree with comparing ethyl mercury with methyl mercury because they are not molecularly similar yet that is exactly what your camp does to enact polices and set toxic dose threshold rates.  EXCEPT when they exceed those rates like injecting pregnant women with flu vaccines containing 25mcg of thimerosal (RfD of 0.1 ug/kg body weight/day).  

Picture
Point # 3 Misinformation

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"Aluminum is the most abundant element in our environment.  We ingest sizable amounts of it on a daily basis.  Aluminum is more plentiful in breast milk than vaccines; an infant will ingest more aluminum from breastfeeding than all the childhood vaccines put together."

Ingestion and injection of this neurotoxin is not comparable.  You are deliberately doing so to mislead the public.  We'll go to the science for clarity.

You do admit this;

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"less than 1 percent of aluminum present in food is absorbed through the intestines into the blood"

So I think we can relax about your comparison claims regarding breast milk consumption and vaccine injection.  This also substantiates the Patriots Nurses claim that bypassing the gut and injecting this neurotoxin is not advisable because when you inject this toxin the blood ratios are MUCH HIGHER.  

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"Aluminum - regardless of route of entry is excreted very efficiently by the kidneys."

Then you quote a generic publication from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Paul Offit's place of employment.  The hub of misleading information.  Again the quote you supply is comparing ingestion to injection completely ignoring the current science.  Let's get to what the science says about aluminum adjuvants.

First let's clarify the literal description of aluminum adjuvants when used in vaccines.  I'd like to point out that you are not using the true term and are comparing it to elemental aluminum which is false and misleading.

There are three general types of vaccine aluminum adjuvants.
  • Aluminum hydroxide
  • Aluminum phoshpate
  • Potassium aluminum sulfate
According to the toxicology science vaccine aluminum adjuvants are neruotoxic, inadequately studied for safety and may be contributing to the number of ASDs.

Evidence Studies Over the Past Year:

Tomlijenovic, et al, "Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations", Lupus February 2012 vol. 21. 2 223-230

Excerpt:

"Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function........   Because children may be  most at risk of vaccine-induced complications, a rigourous evaluation of the vaccine-related adverse health impacts in the pediatric populationis urgently needed."

Tomijenovic et al, "Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?", J inorg BioChem 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99.

Excerpt:

"The application of the Hill's criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal."

Tomijenovic et al, "Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?", "Med Chem, 2011:18(17):2630-7

Excerpt:

"In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences."

And let's not forget the child with autoimmune disease who's blood "tested positive for recombinant HPV-11 and HPV-18 residues, both of which were firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant."  She was vaccinated with Gardasil years prior.  

This evidence flies in the face of your and Paul Offit's presumptions that aluminum adjuvants are effectively excreted by the kidneys.  

Let's talk about Paul Offit real quick.  For those who don't know he was ordered by a Federal Court to pay damages, shred and re-write his book because it was libelous.  In the same week a media outlet came out and slammed Offit for making false statements during an interview.  They (the Orange County Register) had to come out and make a public retraction of information that he presented.  He makes wacky comments like an infant can be injected with 1,000s vaccines at once without harm.  He's been sited by the US Congress for conflicts of interest violations but astonishingly he has just been appointed to the IOM!!!!  And more recently here he is stating that papers linking vaccines to diseases and disorders should not be published.  Even though they go thru rigorous peer-review and are printed in reputable publications suppressing scientific inquiry and expression.

Point # 3 Misinformation Summary

Comparing elemental aluminum to aluminum adjuvants is not accurate.  Ingestion of aluminum is relatively benign with only a 1% absorption rate.  Injection of aluminum adjuvants constitutes a much higher blood ratio absorption rate.  Aluminum can case permanent disability to the brain and immune system and can last in the blood much longer then originally presumed.  It is inadequacy studied for safety regarding IM injections in infants with developing brains.  Aluminum adjuvants may be causal in ASDs.

Picture
Point # 4 Blatant Disregard

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"Many pathogens bypass the gut, so I don't see how this is relevant."

I understand the meaning of this being the difference between natural infection and vaccine induced antigen uptake rates.  Show me the science that shows circumventing this natural process doesn't impact other systems of the body like the brain.  Cell-mediated immunity is activated by vaccination but we don't measure the macrophages, natural killer cells, cytotoxic T-lymphocytes that we know in an over abundance will cause encephalopathy.  We only look at the antigen uptake rates.  So bypassing the gut and using an unnatural route like the vaccine cocktail for transmission with additives that are neurotoxic may overload the immune and neuro response.  

Picture
Point # 5 Misconception/Misinformation

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"After the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, the rate of autism went UP - which is not what we would expect to see if thimerosal was a causative factor."

Thimerosal is still being injected into pregnant women and children.  You are intentially being misleading here.  Please review Thimerosal in Vaccines by the FDA for evidence.

Thimerosal was removed from two vaccines (HIB and HepB) and added back into the schedule via multi-dose flu vaccines and meningococcal.  In 2002 the CDC recommended pregnant mothers to be injected with flu vaccines many containing 25 mcgs of thimerosal completely ignoring the warnings and limits of fetal exposure set by the EPA.

So thimerosal was not removed.  Now onto other factors.  As they phased out thimerosal in two vaccines they added five vaccines to the schedule many containing the neuro toxins aluminum adjuvants and thimerosal.  The MMR vaccine quadrupled the amount of mumps virus in the combination shot, from 5,000 to 20,000 units.  Many of the vaccines contain other controversial ingredients' like Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) that contains L-cystine. Polysorbate 80 (Tween 80) a surfactant (lowers surface tension); makes the blood-brain barrier more porous facilitating passage of the many contaminates and other substances thru the barrier and into the brain tissue.  Tween 80 is also known to cause infertility in lab animals.  There is another controversial ingredient in vaccines called MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein (aborted fetuses).  They also widened the diagnostic criteria including aspergers and PPNOS etc.  They are subsequently reversing this policy.  Your simplistic and inaccurate assumptions regarding autism trends and thimerosal does not encompass all these cofounders.   

The CDC's recommended vaccination schedule is not tested for safety.  The CDC announced its plan in 2011 to organize a 5-year research agenda for vaccine safety.  They plan to study autism as a clinical outcome of vaccination and will look at the simultaneous injections via the recommendations for the vaccine schedule.  They also study the feasibility of the long awaited vaccinated vs. unvaccinated research.  

Point # 5 Misconception/Misinformation Summary 

Thimerosal was never removed from the CDC's recommended schedule.  Autism rates have climbed even when you take into account misdiagnosis and greater counting efforts.  Autism is classified as a National Health Emergency but the keyboard skeptics continue to down play and normalize this biological epidemic.  Can vaccines contribute to the cause of some cases of autism (or other negative neruodevelopmental outcomes) in a small subset of the pediatric population who responds atypically to immunization due to genetic (and/or other) reasons?  According to statements from our health authority vaccines cause encephalopathy which may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism or seizures but they don't actively track that brain injury pattern.  They routinely say vaccines do not cause autism, vaccines just "result in" autism.  This semantic word play was probably written by lawyers no less.  

Picture
Point # 6 Misinformation

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"There have been so many studies showing zero correlation between vaccination and autism that I'm amazed every time I even see this brought up."

Then you go on to list the same old large population based epidemiological studies.

Here is what the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) said regarding the current research, "Numerous epidemiological studies have found no relationship between ASD and vaccines containing the mercury based preservative thimerosal."  However, the Institute of Medicine report acknowledged that the existing population-based studies were limited in their ability to detect small susceptible subpopulations that could be more genetically vulnerable to environmental exposures.

Additionally under carful review by independent doctors and scientists the epidemiological research not only is a blunt tool for determining causation the studies used have blatant conflicts of interest, poor designs and unsupported conclusions. 

Point # 6 Misinformation Summary

The studies used to refute the claim of vaccine autism causation are inadequate yet they are touted beyond the state of embarrassment.  The good news is there is a title wave of research coming in that link vaccines to a myriad of chronic and debilitating childhood diseases.  They are purposefully being marginalized to uphold a policy that hasn't even past basic safety analysis.  Here is a timeline of research and statements that link vaccines with said diseases.  

Picture
Point # 7 Misinformation

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"Does she know that despite the increasing number of vaccines available, there is a smaller amount of adjuvant and pathogen per vaccine.  The load on the body is actually LESS than it was 20 or 30 years ago."

Then you link to the discredited Paul Offit and his infamous quote, 

"even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously." - that quote probably makes him cringe today.

According to the science that I've liked you to above, the researches say children are getting more assaults from vaccine adjuvants.  But anyone can do the math.  Add up the amount of aluminum adjuvants a child now receives from when they did let's say 1983. If you go by the recommended vaccination schedule, by the time a child reaches 15 months of age will have gotten around 2180 mcgs of the neurotoxin aluminum adjuvants. In 1983 The DTP was the only vaccine given at that time that contained aluminum adjuvants.   Infanrix by GlaxoSmithKline contained 650 mcg of aluminum and would be given 3 times by 15 months of age that would equal 1950 mcgs accumulation.  So Paul Offit's and your claims are incorrect.  You can continue to add up the toxin all the way thru the recommended schedule, today's schedule still comes out ahead.  

Now before you say that 650 mcg of aluminum adjuvant is much higher then lets say Merck's PedvaxHIB Vaccines which contains 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant, these vaccines are often given simultaneously with other aluminum containing vaccines.  We know that the separate injection sites are not distinguished by the body.  This is reiterated by this peer-review.

Shann, Frank, "The Nonspecific Effects of Vaccines and the Expanded Program on Immunization", The Journal Of Infectious Diseases, Vol 204, Issue 2, March 2011

Excerpt:

"There is now clear evidence that the simplistic conventional model of immunization is invalid. We can no longer assume that a vaccine acts independently of other vaccines, or that it influences only infectious caused by the target disease."

Point # 7 Misinformation Summary

Your point is not based on the evidence or science.  

Picture
Point # 8 Misinformation

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"Of what?  The immune system that encounter literally thousands of pathogens on a daily basis?"

Then you link to the same Paul Offit paper as you did above.  You know the one where he makes the wacky claim that an infant can be injected with 1000s of vaccines simultaneously without any adverse affects!!

Here is some current research

Ratajczak HV, "Theorectical aspects of autism: causes -- a review.", J Immunotoxicol 2001 Jan-Mar;8(1):68-79.

Excerpt

"Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination."

