"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.

""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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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.

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

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

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

""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)?

""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.

""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.

"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.

"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!

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

Oh well.

"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.

"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.