Picture
Point # 9 Denial

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"...we shouldn't be speaking authoritatively on the causative factor of allergies or autoimmune disorders - that's not within our scope."

Then you link to cases where autioimmune pathology has been firmly associated with vaccines.  Substituting her claim. 

But let's look at the list of known vaccine injuries by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Vaccine Injury Table

Anaphylaxix or anaphylactic shock
Brachial neuritis
Any acute complication or sequela (example epileptic seizures)
Death
Encephalopathy
Chronic arthritis (autoimmune disease)
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Vaccine-strain measles
Paralytic polio
Vaccine-strain polio viral infection.

There are 6 peer-reviewed studies that I know of that discuss the association of vaccinations and allergy-related disease such as sinusitis, nose and eye symptoms and severe allergic reactions.

Here is one

Hurwitz et al, "Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus vaccination on allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and adolescents in the United States.", J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000 Feb; 23(2):81-90.

Point # 9 Denial Summary

Vaccines do in fact cause autoimmune disorders and allergies as described by the Patriot Nurse.  

Picture
Point # 10 Question

Excerpt from anonymous Canadian RN

"Breast milk can only provide antibodies to a child for things that the mother is immune to.  If the mother has never HAD MENINGITIS she does not have antibodies to pass on that will protect her baby from meningitis."

But if she did come in contact with a pathogen she would therefore relaying those antibodies to her child.  

Are you against breast feeding???

Vaccines are not proven safe.  The scientific studies discrediting the link(s) are large population based studies that cannot pickup subsets adversely affected by vaccination.  Vaccines carry risk of death and disability and I would also encourage people to speak to their physicians about vaccine risks and whether or not certain vaccines shouldn't be administered at all.  Physicians should remember individualized care and not unilaterally vaccinate every child every time.  Patient/family history should be paramount in the decision to vaccinate and options should be given if a parent is leery.  Better lab screening protocols need to be in place to pick up individuals with altered immune systems.  Greater care and contemplation should be given to those patients with those malformations because the vaccine risks increase.  

More scientific reviews need to be completed and ties need to be severed between the government, oversight committees, pediatricians and the pharmaceutical industry.  This would go a long way to re-establish trust for a lagging policy.  

Do your own homework prior to having this medical procedure and start by reading what the manufacturers say about their own products in the pull-out that the pediatricians' never supply parents.  Parents are not being properly consented which is a clear violation of medical ethics.  

So we, the informed public must read for ourselves without interference of people/organizations with vested interests.  And any nurse or mother that stands against this policy should have equal time at the table and should not be attacked as viciously as the Patriot Nurse.
 


Comments

Jon
01/31/2012 4:13am

"Then Christine does something utterly despicable. She gives the full name of the Patriot Nurse and place of employment completely ignoring the courtesy of privacy."

You're right: that is pretty despicable behavior.

Reply
10/09/2012 4:24am

The matter written on your blog really keeps tying the reader till the end. Very interesting use of phrases and idioms.

Reply

Thanks for your post. I’ve been thinking about writing a very comparable post over the last couple of weeks, I’ll probably keep it short and sweet and link to this instead if that’s cool. Thanks

Jon
01/31/2012 4:15am

"So is a "mercury compound" non-toxic or less toxic then mercury? No.

Evidence:

From the EPA; Hazard Summary-Created in April 1992; Revised in January 2000
"Mercury exists in three forms: elemental mercury, inorganic mercury compounds (primarily mercuric chloride), and organic mercury compounds (primarily methyl mercury). ALL FORMS OF MERCURY ARE QUITE TOXIC, AND EACH FORM EXHIBITS DIFFERENT HEALTH EFFECTS.""

The EPA statement does not support your statement. "All forms of mercury are quite toxic" does not mean that all forms of mercury are equally toxic, which is your argument. In fact, "each form exhibits different health effects" very clearly indicates that not all forms of mercury effect your body in the same way.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 4:18am

""As we all know there is no mercury in vaccines - there was never mercury in vaccines. There WAS thimerosal, which is a mercury compound""

I would agree with you: this statement is wrong. There is/was mercury in vaccines, in the form of thimerosal. The problem is when you try to equate thimerosal with any or all forms of mercury. This is why so many "skeptics" (whatever that means...) are insistent on using correct language. When you say "vaccines contain mercury", people think of the mercury in fish or the silvery liquid form of mercury. This is wrong, and misinformation. More importantly, you can't take papers that study the toxicity of other forms of mercury (e.g. methyl mercury) and use them to argue that thimerosal is toxic. Language is important. It is always important.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 4:21am

"Although methyl mercury (tuna fish) and ethyl mercury (vaccines) are not molecularly similar they are compared to each other by our health authorities, scientist and researchers. This professional body finds them to be similar enough to not study the toxic threshold of ethyl mercury and only go off what we know regarding methyl mercury."

That is simply NOT TRUE! There have been multiple studies that demonstrate that ethylmercury and methylmercury are NOT comparable and do NOT possess identical toxicities. That would by like saying "ethanol and methanol are pretty much the same thing". This is misinformation.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 4:43am

"This is true but if we look at the science when comparing ingestion of methyl mercury and injection of ethyl mercury we see that the ethyl mercury monkeys had higher levels of mercury in the brain and organs when compared to the methyl mercury monkeys. "

This is incorrect.

Figure 3 shows the concentration of mercury in the brain, after oral doses of MeHg, to be around 100 ng/g. Figure 6 show that concentration of mercury in the brain, after im injection of vaccines containing thimerosal, to be betwee 20 and 40 ng/g.

The discussion also says the following:

"Total Hg derived from in thimerosal in cleared from the infant M. fascicularis much more quickly than MeHg"

They do find that the *proportion* of inorganic mercury to organic mercury is higher in the brains of monkeys that received thimerosal, but the *concentration* of inorganic mercury is pretty close between the MeHg and thimerosal groups (~4-7 ng/g and ~10 ng/g, respectively).

This paper also concludes that "MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg", which completely disputed your previous argument that MeHg and Thimerosal are nearly identical.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 4:48am

"And let's not forget the child with autoimmune disease who's blood "tested positive for recombinant HPV-11 and HPV-18 residues, both of which were firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant." She was vaccinated with Gardasil years prior. "

This is misinformation. The news article that you cite is referring specifically to recombinant HPV DNA found in a single sample of the Gardasil vaccine, not in the blood of a person. Even if it was, I don't understand your point. What does the presence of recombinant virus DNA in the blood have to do with autoimmunity?

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 4:53am

"Cell-mediated immunity is activated by vaccination but we don't measure the macrophages, natural killer cells, cytotoxic T-lymphocytes that we know in an over abundance will cause encephalopathy."

That's actually not true. Humoral immunity is induced by vaccination, which is why we measure antibodies to determine the immune response to a vaccine. I would also question your logic that "an over abundance will cause encephalopathy.": how many leukemia and lymphoma patients have encephalopathy? According to your argument/logic, most of them should.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 4:56am

"Thimerosal is still being injected into pregnant women and children. You are intentially being misleading here. Please review Thimerosal in Vaccines by the FDA for evidence."

Which thimerosal-containing vaccines are pregnant women getting?

According to the FDA website that you cited, only two types of vaccines *might* contain thimerosal (there are thimerosal-free versions): influenza and DTaP. So it appears as though you are incorrect. Maybe I'm not looking at the chart you wanted me to focus on?

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 5:00am

"The MMR vaccine quadrupled the amount of mumps virus in the combination shot, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. Many of the vaccines contain other controversial ingredients' like Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) that contains L-cystine that is known to cause infertility in lab animals. Polysorbate 80 (Tween 80) a surfactant (lowers surface tension); makes the blood-brain barrier more porous facilitating passage of the many contaminates and other substances thru the barrier and into the brain tissue."

Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that the concentration of these products found in vaccines is harmful in any way? You're essentially suggesting that soap, a 4-fold increase in pathogen particles, and cell-culture media is responsible for ASD. Eating soap doesn't effect the blood-brain-barrier. Drinking cell-culture media, which will be rapidly and readily absorbed into the blood, doesn't cause infertility. Four infected cuts don't cause brain damage, where one infected cut does nothing.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 5:02am

" Can vaccines contribute to the cause of some cases of autism (or other negative neruodevelopmental outcomes) in a small subset of the pediatric population who responds atypically to immunization due to genetic (and/or other) reasons?"

This argument is not the problem; it's so couched and filled with qualifiers that no one is likely to ever say "no, that's not possible". It's the generalizations that you tend to make. Those are the problems.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 5:04am

"The studies used to refute the claim of vaccine autism causation are inadequate yet they are touted beyond the state of embarrassment."

So your argument is to abandon the information that we currently have, simply because it's not flawless, in the hopes of someone doing a flawless study in the future? Are you being serious?

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 5:05am

""even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously." - that quote probably makes him cringe today."

It probably does, since it has been misunderstood and misused by people who like to attack him personally...

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 5:11am

"If you go by the recommended vaccination schedule, by the time a child reaches 15 months of age will have gotten around 2180 mcgs of the neurotoxin aluminum adjuvants. In 1983 The DTP was the only vaccine given at that time that contained aluminum adjuvants. Infanrix by GlaxoSmithKline contained 650 mcg of aluminum and would be given 3 times by 15 months of age that would equal 1950 mcgs accumulation. So Paul Offit's and your claims are incorrect."

Anyone CAN do the math. The difference between 1950 ug and 2180 ug is only 230 ug. That's an 11% increase in the *total* amount of aluminal adjuvants over the last ~30 years, while the number of administered vaccines has risen much more dramatically. If you go out to 18 months, then the DTP vaccine was administered a fourth time (convenient that you stopped at 15 months), which totals to 2600 ug.

Your statement is completely misleading: the total load of adjuvant and pathogen per vaccine HAS GONE DOWN.

Not only that, but this information has absolutely *nothing* to do with the statement by Dr. Offit. Nothing.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 5:17am

"Vaccines are not proven safe."

The correct statement would be this:

Vaccines are not proven completely safe.

Vaccines have been proven safe countless times, by the millions of people who received them with no ill effect. The problem that you seem to have, as demonstrated by the rest of the paragraph that I didn't quote, is that vaccines are not 100% safe.

No one ever said that vaccines are 100% safe.

Anyone with common sense can understand that vaccines, like all medical procedures, possess inherent risks.

Here is another statement that is equally correct:

Vaccines are not proved unsafe for the vast majority of the population.

I even made it a qualified statement, not a generalized (and therefore untrue) statement.

Reply
Mindanohia
01/31/2012 6:24am

Dear pro-vaxers, welcome to vaccinate yourselves and your kids over and over again - but read this first:
http://vactruth.com/2012/01/21/fly-in-my-vaccine-soup

Reply
01/31/2012 7:58am

Jon,

"You're right: that is pretty despicable behavior."

I'm glad we can agree on something.

------

"does not mean that all forms of mercury are equally toxic, which is your argument. "

All forms of mercury are toxic and should not be injected or ingested into the body. I find you nit picking here.

------

"I would agree with you: this statement is wrong. There is/was mercury in vaccines, in the form of thimerosal."

Wow, more common ground!

------

"More importantly, you can't take papers that study the toxicity of other forms of mercury (e.g. methyl mercury) and use them to argue that thimerosal is toxic."

Jon our health authorities takes papers that study the toxicity of methyl mercury and use them to argue that thimerosal is safe. Except when they exceed those toxicity thresholds when injecting pregnant mothers.

I agree with you, we need good *toxicology* research establishing dose thresholds for thimerosal in the developing brain of primates. The closest thing we have is the 12 monkey paper that only exposed the primates to the HepB vaccines who exhibited severe neurological delays but because Wakefield is remotely associated with the paper it's marginalized [1]. No attempt to re-preform the study has been made. Instead we get the same old methyl mercury papers for set dose standards expect the flu vaccines which is a rogue phenomena.

This is suspicious behavior if you know that mercury is toxic in all forms and is still being injected into pregnant women, infants and children - well everyone who gets said vaccines. The standard safety analysis of this chemical has yet to be done but is commonly used. I was shocked when I first realized this and I would be hard pressed not to believe that America's wouldn't feel the same way if they knew the truth.

------

"That is simply NOT TRUE! There have been multiple studies that demonstrate that ethylmercury and methylmercury are NOT comparable"

I completely agree and I listed one in the article Jon. My point is that CDC, FDA, AAP, USPHS, Offit, Gates and others routinely compare the two. Read the joint statement of the AAP and USPHS. They are making the comparison here. [2] I'm not saying it's right at all. I agree with you it's wrong but reality is that that is exactly what our health authorities and the covered opinion makers like Offit are propagating. This is not misinformation that is extremely clear. They do this in light of the facts that the chemicals are not comparable and in the paper I linked to ethyl mercury has higher disposition fate then methyl mercury up-taking in the brain and other organs biotransforming into inorganic mercury which is know to remain there the duration of a patients life. This is extremely upsetting and I'm glad that you understand that what the vaccine apologist side is propagating is wrong!

------

" completely disputed your previous argument that MeHg and Thimerosal are nearly identical."

First of all I did not make this claim. I said that our health authorities make the claim and I've provided evidence of that. I absolutely find them to be completely dis-similar.

------

"They do find that the *proportion* of inorganic mercury to organic mercury is higher in the brains of monkeys that received thimerosal, but the *concentration* of inorganic mercury is pretty close between the MeHg and thimerosal groups (~4-7 ng/g and ~10 ng/g, respectively)."

Well I'm glad that you at least admit that. Most skeptics just read the blood clearing ratios and tout the study as a pro-vaccine research.

In the thimerosal-exposed monkeys the level of inorganic mercury represented up to 86% of the total mercury in the brain. These values are considerably higher than the inorganic fraction observed in brains of methyl-mercury monkeys who had up to 10% of observed inorganic mercury.

Kidney:Blood analysis of study. The thimerosal-exposed monkeys had higher ratios or mercury in the renal organs then methyl mercury monkeys.

I so feel my original statement stands. Ethyl mercury monkeys had higher levels of mercury in the brain and organs when compared to the methyl mercury monkeys.

Bottom line thimerosal should not be injected into anyone at anytime especially in pregnant mothers and infants with developing brains.

------

"This is misinformation. The news article that you cite is referring specifically to recombinant HPV DNA found in a single sample of the Gardasil vaccine, not in the blood of a person. Even if it was, I don't understand your point. What does the presence of recombinant virus DNA in the blood have to do with autoimmunity?"

You are incorrect. Using DNA sequencing for molecular diagnoses "HPV-11 and HPV-18 residues, both of which were firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant."

And is wasn't found in a "single sample". It was found in all the samples taken from round the world. This sampling was kicked off because it was found in the blood of a child who suffered from autoimmune disease

Reply
01/31/2012 8:13am

Jon,

My post was cut off and I didn't save it so I'll have to re-write the ending later.

Heather.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 9:28am

"Well I'm glad that you at least admit that. Most skeptics just read the blood clearing ratios and tout the study as a pro-vaccine research.

In the thimerosal-exposed monkeys the level of inorganic mercury represented up to 86% of the total mercury in the brain. These values are considerably higher than the inorganic fraction observed in brains of methyl-mercury monkeys who had up to 10% of observed inorganic mercury."

There's really nothing to "admit" when it comes to the proportion of inorganic vs organic mercury found in the brains of monkeys in that study. It's scientific evidence that you either accept or don't. I don't see any reason to reject it.

More to the point: your follow up paragraph seems to miss the point, which I tried to emphasize. Yes, the *proportion* of inorganic mercury is higher, but the *total concentration* of mercury is *much lower*. The proportion is not really what you should be focusing on, when the total concentration is so much lower.

Reply
01/31/2012 9:30am

Jon,

This sampling was kicked off because it was found in the blood of a child who suffered from an autoimmune disease, who had been vaccinated with Gardasil years prior.

"What does the presence of recombinant virus DNA in the blood have to do with autoimmunity?"

My point with autoimmunity has to do with the aluminum adjuvant that is firmly affixed to the rDNA. I have problems with the rDNA separately.

Original Merck product inserts sleeves denied any rDNA in the vaccine prior to these lab reports they have since amended their documentation to reflect the findings. Recombinant DNA is classified as a biohazard and is subjugated to oversight because of unknown health affects. [1] Yet strangely as with all known contaminates and toxins when discussing vaccines it's perfectly fine to inject in children. Even when there isn't any safety data to substantiate that claim. Vaccine safety is always presumed without any scientific data to back up those assumptions. I find this astonishing seeing how our children are fighting chronic disease epidemics that trump infectious disease like polio in the past.

I don't think you read the article that I linked you to that shows the lab work done and the sampling of the Gardasil lots from around the world. Your comment is off base.

[1]http://www.uncg.edu/orc/pdf/IBC_Policy.pdf

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 9:30am

"I so feel my original statement stands. Ethyl mercury monkeys had higher levels of mercury in the brain and organs when compared to the methyl mercury monkeys."

That's rather unfortunate, since it means either you didn't read the study carefully enough because this is clearly and obviously wrong, or you are not choosing your words carefully enough, which will result in misinformation and misrepresentation of this publication. Look again. The monkey's that received thimerosal has a lower concentration of mercury in their blood and brains, compared to monkeys that received MeHg. It's not really disputable. It's published in the graphs and in the text.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 9:31am

"You are incorrect. Using DNA sequencing for molecular diagnoses "HPV-11 and HPV-18 residues, both of which were firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant."

And is wasn't found in a "single sample". It was found in all the samples taken from round the world. This sampling was kicked off because it was found in the blood of a child who suffered from autoimmune disease"

Then I don't know what article you are talking about, because the article that you linked to clearly said that the sample was from a "single sample" of the Gardasil vaccine.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 9:33am


"I don't think you read the article that I linked you to that shows the lab work done and the sampling of the Gardasil lots from around the world. Your comment is off base."

Here is the second paragraph of the article that you linked to, clearly stating that the rDNA was found in a single sample of the Gardasil vaccine:

"Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist at the Milford Hospital pathology laboratory well-known for using cutting-edge DNA sequencing for molecular diagnoses, was initially contracted to examine a single sample of Gardasil for possible contamination. This sample tested positive for recombinant HPV-11 and HPV-18 residues, both of which were firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant."

Perhaps you can tell me what part of the article you are talking about?

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 9:35am

"My point with autoimmunity has to do with the aluminum adjuvant that is firmly affixed to the rDNA. I have problems with the rDNA separately."

Ok...but what does the rDNA attached to the aluminum have to do with autoimmunity. You seemed to make a bigger point out of the rDNA, not the aluminum. Maybe I just didn't understand your emphasis.

Reply
01/31/2012 9:45am

"Humoral immunity is induced by vaccination, which is why we measure antibodies to determine the immune response to a vaccine."

I know about the Humoral immunity activation but show me the research that the when vaccinating it's the only half that's activated. That the Cell-mediated system remains completely asleep. They are part of the same system.

"I would also question your logic that "an over abundance will cause encephalopathy."

From Neuropathology, Chapter One; Applied Neurocytology And Basic Reactions.[1]

"Recognition of antigens in CNS parenchyma results in retention and recruitment of T-lymphocytes, leading to inflammation. B-lymphocytes probably also randomly traffic through the brain in a similar fashion and, if they find specific antigens, they aggregate and produce IgG antibodies."

So show me with research that the body can tell a difference between a vaccine antigen or a natural occurring antigen.

Also brain inflammation is encephalopathy.

Your comment regarding leukemia and lymphoma I assume is meant for a distraction. I haven't studied those diseases and focus strictly said issues.

[1]http://neuropathology-web.org/chapter1/chapter1dMicroglia.html

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 10:20am

"I bet all of you hating this women, are all probubly as Miserable or more miserable then she is, no one has the right to pass judgement on anyone."

1) That never happens. Biology is not as black-and-white as your challenge suggests.

2) If you "know about" humoral immunity, then you should know that it is the arm of the immune system that is primarily activated by vaccines.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 10:21am

"Your comment regarding leukemia and lymphoma I assume is meant for a distraction. I haven't studied those diseases and focus strictly said issues."

Obviously. My comment about leukemia and lymphoma were not distractions, they were examples of an over abundance of immune cells. Your argument is that an over abundance of immune cells, regardless of the reason, will result in encephalopathy. These diseases are a perfect way to test you argument.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 10:23am

"From Neuropathology, Chapter One; Applied Neurocytology And Basic Reactions.[1]

"Recognition of antigens in CNS parenchyma results in retention and recruitment of T-lymphocytes, leading to inflammation. B-lymphocytes probably also randomly traffic through the brain in a similar fashion and, if they find specific antigens, they aggregate and produce IgG antibodies.""

Ok. So what does that have to do with "an over abundance of [immune cells]"? That quote doesn't say a single thing about an "over abundance" of immune cells. It's talking specifically about an immune response that is specific to the CNS.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 10:25am

LOL. I just realized I pasted the wrong text into my comment from Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:20:03 am. Oops.

Here's what I meant to quote:

"I know about the Humoral immunity activation but show me the research that the when vaccinating it's the only half that's activated. That the Cell-mediated system remains completely asleep. They are part of the same system."

1) That never happens. Biology is not as black-and-white as your challenge suggests. Therefore I can never produce a paper that shows something that never happens.

2) If you "know about" humoral immunity, then you should know that it is the arm of the immune system that is primarily activated by vaccines.

Reply
01/31/2012 11:00am

Which thimerosal-containing vaccines are pregnant women getting?

Multi-Dose Influenza Vaccines

Now this really makes me mad because of the PR and misinformation regarding this issue. Most American's wrongly believe that thimerosal isn't in any vaccines so they do not ask for the thimerosal free versions.

I was one of those hoodwinked. When I was pregnant I still worked at my hospital and received the mandatory flu vaccine that was in the multi-dose presentation containing thimerosal. Those flu drives at hospitals/elementary schools and Wal-Greens etc etc all use the preserved flu vaccine. The majority of flu vaccine stock is thimerosal preserved. The majority of Americans are not asking for the "fee" version because our health authority is failing to properly inform them regarding the ingredients a clear violation of medical ethics.

------

"According to the FDA website that you cited, only two types of vaccines *might* contain thimerosal (there are thimerosal-free versions): influenza and DTaP"

That is not true. And using the word *might* is misleading. They DO contain thimerosal.

Multi-Dose Flu Vaccines - 25 mcgs
DTaP - trace
Meningococcal - 25 mcgs

Reply
01/31/2012 11:22am

Jon,

"Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that the concentration of these products found in vaccines is harmful in any way? "

Vaccine Patent with Tween 80 to cause infertility.

Fertility Impairing Vaccine And Methods of Use

"In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin in squalene oil. The aqueous solution glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20329595/Fertility-Impairing-Vaccine-and-Method-of-Use-Patent

Gajdova M et al, "Delayed effects of neonatal exposure to Tween 80 on female reproductive organs in rats" Food Chem Toxicol. 1993 Mar;31(3):183-90.

"Squamous cell metaplasia of the epithelial lining of the uterus and cytological changes in the uterus were indicative of chronic oestrogenic stimulation. Ovaries were without corpora lutea, and had degenerative follicles."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8473002

If I have time I'll keep going on this here or I might just do a blog entry on these controversial vaccine ingredients.

Reply
01/31/2012 11:27am

Jon,

"So your argument is to abandon the information that we currently have, simply because it's not flawless, in the hopes of someone doing a flawless study in the future? Are you being serious?"

One flaw or two, okay but to the extent that is known regarding the 14/16 studies that the pro-vaccine camp uses to refute the link is embarrassing. You couple that with the only evidence they have is Epidemiology, a blunt research toot and you get why I think we need to throw it out and start over. Preferable in the lab working up good toxicology research using primates.

Reply
01/31/2012 11:30am

Jon,

"It probably does, since it has been misunderstood and misused by people who like to attack him personally..."

He wrote the quote: "even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously." In an official publication that gets linked to (obviously) by pro-vaccine supporters.

It is such a wacky statement, are you agreeing with it?

Reply
01/31/2012 11:42am

Jon,

"(convenient that you stopped at 15 months)"

Well yes because I have the data already calculated and handy. My son hasn't received any vaccines after his injury. So I was going by his record that I had already conveniently tallied.

But this is another great idea for another blog entry.

Total Adjuvant & Pathogen Per Vaccine & Accumulative Over Entire Schedule.

------

"Your statement is completely misleading: the total load of adjuvant and pathogen per vaccine HAS GONE DOWN."

"Per Vaccine" yes. But if you look at the science that I provided under that segment that is a simplistic view. When a child is injected with 4, 5, 6 vaccines the body does not differentiate between injection sites and keep the adjuvants separated.

Shann, Frank, "The Nonspecific Effects of Vaccines and the Expanded Program on Immunization", The Journal Of Infectious Diseases, Vol 204, Issue 2, March 2011

Excerpt:

"There is now clear evidence that the simplistic conventional model of immunization is invalid. We can no longer assume that a vaccine acts independently of other vaccines, or that it influences only infectious caused by the target disease."

------

"Not only that, but this information has absolutely *nothing* to do with the statement by Dr. Offit. Nothing."

Yes it does because Offit states children can be conservatively injected with 1000s of vaccines without any adverse effects.

Reply
01/31/2012 11:52am

Jon,

"The correct statement would be this:

Vaccines are not proven completely safe."

Vaccines are not safe then, especially if you are a mother standing over a grave of a child whose died from a vaccine reaction. To that mother vaccines are completely unsafe.

This is what I say. Let's be pro-choice about this since vaccines are not proven completely safe. Let's make sure all states have philosophical exemptions and parents are properly consented prior to vaccination.

------

"Vaccines have been proven safe countless times, by the millions of people who received them with no ill effect."

Statements like this just make me laugh. We do not have an active reporting system and vaccine reaction symptoms are often waved away as just coincidence. We are living in a time where our children are plagued with chronic disease that eclipses past infectious disease like polio. So to say our children are perfectly fine and are not suffering from epidemic neurological and immunological chronic disease is pure denial. We know that these disease can be triggered by the ingredients in vaccines we just refuse to publicly acknowledge it for fear the policy will lag. So the proper research is marginalized.

------

Reply
01/31/2012 11:56am

Jon,

"The monkey's that received thimerosal has a lower concentration of mercury in their blood and brains, compared to monkeys that received MeHg. It's not really disputable. It's published in the graphs and in the text."

Yes, I see that, did you look at the renal/blood ratios?

Reply
01/31/2012 12:01pm

Jon,

"Then I don't know what article you are talking about, because the article that you linked to clearly said that the sample was from a "single sample" of the Gardasil vaccine."

From the article that I linked to:

"SANE Vax Inc. contracted with an independent lab to test for contamination and found HPV recombinant DNA (rDNA) in 13 vaccine vials. The Gardasil vials with different lot numbers were from New Zealand, Australia, Spain, Poland, France and three states in the U.S. 100% of the samples tested positive for the presence of the genetically modified HPV DNA.

Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist at the Milford Hospital pathology laboratory well-known for using cutting-edge DNA sequencing for molecular diagnoses, was initially contracted to examine a single sample of Gardasil for possible contamination. This sample tested positive for recombinant HPV-11 and HPV-18 residues, both of which were firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant."

Reply
01/31/2012 12:09pm

Jon,

"Perhaps you can tell me what part of the article you are talking about?"

The first part showed the contamination in multiple samples. Dr. Lee only tested one sample with his DNA sequencing molecular diagnostic tests. Which showed the rDNA firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.

Are you saying that this was a fluke and he should have tested all lots for confirmation. I can dig up some cellular molecular biology books and look at how attachments are made between molecules to see if it's possible that the same exact molecules act differently in same exact solutions under same exact storage instructions manufactured the same way.

Reply
01/31/2012 12:12pm

Jon,

"Ok...but what does the rDNA attached to the aluminum have to do with autoimmunity. You seemed to make a bigger point out of the rDNA, not the aluminum. Maybe I just didn't understand your emphasis."

I linked to three current peer-review publications that shows the damage from this aluminum adjuvant in the above section.

Here they are again:


Tomlijenovic, et al, "Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations", Lupus February 2012 vol. 21. 2 223-230

Excerpt:

"Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function........ Because children may be most at risk of vaccine-induced complications, a rigourous evaluation of the vaccine-related adverse health impacts in the pediatric populationis urgently needed."

Tomijenovic et al, "Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?", J inorg BioChem 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99.

Excerpt:

"The application of the Hill's criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal."

Tomijenovic et al, "Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?", "Med Chem, 2011:18(17):2630-7

Excerpt:

"In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences."

Reply
01/31/2012 12:16pm

Jon,

""I bet all of you hating this women, are all probubly as Miserable or more miserable then she is, no one has the right to pass judgement on anyone.""

Who said this - not me. I think you have to many windows open or something.

------

"If you "know about" humoral immunity, then you should know that it is the arm of the immune system that is primarily activated by vaccines."

Yes but antibodies trigger Cell-Mediated Immunity. So again show me in science where the body can tell the difference between vaccine induced antibodies and natural infection creating antibodies.

Reply
01/31/2012 12:19pm

Jon,

"These diseases are a perfect way to test you argument."

If I had the time....... Maybe someday.....

Reply
01/31/2012 12:40pm

Jon,

" So what does that have to do with "an over abundance of [immune cells]"? That quote doesn't say a single thing about an "over abundance" of immune cells. It's talking specifically about an immune response that is specific to the CNS."

Do vaccine induced antibodies know not to enter the CNS?

The more antibodies present will there be increased amounts of cell-mediated immunity?

------

"Ok. So what does that have to do with "an over abundance of [immune cells]"?"

This is my exact quote:

"Cell-mediated immunity is activated by vaccination but we don't measure the macrophages, natural killer cells, cytotoxic T-lymphocytes that we know in an over abundance will cause encephalopathy."

I should say an over abundance will cause severe encephalopathy.



Reply
01/31/2012 12:42pm

Jon,

"That never happens. Biology is not as black-and-white as your challenge suggests. Therefore I can never produce a paper that shows something that never happens."

Are you curious as to the extent? That could be the trigger for oxidized stress.

Reply
Jon
01/31/2012 2:55pm

"Yes but antibodies trigger Cell-Mediated Immunity. So again show me in science where the body can tell the difference between vaccine induced antibodies and natural infection creating antibodies."

Not really.

1) You didn't ask me for such a paper earlier, so saying "again" is dishonest and makes it sound as if I ignored a previous request.

2) I would never suggest such a thing.

3) Since you're in the mood to demand evidence, why don't you show me the science that says that antibodies trigger cell-mediated immunity, *and* that this occurs during vaccination.

Reply
Jon
02/01/2012 2:59am

"He wrote the quote: "even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously." In an official publication that gets linked to (obviously) by pro-vaccine supporters.

It is such a wacky statement, are you agreeing with it?"

Reply
Jon
02/01/2012 3:01am

"He wrote the quote: "even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously." In an official publication that gets linked to (obviously) by pro-vaccine supporters.

It is such a wacky statement, are you agreeing with it?"

Why is that a "wacky statement"?

Why would I disagree with it? Dr. Offitt is actually quoting other people, who are making a theoretical estimation of the immune system's ability to handle multiple pathogens/insults. What is there to disagree with?

Reply
02/01/2012 8:39am

Jon,

"It is such a wacky statement"

Well yes! 1000s of vaccines would contain enough of the neurotoxins to kill. One vaccine can kill. You are all for the conservative injection of around 21 million mcgs of aluminum adjuvant? Especially after reading the research regarding this toxin?

"are you agreeing with it?"

Absolutely Not.

Reply
02/01/2012 8:41am

Jon,

I amended the Burbacher paper's summary. I hope you are agreeable to the changes.

"You didn't ask me for such a paper earlier, so saying "again" is dishonest and makes it sound as if I ignored a previous request."

Yes I did.

Posted Tue, 31 Jan 2012 9:45:12 am

"show me the science that says that antibodies trigger cell-mediated immunity"

I did. I gave you the reference in the book of Neuropathology.

Reply
02/01/2012 8:45am

Jon,

"Why would I disagree with it?"

Because your views are so literal.

"Dr. Offitt is actually quoting other people,"

He believes in the principle or he wouldn't have made the statement.

"What is there to disagree with?"

It's absurd and dangerous!

Reply
02/01/2012 10:22am

I am being censored by the moderators at Shot of Prevention. So I’m going to post here

http://shotofprevention.com/2012/01/17/responsible-nurses-and-then-theres-this/#comment-6740


January 31, 2012 at 8:11 pm / # 177

Nathan,

"This “rebuttal” deconstruction could use some work."

I deleted the line you find controversial and made an amendment to the study's summary. I hope you will find it more agreeable.

This is true but if we look at the science when comparing ingestion of methyl mercury and injection of ethyl mercury we see that the ethyl mercury monkeys had higher levels of mercury in the kidneys when compared to the methyl mercury monkeys. Ethyl mercury clears the blood at a higher rate but both mercury compounds uptake in tissues about the same (~4-7 ng/g and ~10 ng/g, respectively). The concentration of inorganic mercury in the brain of the thimerosal-exposed monkeys was much higher.

Then you put in some quotes from that study I agree with but leave this one out.

Excerpt:

" A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic Hg for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%)."

Reply
Nathan
04/19/2012 1:35pm

Hi, Heather. I was not aware that you had responded to my comments here until just now.

"I deleted the line you find controversial and made an amendment to the study's summary. I hope you will find it more agreeable."

You are referring to your pulling out of a sentence fragment and changing
"It is relevant to note that the kidney-to-blood concentration gradient of total Hg is much higher in the thimerosal monkeys than in the MeHg monkeys"

into "total Hg is much higher in the thimerosal monkeys then in the MeHg monkeys""

This is a pretty clear, deliberate and egregious use of language for the purpose of providing misinformation. It would have been far more "agreeable" if you had

actually inserted a separate amendment pointing out your errors and correcting them rather than covering them up, and perhaps issue an apology to your readers.

I note that you did not bother to mention that the total mercury in the brains of the thimerosal exposed monkeys was much less. I further note that you changed it to say "Also they discovered that thimerosal injected monkeys had higher uptake of disposition fate of INORGANIC MERCURY PARTICULARLY IN THE BRAIN that was associated with microglia activation." I hope you did not mean to imply that the authors found microglia activation in the monkeys, as this was not reported. The authors do reference a study in which monkeys exposed to high doese of *methylmercury* had neuroglia activation "associated with brain inorganic Hg levels approximately five times higher than those observed in the present group of infant macaques." This is not comparable to this study, and again, is not providing the whole story.

"Then you put in some quotes from that study I agree with but leave this one out."

I did not leave it out, you did. You made the assertion that mercury was higher in the MeHg group while the opposite was true - mercury in the MeHg monkey brains

were higher. My quotes were correcting your points of misinformation. You even continued to defend these points in the comments here until you at last realized that in fact your statements were entirely incorrect. It seems to me that it was only at that point that you chose to focus on the inorganic mercury concentration.

The funny thing is that the inorganic mercury being a higher concentration is dependent upon the ratio of it to the other forms of mercury. Had elemental

mercury or organic mercury been higher, you could seize that figure and claim that *that* is the worst form of mercury for one reason or another. Or moreover, assume

that the results in the study were reversed - say that the total amount of mercury in the thimerosal monkey brains was 3-4 times that of the MeHg monkeys, but the

inorganic concentration was less. Clearly you would have seized upon the total Hg level and ignored the inorganic fraction, which was exactly what you attempted to do

in the first place with the study as it is.

This "flexibility" in interpreting studies speaks to the bias I had mentioned earlier. I'm happy to accept the results of this study as they are - brain

mercury is far higher from MeHg ingestion, though the inorganic fraction and concentration of from injected thimerosal is higher. Mercury clears more rapidly from the brain and blood, and thus a higher concentration is noted in the kidneys as one might expect. Since this is a small unreplicated study, I would naturally want to see this replicated by authors indepenent of the antivaccine movement, as I would for any early study with financial or ideological conflicts of interest, including those supportive of vaccines.

Reply
04/28/2012 1:05pm

Nathan,

"Hi, Heather. I was not aware that you had responded to my comments here until just now."

Well yes free flowing ideas are apparently censored on pro-vax sites. I think it's important to discuss topics with both sides present otherwise an eco-chamber will result and that hinders growth.

"This is a pretty clear, deliberate and egregious use of language for the purpose of providing misinformation. It would have been far more "agreeable" if you had "

I specified this it the case when commenting on the dose in the kidneys. That is an exact quote from the study.

"actually inserted a separate amendment pointing out your errors and correcting them rather than covering them up, and perhaps issue an apology to your readers."

What an odd statement to make based on your own posts. And your defense of the original Canadian Nurses article that is rife with scientific errors.

My errors are slight changes in vernacular not total denial of scientific fact.

Like:

1. "As we all know there is no mercury in vaccines"
2. Her inaccurately comparing injected aluminum to vaccine aluminum adjuvants and the routes administered.
3. "There have been so many studies showing zero correlation between vaccination and autism "

I can go on and on here but I hope I've made my point. Why is it that you don't care about the blatant errors in factual data represented by the Canadian Nurse but demand an apology by me - which I've already given over vernacular. You clearly are showing bias.

"I note that you did not bother to mention that the total mercury in the brains of the thimerosal exposed monkeys was much less."

I don't have a problem with that. I find it interesting that you are ignoring the bio-transformation of thimerosal/ethylmercury into INORGANIC MERCURY was much higher in the thimerosal monkeys.

So you have faster blood clearing with ethylmercury (vaccines) but about the same tissue uptake rates as with methymercury. We see more mercury in the brain with methymercury (fish) but higher disposition fate of inorganic mercury (last a life-time and causes more harm) in ethylmercury (vaccines). And of course you see much higher levels of mercury staying in the kidneys with ethylmercury then you see with fish consumption.

So you have all this evidence of toxicity in the vaccine continuing thimerosal and YET complete denial that it exists. Which is why I also posted to the governmental site that stated all forms of mercury are quite toxic a scientific fact you and the Canadian Nurse are in complete denial of.

"I hope you did not mean to imply that the authors found microglia activation in the monkeys"

That was a direct quote from the study. They link to another peer-review that shows inorganic mercury causes microglia activation.

"This is not comparable to this study, and again, is not providing the whole story."

That's an odd thing to say. It's not my reference point it was the scientists who authored the peer-review. They are the ones to point out the association not me.

"You made the assertion that mercury was higher in the MeHg group while the opposite was true - mercury in the MeHg monkey brains

As I stated many times there is a higher disposition fate of inorganic mercury in the ethylmercury monkeys and a higher rate of mercury in their kidneys as well. A discovery you continue to ignore.

"My quotes were correcting your points of misinformation."

Not really.

"You even continued to defend these points in the comments here until you at last realized that in fact your statements were entirely incorrect."

Example of delusion.

"It seems to me that it was only at that point that you chose to focus on the inorganic mercury concentration."

Again denial of renal organ uptakes....

"Had elemental"

Yes so if you have;

1. "Brain concentrations of total Hg were significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants"

2. "whereas the average brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3)."

3. "A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic Hg for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%)."

So there is a 3-fold total brain concentration of mercury in the methylmercury monkeys verses the ethylmercury monkeys. BUT you have a 238-fold disposition fate of that that mercury biotransforms into the more neurotoxic and lifelong inorganic mercury in the ethylmercury monkeys.

"Or moreover, assume "

I go to the science and look to see what inorganic mercury does to the brain. Upon autopsy you find it in elderly brains so we know it doesn't clear the body. Upon peer-review we see it causes the cell-mediated immune response to over-activate and cause encephalopathy a known adverse event of vaccination.

"assume that the results in the study were reversed"

No thanks, seeing how we can't even agree what the original data i

04/28/2012 1:07pm

No thanks, seeing how we can't even agree what the original data is saying I say we just stay on topic until we can at least see some recognition of factual data.

I'm happy to accept the results of this study as they are - brain
mercury is far higher from MeHg ingestion, though the inorganic fraction and concentration of from injected thimerosal is higher. Mercury clears more rapidly from the brain and blood, and thus a higher concentration is noted in the kidneys as one might expect.

I'm happy you are happy accepting the results....

But isn't it disingenuous to follow that with....??

"Since this is a small unreplicated study, I would naturally want to see this replicated by authors indepenent of the antivaccine movement, as I would for any early study with financial or ideological conflicts of interest, including those supportive of vaccines."

These authors are not affiliated with any anti-vaccine movement. These are independent researches that are about scientific discovery. Clearly you are pulling from the old warn out pro-vax injury playbook trying to discredit anyone who challenges your vaccine religion. You just don't like your own ideology questioned. Why is it if you question a safety component of a medical procedure you are automatically deemed "Anti"? Consumer Reports aren't deemed anti-car or anti-diswasher.

02/01/2012 10:24am

I am being censored by the moderators at Shot of Prevention. So I’m going to post here

http://shotofprevention.com/2012/01/17/responsible-nurses-and-then-theres-this/#comment-6740


January 31, 2012 at 8:11 pm / # 177

Nathan,

“In fact it is not true that “higher levels of mercury in the brain and organs when compared to the methyl mercury monkeys.””

I should phrase it; higher concentration levels of inorganic mercury in the brain and mercury in the renal organs to the methyl mercury monkeys.

“The total Hg was much less in thimerosal exposed monkeys compared to ingested MeHg monkeys. The brain/blood ratio was less in the MeHg group, but that would be affected by faster clearing from the blood in the thimerosal group. This is discussed here in the full text:”

I am in agreement here but you are leaving out data regarding higher concentration levels of inorganic mercury, higher uptakes of disposition fate in the thimerosal-exposed monkeys and higher levels of mercury in the renal organs all seen in the ethyl mercury group.

“I found many similar errors on a quick readthrough of this deconstruction, and I noted that the commenter “Jon” had done a good job of bringing most of them to your attention.

The only error that I’ve made is a phraseology that I corrected regarding the Burbacher study. Jon was in agreement with many of my points. We are discussing other points regarding cell-mediated and humoral immunity.

“However, your use of sources put that semantic discussion to rest quite well.”

How so? My source shows mercury in all forms is QUITE toxic. Are you in denial of this fact?

Still, most of the rest of it suffers from poor research and obvious bias.

Laugh, now you are showing bias!

Also, I’m wondering why the Patriot Nurse can’t do her own rebuttal work.”

I assume she’s got her hands full fighting off obnoxious harassers that have her work information and are trying to get her fired.

Reply
Nathan
04/19/2012 1:39pm

Sorry about the previous formatting issue. Hopefully it will be fixed here.

"I am in agreement here but you are leaving out data regarding higher concentration levels of inorganic mercury, higher uptakes of disposition fate in the thimerosal-exposed monkeys and higher levels of mercury in the renal organs all seen in the ethyl mercury group."

As mentioned above, I didn't leave anything out as I was responding to your specific arguments. I am unsure exactly what you are referring to with "higher uptakes of disposition fate." And as far as the kidneys, I find two references - one is the previously mentioned "concentration gradient" which previously discussed is not a measure of a level in the kidneys and is a function of low blood levels and rapid clearance. The other is "the inorganic fraction in the kidneys of the same cohort of monkeys was also significantly higher" which looks at the percentage of the total mercury in the kidneys that is inorganic. Perhaps you meant to say "inorganic mercury" (again) there, but even so, it doesn't seem to comment on the actual concentration of inorganic or total mercury in the kidneys. Though I am entirely willing to admit that I am misreading it if you can demonstrate how.

Regardless, I am unsure as to why you think that a higher level of mercury in the renal organs is a bad thing. If the mercury is cleared at a faster rate via the kidneys, would one not expect to find a higher concentration of it in those organs?

Regarding my statement of: “However, your use of sources put that semantic discussion to rest quite well.”

To which you said, "How so? My source shows mercury in all forms is QUITE toxic. Are you in denial of this fact?"

I think you misunderstood me. I was addressing how PV argument that "there is no mercury in vaccines" is a poor semantic argument and you refuted it nicely using sources that demonstrate that it is specifically called mercury in the package inserts. It was a compliment.

And regarding: "Still, most of the rest of it suffers from poor research and obvious bias."
You said: "Laugh, now you are showing bias!"

I pointed out an outright error (mercury being higher in the brains of thimerosal monkeys) and a clear instance of bias (cherry picking a sentence fragment to entirely change the meaning). I note that similar errors are present in the rest of the post. This in no way implies bias on my part.

Reply
04/28/2012 1:17pm

I think we've come to some agreement regarding the study. I'll repost your quote from above.

"I'm happy to accept the results of this study as they are - brain
mercury is far higher from MeHg ingestion, though the inorganic fraction and concentration of from injected thimerosal is higher. Mercury clears more rapidly from the brain and blood, and thus a higher concentration is noted in the kidneys as one might expect."

I'm happy you are happy accepting the results....

"Regardless, I am unsure as to why you think that a higher level of mercury in the renal organs is a bad thing."

It goes against the argument that ethy clears the body faster then methyl. It does clear the blood faster but not necessarily the body. It's another error that I often see made.

"It was a compliment."

So why not demand an apology from the Canadian Nurse for her misinformation. Why defend such poorly written dribble?

"I pointed out an outright error"

Not really... It seems we are happy with the study results and are in agreement actually. Based on my opening earlier quote you made.

02/01/2012 10:26am

I am being censored by the moderators at Shot of Prevention. So I’m going to post here

http://shotofprevention.com/2012/01/17/responsible-nurses-and-then-theres-this/#comment-6740


January 31, 2012 at 11:20 pm / #178

Chris,

“I see you referenced Ratajczak. She does some serious cherry picking, and of course, how can we forget the homologous recombinaltion tiniker!”


Your link is to Orac a very poor opinion blog. You are using his opinion to refute a peer-review publication.

“I commend you in letting Jon comment on your blog.”

Thanks.

“It is worth while noting that half of the influenza vaccines on that list do not contain thimerosal. Many states, like California, require children and pregnant women to only get thimerosal free vaccines.”

Yes but the majority of influenza vaccines administered are preserved with thimerosal.

If you read the CDC’s seasonal influenza vaccine supply for the U.S. for the 2011-2012 influenza season you will see that 166-173 million doses have been manufactured. How many are not preserved with thimerosal – 79 million doses.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaxsupply.htm

So 87-94 million doses will be administered with the full presentation of thimerosal. You will find them given out to our health care workers, elementary schools, Wal-Greens etc. And because the PR has been so efficient and creating this false awareness that thimerosal has been completely removed from vaccines no body is asking for the “fee” versions.

Then you take up a lot of space with pure opinion and anecdotal accounts.

----

“Please share how the risks of the vaccines compare to the risks of measles and pertussis, two diseases that are coming back to the USA.”

We don’t know the risks for vaccination because adverse events are not actively tracked. Developmental pediatricians wave off or miss-diagnose patients who have vaccine reactions. So the statically analysis cannot be made.

Now I think we can stop the disease-mongering here. Here is a quote from the CDC about measles; “Endemic or sustained measles transmission has not occurred in the United States since the late 1990s, despite continued importations”.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6020a7.htm

Pertussis; you really should read the science regarding this disease and the ineffective vaccine. Some scientist are saying that the virulent strain that we are seeing today was vaccine induced. And that getting the DTaP vaccine does not stop the transmission or spread of the infection it only renders the vaccinated asymptomatic. So the vaccinated are spreading the infection. The science on this vaccine does not support the policy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3317732?dopt=Abstract

“show that the MMR, DTaP or Tdap are all more dangerous than the diseases.”

Again you cannot do a statistical analysis because there isn’t any data that actively tracks vaccine adverse events.

Then you end with a bunch of disease mongering.

I don’t need to read your links. We are talking about the safety of vaccination which is presumed and not studied.

Reply
02/01/2012 10:29am

I am being censored by the moderators at Shot of Prevention. So I’m going to post here

http://shotofprevention.com/2012/01/17/responsible-nurses-and-then-theres-this/#comment-6740


February 1, 2012 at 3:13 pm / #179

Nathan,

“Meningococcal vaccine is the more egregious error here. It is not routinely recommended for infants. The conjugate vaccine may be given in high risk situations, and it is thimerosal free.”

This is a lie.

Meningococcal is recommended to high-risk children and it does contain thimerosal.

From the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

From the manufacturer under 11. DESCRIPTION
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm230717.htm

“Tripedia DTaP vaccine was full-thimerosal until 2001”

It still contains trace thimerosal.

“Pedvax HIB vaccine until 1999”

I stated HIB was free as was HepB, you supplied the quote but apparently you didn’t read it. Thank you for linking to the FDA site of thimerosal containing vaccines. You should review it.

You make me laugh!!!

Reply
Nathan
04/19/2012 1:45pm

I had said, “Meningococcal vaccine is the more egregious error here. It is not routinely recommended for infants. The conjugate vaccine may be given in high risk situations, and it is thimerosal free.”

To which you said "This is a lie."

I'm afraid it is not, and I believe you are confusing the meningococcus vaccines. Please refer to the schedule you provided. Note that the vaccine on the schedule is "MCV4." This is the conjugate meningococcal vaccine, not polysaccharide. The footnote says "Minimum age: 9 months for Menactra [MCV4-D], 2 years for Menveo [MCV4-CRM])."

Your link refers to Menomune, the polysaccharide vaccine MPSV4 - not MCV4, which is not the recommended vaccine for children or infants, it is the recommended vaccine for adults over the age of 55. It has been FDA approved for use in children two and up since the 1980s. None of them are "routinely recommended," but rather they are used in rare high risk situations only. And if anything, the replacement of the polysaccharide vaccine with thimerosal-free conjugate vaccines in high risk situations for children only reduces the thimerosal exposure in children further. This is another example of the "poor research" that I mentioned.

I apologize regarding the Pevax HIB, I have no idea why at the time I mentioned it and it is not contributory to my argument. Regarding Tripedia, it does indeed now contain less than 0.3 ug of thimerosal per dose. My point is that you said that thimerosal was only removed from two vaccines, which is clearly not true. If you do not count Tripedia because it was not *completely* removed, you then to deal with the fact that Infanrix contained trace thimerosal until 2000 when the completely thimerosal free version was approved. You can't have it both ways.

The upshot here is that you are trying to give the impression that the thimerosal exposure is meaningully replaced by these vaccines. If you were not, you would have been more complete in your details about the vaccines that had thimerosal removed, and those that were introduced. This is another example of the "bias" that I mentioned. Considering how much you advocate to "properly inform," you seem to be leaving out a lot of relevant information, and considering how much you are trying to point out "spin" in Canadian Nurse's deconstruction, you seem to be spinning right round yourself.

Reply
04/28/2012 1:47pm

"The footnote says "Minimum age: 9 months for Menactra [MCV4-D], 2 years for Menveo [MCV4-CRM])"

Yes my apologies.

"This is another example of the "poor research" that I mentioned."

I was in error and apologized. I work very hard researching data, but I'm human - lessoned learned on the Meningococcal vax.

"I apologize regarding the Pevax HIB, I have no idea why at the time I mentioned it and it is not contributory to my argument."

See how that works? Now I'm not going to berate you on your lack of poor research. We'll just move on.

"Regarding Tripedia, it does indeed now contain less than 0.3 ug of thimerosal per dose."

Thank you for admitting that.

"My point is that you said that thimerosal was only removed from two vaccines, which is clearly not true."

Nope that's true and I'm going off the 2012 schedule.

"If you do not count Tripedia because it was not *completely* removed, you then to deal with the fact that Infanrix contained trace thimerosal until 2000 when the completely thimerosal free version was approved. You can't have it both ways."

What a convoluted way of looking at things. If you really want to go back in times and review the schedule I did a timeline of events. Let's review.

2000 - Thimerosal Pase Out of HIB and HepB

2000-2007 - ENGERIX-B by GlaxoSmithKline New formulation of Hepatitis B. Thimerosal was reduced from 25 mcg to trace. There was not a recall so infants were still being injected with the full complement of thimerosal until 2002 when the vials expired, let's hope they thru away the expired vials and no longer used them for injection.

2000-Present - PedvaxHiB by Merck, New formulation of PedvaxHiB manufactured thimerosal free. They did not recall this vaccine and the full compliment of thimerosal was still being injected into infants until 2002 when the vials expired.

2001-Present - Tripedia by Sanofi Pasteur
Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine, New formulation of DTaP. Thimerosal was reduced from 25 mcg to trace.

2007-Present - HepB ENGERIX-B by GlaxoSmithKline New formulation of Hepatitis B. Thimerosal was reduced from trace to free. The vaccine was not recalled so children were still being injected with trace mercury until 2009.

You bring up Infanrix; this is the combined diptheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, poliovirus and haemophilus influenzae b vaccine. This vaccine comes fully preserved today and also has a "free" version.

This vaccine is not currently recommended by the CDC for US children.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

I think you are confused here.

"The upshot here is that you are trying to give the impression that the thimerosal exposure is meaningully replaced by these vaccines."

I'm being honest about which vaccines contain thimerosal and which do not.

"If you were not, you would have been more complete in your details about the vaccines that had thimerosal removed"

I did that and I have a detailed timeline of events under my "causation" page.

"This is another example of the "bias" that I mentioned."

Again I think you are confused.

"Considering how much you advocate to "properly inform," you seem to be leaving out a lot of relevant information"

It seems that you've been off more points then I. I'll give you the meningococcal flaw but you seem to be making several errors of which some you have been apologetic.

"and considering how much you are trying to point out "spin" in Canadian Nurse's deconstruction, you seem to be spinning right round yourself."

Laugh!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

Jon
02/02/2012 6:45am

"Well yes! 1000s of vaccines would contain enough of the neurotoxins to kill. One vaccine can kill. You are all for the conservative injection of around 21 million mcgs of aluminum adjuvant? Especially after reading the research regarding this toxin?"

If that's all you took away from the comment about the immune system being able to respond to thousands of vaccines, then you obviously did not understand what the quote.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 6:47am

"Jon,

"Why would I disagree with it?"

Because your views are so literal."

What does that even mean? How are my views "literal"?

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 6:49am

"show me the science that says that antibodies trigger cell-mediated immunity"

"So again show me in science where the body can tell the difference between vaccine induced antibodies and natural infection creating antibodies."

Those are two totally different questions. Totally. Different.

If you disagree and think they are the same question, then please explain why.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 7:15am

Apparently I'm having a problem following the discussion, since I'm pasting the quoting the wrong things. So please ignore the previous post. Here is what I meant:

"So show me with research that the body can tell a difference between a vaccine antigen or a natural occurring antigen."

"So again show me in science where the body can tell the difference between vaccine induced antibodies and natural infection creating antibodies."

Those are still totally different questions. One is asking about a antigen, which is something the immune system responds to, while the other is asking about an antibody, which is something the immune system produces in response to the antigen.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 7:19am

""show me the science that says that antibodies trigger cell-mediated immunity"

I did. I gave you the reference in the book of Neuropathology. "

No you didn't. This is what you quoted:

"
From Neuropathology, Chapter One; Applied Neurocytology And Basic Reactions.[1]

"Recognition of antigens in CNS parenchyma results in retention and recruitment of T-lymphocytes, leading to inflammation. B-lymphocytes probably also randomly traffic through the brain in a similar fashion and, if they find specific antigens, they aggregate and produce IgG antibodies.""

1) This quote says that the B-cells produce antibodies, and mentions nothing about what those antibodies do, so I have no idea how you think this supports the statement "antibodies trigger cell mediated immunity".

2) B-cells are part of the humoral immune response, not the cell-mediated immune response. If this is why you thought that "antibodies trigger cell mediated immunity", then I suggest you brush up on your basic immunology.

Perhaps you could explain my confusion in point (1)?

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 7:47am

"Do vaccine induced antibodies know not to enter the CNS?

The more antibodies present will there be increased amounts of cell-mediated immunity?"

To my knowledge, antibodies are capable of entering the CNS. But what does that have to do with anything? They aren't going to damage the CNS unless they are specifically reactive to a CNS protein, and antibodies induced in response to a vaccine will not be reactive to a CNS protein.

Again, antibodies don't trigger cell-mediated immunity. I'm sure you'll realize this at some point, but I'm just reminding you.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 7:49am

""According to the FDA website that you cited, only two types of vaccines *might* contain thimerosal (there are thimerosal-free versions): influenza and DTaP"

That is not true. And using the word *might* is misleading. They DO contain thimerosal.

Multi-Dose Flu Vaccines - 25 mcgs
DTaP - trace
Meningococcal - 25 mcgs"

Oh sorry, I was off by 1.

And no, "might" is not misleading, since ALL of those vaccines are available in thimerosal-free forms. To say "they always contain thimerosal" is simply wrong.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 7:55am

I know you attempted to answer this, but let repeat my question, since you seem to have missing a key component of it. I will capitalize the words you missed, just for extra emphasis (I don't consider it "yelling", btw, so that's not my intention).

"Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that THE CONCENTRATION OF THESE PRODUCTS FOUND IN VACCINES is harmful in any way? "

Posting articles that say something is harmful to rats does not answer my question. It's like the scientific paper that once showed the fake sugar in diet coke caused brain cancer, but when you looked at the quantities used, a person would have to drink something like 2500 cans of diet coke a day. It's not relevant unless the concentrations and exposure is relevant. If concentration and exposure didn't matter, I could show you convincing evidence that drinking water will kill you.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 8:04am

""Per Vaccine" yes. But if you look at the science that I provided under that segment that is a simplistic view. When a child is injected with 4, 5, 6 vaccines the body does not differentiate between injection sites and keep the adjuvants separated.

Shann, Frank, "The Nonspecific Effects of Vaccines and the Expanded Program on Immunization", The Journal Of Infectious Diseases, Vol 204, Issue 2, March 2011

Excerpt:

"There is now clear evidence that the simplistic conventional model of immunization is invalid. We can no longer assume that a vaccine acts independently of other vaccines, or that it influences only infectious caused by the target disease.""

If you think an argument is too simplistic, then say that. It is not "wrong", as you argued, just because it is simplistic. It was a technically correct statement, and to argue otherwise is misleading.

More importantly, you are misrepresenting the quotation and article that you cited. That paper is not talking about the interactions of vaccine components (that are not the antigen), but about how to antigens effect the immune response to other antigens. If you had quoted more than the first two sentences, that would have been fairly clear:

"Strong evidence from randomized trials suggests that bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine (BCG) reduces mortality from infections other than tuberculosis and that measles vaccine reduces mortality from infections other than measles. However, there is worrying evidence that whole-cell diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine (DTP) may increase mortality from infections other than diphtheria, tetanus, or pertussis in high-mortality areas. These nonspecific effects of BCG, measles vaccine, and DTP are generally stronger in girls, appear to be maximal in the first 6 months after immunization, and are largely determined by the most recent vaccine administered."

The paper is essentially talking about how infections effect the immune systems ability to respond to subsequent infections with a different pathogen.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 8:08am

"Vaccines are not safe then, especially if you are a mother standing over a grave of a child whose died from a vaccine reaction. To that mother vaccines are completely unsafe"

I can understand the emotional argument here, but it is not a logical one. You are using "safe" in an ultimate way, while I (and pretty much everyone who says vaccines are "safe") am using "safe" in a relative way.

If your criteria of "safe" is that no one is ever harmed, then driving in cars are not safe, eating spinach is not safe, and swimming in a kiddie pool is not safe. Would you agree with those three statements? For some reason I highly doubt it.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 8:11am

"The first part showed the contamination in multiple samples. Dr. Lee only tested one sample with his DNA sequencing molecular diagnostic tests. Which showed the rDNA firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.

Are you saying that this was a fluke and he should have tested all lots for confirmation. I can dig up some cellular molecular biology books and look at how attachments are made between molecules to see if it's possible that the same exact molecules act differently in same exact solutions under same exact storage instructions manufactured the same way."

No Heather, I'm not suggesting anything as stupidly ridiculous as that.

The problem is that you can't tell me where the article says that the rDNA was found to be attached to the aluminum adjuvant, in a sample of a patient's blood. That is what you claimed the article said.

Reply
02/02/2012 8:48am

"If that's all you took away from the comment about the immune system being able to respond to thousands of vaccines, then you obviously did not understand what the quote."

The reality is when Offit says "vaccines" that encompasses the cocktail not vaccine antigens. Whether he means to or not the take away message is vaccine cocktail. If he didn't mean it as such he should have just said antigen exposure and left vaccines completely out of it.

Reply
02/02/2012 8:50am

"What does that even mean? How are my views "literal"?"

I'll point them out now when I see it in your dialogue. I saw something below and will make a point to flag it now.

Reply
02/02/2012 9:11am

Jon,

"Those are two totally different questions. Totally. Different.

If you disagree and think they are the same question, then please explain why."

I ment to say antigen here, sorry for the confusion.

I'm asking this question because this is your field and I presumed you studied this. If you read the neuropathology book you will see that ingredients in vaccine can trigger cell-mediated immunity.

"Microglial cells have receptors that enable them to sense damaged tissue and to recognize viruses, environmental and endogenous toxins, and other pathogens. Such recognition leads to upregulation (activation) of microglial cells."

This is what I find most disturbing.

"However, persistent activation of microglia has damaging effects and is thought to contribute to the neurodegeneration that occurs in Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, HIV encephalopathy, and other conditions. Microglial activation also develops progressively with advancing age in absence of stimulation."

And this is specific with antigens.

"The most important of these cells are the perivascular monocytes which reside just outside the vascular basement membrane. These cells are the main antigen-presenting cells of the CNS, thus playing an important role in immune reactions involving the brain."

So I ask you why isn't this part of the safety analysis when studying vaccines? Why are they just looking at one arm of immunity never bothering to see what effects there are on the other? Especially because the risks of over-activation is so damaging.

Reply
02/02/2012 9:23am

"1) This quote says that the B-cells produce antibodies, and mentions nothing about what those antibodies do, so I have no idea how you think this supports the statement "antibodies trigger cell mediated immunity"."

You skipped the first line: "Recognition of antigens in CNS parenchyma results in retention and recruitment of T-lymphocytes, leading to inflammation."

T Cells are part of the cell-mediated immune system.

Sorry for the confusion I should have said; "Antigens trigger cell mediated immunity." That is totally my fault for that error in phraseology.

------

" B-cells are part of the humoral immune response"

Agreed

Humoral Immune System Incorporates
B Cell lymphocytes

Cell-Mediated immunity Incorporates
T cells
Macrophages
Leukocytes; lineage - T-cells, various monocytes like macrophages)

Do I not have that right? I checked again and my texts say that is correct.

Reply
02/02/2012 9:26am

Jon,

"To my knowledge, antibodies are capable of entering the CNS. But what does that have to do with anything?"

I miss wrote, sorry. I meant to say antigen. And if you believe in the texts written on the subject they stimulate the cell-mediated response.

Reply
02/02/2012 9:31am

Jon,

"And no, "might" is not misleading, since ALL of those vaccines are available in thimerosal-free forms. To say "they always contain thimerosal" is simply wrong."

Okay, I'll give you that but I'm so sick and tired of vaccine propagators saying things like 'Vaccines no longer contain thimerosal, except......'

It would go along way in re-establishment of trust if they would just say, 'Some vaccines still contain thimerosal, please ask your providers for the free versions if you wish'.

The thing is so many parents believe thimerosal isn't in any vaccines because of the vernacular that is used in these PR campaigns. It's wrong!

Reply
02/02/2012 9:48am

Jon,

"THE CONCENTRATION OF THESE PRODUCTS FOUND IN VACCINES "

Yea I got it.

Okay there are publication but they are marginalized because of the authors and the association of controversial MDs. Dr. Boyd E Haley has some science and that 12 monkey paper that Wakefield was associated with comes to mind.

We also have studies that show some patients are more sensitive to mercury than others.

"Posting articles that say something is harmful to rats does not answer my question."

Why?

This type of measurement is used all the time in finding adverse affects.

Linda Birnbaum, PhD.

Director, NIEHS. Director, National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH). Diplomat of the American Board of Toxicology. In her congressional testimony in front of Barbra Boxer's regarding the environmental factors and autism stated that even-though mice aren't men they are good indicators for discovery.

So since it's discovered in mice & monkeys that these ingredients are toxic at the levels given in vaccines where are the follow-up studies and policy changes???

Reply
02/02/2012 10:00am

Jon,

"The paper is essentially talking about how infections effect the immune systems ability to respond to subsequent infections with a different pathogen."

Yes and how vaccines do not act independently from each other.

Reply
02/02/2012 10:07am

Jon,

"If your criteria of "safe" is that no one is ever harmed,"

We have inadequate vaccine safety data and adverse event reports. We don't know the true number of the injured. If we knew the true number and it was as the pro-vaccine camp touts 1:1,000,000 chance for injury then I could live with that. But this is assumed and never studied.

Reply
02/02/2012 10:12am

Jon,

"The problem is that you can't tell me where the article says that the rDNA was found to be attached to the aluminum adjuvant, in a sample of a patient's blood. That is what you claimed the article said."

You need special DNA molecular diagnostic equipment to see the connection. That was verified in a lab using a sample of HPV vaccine. Her blood sample was routinely examined by average equipment that wasn't sensitive enough to see the bond. But the bond was confirmed by other experts. And it's understood that is how rDNA is traveling within the blood.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 11:02am

"You need special DNA molecular diagnostic equipment to see the connection. That was verified in a lab using a sample of HPV vaccine. Her blood sample was routinely examined by average equipment that wasn't sensitive enough to see the bond. But the bond was confirmed by other experts. And it's understood that is how rDNA is traveling within the blood."

Ok then, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 11:04am

"Okay, I'll give you that but I'm so sick and tired of vaccine propagators saying things like 'Vaccines no longer contain thimerosal, except......'

It would go along way in re-establishment of trust if they would just say, 'Some vaccines still contain thimerosal, please ask your providers for the free versions if you wish'.

The thing is so many parents believe thimerosal isn't in any vaccines because of the vernacular that is used in these PR campaigns. It's wrong!"

I completely agree with you: vaccine advocates need to be clear and use proper language when talking about things like that. That's why I try to be very specific when I'm talking about science and medicine. Language matters, especially when people use that information to make decisions about their health!

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 11:15am

"Humoral Immune System Incorporates
B Cell lymphocytes

Cell-Mediated immunity Incorporates
T cells
Macrophages
Leukocytes; lineage - T-cells, various monocytes like macrophages)

Do I not have that right? I checked again and my texts say that is correct."

No not really. "Cell mediated immunity" almost always refers to the arm of Adaptive Immunity that is carried out by CD8+ T cells. These are the T cells that are responsible for actually killing other cells. There are CD4+ T cells which are part of both the Humoral and Cell Mediated arms of Adaptive Immunity; they are called "helper" cells because they essentially tell the B cells or CD8+ T cells to do get busy and do their jobs. A "Th1" response refers to an Adaptive Immune response that involves CD8+ T cells, while a "Th2" response refers to the Humoral arm (B cells). "Th1" and "Th2" also refer to the cytokines (molecular signals) that are associated with that type of immune response.

While monocytes (e.g. macrophages) are cells, and they are involved in immunity, they are not typically considered part of the "Cell Mediated" immunity. They are part of the Innate Immune response, and also play a role bridging the gap between the Innate Response and the Adaptive response.

Here is a break down of the immune cells and how what part of the immune response they are typically involved in:

Innate Immunity (occurs first)
-Neutrophils
-Basophils
-Eosinophils
-Macrophages (can act as a bridge to the adaptive immune response)
-Dendritic cells (can act as a bridge to the adaptive immune response)

Adaptive Immunity (occurs second)
Humoral Immunity
-Th2 CD4+ T cells
-B Cells
Cell Mediated Immunity
-Th1 CD4+ T cells
-CD8+ T cells (also called Cytotoxic T cells)

There are other cell types (e.g. Natural Killer Cells) and other "response profiles" (e.g. Th17), but those are the basics.

I can understand why you think that macrophages and other monocytes are part of the Cell Mediated immune response, but they aren't. It's kinda weird terminology when I think about it, since "cell mediated" does imply that it includes all cells that are part of the immune response.

I hope that helps.(can act as a bridge to the adaptive immune response)

Reply
Jon
02/02/2012 11:16am

That last "(can act as a..." was a mistake. Sometimes I hit "ctrl+V" rather than "ctrl+c".

Oh well.

Reply
02/04/2012 5:06am

Jon,

Out of the Neuropathology book I linked to above.

"However, persistent activation of microglia has damaging effects and is thought to contribute to the neurodegeneration that occurs in Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, HIV encephalopathy, and other conditions. Microglial activation also develops progressively with advancing age in absence of stimulation."

What part of the immune system is the microglia? The Innate? What branch does that come from - the cell-mediated?

Reply
Jon
02/05/2012 5:18am

"What part of the immune system is the microglia? The Innate? What branch does that come from - the cell-mediated?"

Microglia are a type of macrophage, which are part of the innate immune system, but as I explained before, the innate immune system is not considered part of the "cell mediated" immune response. The "cell mediated" immune response refers specifically to a Th1 adaptive immune response (Th1 CD4+ T cells, and CD8+ T cells). I thought I explained that.

Reply
02/05/2012 7:11am

Jon,

I'm asking you to be sure what you are saying. I'm not disagreeing with you but I think you are ignoring specific cell-production thru specific cell activations.

1. Antigen/Pathogen/Toxin presents itself in the CNS.

2. The cel-mediated (T-Cell) immune system is activated.

3. Cytotoxic cells, (IFN)-y, (TNF)-a, (IL)-6, IL-10 and macrophages are produced when T cells (Cell Mediated Immunity) is activated.

Again this is described here by MedScape:

"These cytokines are produced by activated T cells and histiocytes that infiltrate all tissue and lead to tissue necrosis and organ failure."

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1380671-overview#a0104

So again why isn't this area of the immune system included in safety analysis. When you assault the brain repeatedly in utero and after delivery with neuro-toxins, antigens and pathogens hoping to get good antibody uptake rates to combat against infectious disease what is that doing to the cell-mediated system that produces or activates cytokines that are known to cause neuro deterioration, encephalopathy, AZ to name a few disorders.

So I hope your not being evasive in the relationship between cell-mediated immunity and cytokine production. In all my reading I've never come across this kind of relationship in humoral immunity.

It appears a bit simplistic to only study antigen uptake rates to gage vaccine efficiency and safety when there's more to the story that is clearly being ignored.

Reply
Jon
02/06/2012 4:22am

"So I hope your not being evasive in the relationship between cell-mediated immunity and cytokine production. In all my reading I've never come across this kind of relationship in humoral immunity."

I'm not being evasive, I'm simply trying to explain how the immune system is categorized, so that when you read something, you understand it properly. All I was talking about were the cells that are considered part of "cell mediated" immunity. I wasn't really talking about cytokines. Also, there is certainly a strong relationship between cytokines and the humoral immune system. It could easily be argued that the humoral immune system is more dependent upon cytokines that the cell-mediated immune response, since cytokines strongly dictate which type of antibody a B cell produces.

"It appears a bit simplistic to only study antigen uptake rates to gage vaccine efficiency and safety when there's more to the story that is clearly being ignored."

Vaccine efficacy is usually measured by antibody production, but I agree with you that it is a simplistic model. Of course, if a drug follows the four step process of clinical trials, then toxicity is studied, but that's just a generality. I'll be honest, I don't follow clinical trials of vaccines.

Reply
Jon
02/13/2012 10:35am

Heather,

If you have the time, can you please point out an example of what you called "literal" views? You made that comment earlier, and while others have used that phrase on places like HuffPost, I honestly have no idea what it is supposed to mean.

Thanks.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply