Slashdot Mirror

David.
Basically, what you are suggesting is that vaccinations cause autoimmune. Yet, logically, that makes little sense.
We already know that viruses and bacteria DO cause autoimmune. GBS is a great example of one.
The notion that vaccines don’t cause autoimmunity makes sense. Since vaccines don't drive the immune response nearly as vigorously as natural infections do, it is less likely that they would induce autoimmunity. However, scientists continue to study questions related to vaccines as a cause of autoimmunity as they arise.
Here is an interesting case. If you look at this, you will see that far more women get 2 types of autoimmune disease, but also that America/UK,which are vaccinated LESS than these other nations, have much higher incidence rate.
The evidence is overwhelming that vaccines do not cause autoimmune any more than they cause autism.

BTW, based on your response, it is obvious that you do not have the background on immunology. Im guessing that you have an autoimmune disease and read bits and peices. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Consider reading at least this section. It is where vaccines work.

The first question is related to how in 1989 Kids up until age 18 received 7 vaccines. [...] Today, it is 72.

You're so full of shit. According to The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, in 1989 the CDC recommended 8 vaccines for kids (the same 7 it recommended through the 70s, plus Hib). The 2010 schedule includes the 8 from 1989 plus hep A (dangerous in kids, lethal in adults), hep B (40% lifetime risk of liver cancer in 95% of newborns who contract it), flu, varicella (not the innocent, cute little illness antivax wingnuts claim it is), pneumococcus (lethal), and rotavirus (potentially lethal).

The evil drug companies took the 8 vaccines from 1989 and added 6 more potentially lethal or crippling diseases, for a total of 14. One-four. Maybe the 72 number is an innocent mistake reflecting the total number of shots, although I sincerely doubt it's that high as DTaP and MMR are each 3 vaccines combined into 1 (as they have been since the early 80s). That narrows it down from 14 to 10 unique vaccinations, and they simply don't take an average of 7 shots each per vaccine.

Yes, I get testy about this. As many times as antivaxers tell me to "do my research!", it seems that none of them can be bothered to.

http://vec.chop.edu/service/va...

Do vaccines contain fetal tissues?
Varicella (chickenpox), rubella, hepatitis A, shingles and one preparation of rabies vaccine are all made in fetal embryo fibroblast cells. These cells were first obtained from elective termination of two pregnancies in the early 1960s. These same embryonic cells obtained from the early 1960s have continued to grow in the laboratory and are used to make vaccines today. No further sources of fetal cells are needed to make these vaccines. Fibroblast cells are the cells needed to hold skin and other connective tissue together.

The reasons that fetal cells were originally used included:
Viruses need cells to grow and tend to grow better in cells from humans than animals (because they infect humans).
Almost all cells die after they have divided a certain number of times; scientifically, this number is known as the Hayflick limit, and for most cell lines it is around 50 divisions; however, fetal cells can go through many more divisions before dying.
So, as scientists studied these viruses in the lab, they found that the best cells to use were the fetal cells mentioned above. When it was time to make a vaccine, they continued growing the viruses in the cells that worked best during these earlier studies.

Reviewed by: Paul A. Offit, MD
Date: April 2013

We can't have a rational dialogue because you make statements like that one.

Oh, the fact that you want clarification makes it an irrational dialogue? I don't believe you actually understand what dialogue is supposed to be if that's the case, but I'll bite once. All of the information that follows is using the CDC as the source unless I provide a link.

First, you can look up the rates for Autism without any help. This is one of many neurological disorders which have skyrocketed in the US over the last 40 years. In the 1970s and 1980s we were at 1 in 2000, and today it's at 1 in 68. This is only one of many, not the only disorder that has increased. Yeah yeah, our detection is better now but the reported cases of severe autism make up the majority of those numbers.

You can also look up the fact that we have moved from 8 vaccines (1 combo 1 series) from 1960-1980 to today's 49 doses of 14 vaccines today without help as well. CDC link, and here is a breakdown link to help you get started. Oh, and this by age 6 and by age 18 this goes to 69 doses of 16 vaccines.

We have drastically increased the amount of vaccines we get in our most sensitive year of development, and at the same time seen a similar rise in Autism and other neurological problems. As I said above, this does not prove causation but sure as hell does indicate a link. The CDC guidelines show that "severe" side effects for vaccines are about 1 in 10,000 but we are giving a kid 644 vaccines by age 6 (which is what the CDC recommends) we have upped the odds of receiving severe side effects to 6.44% of the population

Which correlations?
Lots of time, money, and effort has been spent studying vaccines in the wake of Dr. Andrew "brought the medical profession into disrepute" Wakefield's original paper (which has since been retracted along with his UK license to practice medicine).

Do you mean the correlation that I just demonstrated above using the CDC as a data source showing a correlation between increased number of vaccines and increases in the number of autism? Or are you really trying to argue that these profit generators are purely altruistic as your second portion seems to imply?

Have done away with the fast track programs for vaccines? We have forced independent study so that Merck can not do the study for a Merck vaccine, and Bayer can not do the study for a Bayer vaccine to ensure no conflict of interests exist? In fact this is not the case at all. I'm not saying that Merck and Bayer don't spend money on researching effects, I'm saying there is an obvious conflict of interest with our current laws regarding how vaccines are tested and approved for consumption. We further have known issues where contaminated (bad) vaccines have been shipped for use overseas in developing countries.

Lets also not neglect that most of a vaccine is not just the live, altered, or inactive virus but a laundry list of other things that we are exposing kids ourselves to when getting vaccinated. Vaccines contain chemicals, metals, proteins, antibiotics and human, animal and insect DNA and RNA. Those mixtures are sometimes varied batch to batch without additional testing.

Nobody in their right mind should be hedging all of their bets on one doctors paper, just like nobody in their right mind should be claiming that all vaccines are the same.

I really don't get why people are against science when it comes to vaccines. Against it to irrational religious levels.

The influenza vaccine is probably the most advocated against. That, followed by HPV and chicken pox. Today by age 6 a child is getting 49 doses of 14 different vaccines. Many of these are "combo" vaccines so finding one that may be causing issues has become statistically impossible. Compare this to when I was a kid and we received 8, one series and one combo. You can see the schedule and massive growth in vaccines (and the appropriate industry) here.

Of course even the CDC admits that the MMR vaccine can cause permanent brain damage, yet we are not allowed to discuss this without facing attack. Victims of permanent damage are force to silence in order to receive payment from companies that get sued for damages and victims win. Silencing is not "new" or unique to medical issues but should be flat out illegal.

As I said previously, there is plenty to research to form an educated opinion.

You should have stated upfront that you oppose vaccines for religious reasons due to their animal/ human components.
That is your prerogative, and I salute your for sticking to your principles.
However, I very much object to your wasting our time by beginning your thread with "Convince me that I and my entire family should vaccinate." while not telling us of this religious objection. We can only discuss the scientific and medical principles involved in vaccination.

Make vaccines that are absolutely proven to be 100% safe and stop using crazy ingredients in them.

If you have religious objections to components, then safety is irrelevant; the components are still there.
So why do you even mention it?

BTW, your body makes formaldehyde to form DNA and amino acids. You have about 5 milligrams in your blood right now.
Aluminum is in there for a reason, and it is quickly excreted just like the aluminum in your food. Some vaccines contain it, some do not.
It's been used for some 70 years.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
http://www.chop.edu/export/dow...

The rant you hear about adding monkey cells, fetal cells, dog cells or whatever to the vaccine is incorrect.
The cells are not added to the vaccine, the cells are used as food to grow the virus. So yeah, the cells, they're in there, but they're not added after the fact.

For those who don't know, vaccines have to be grown on some substrate. Bacteria can be grown on almost anything.
Viruses can only be grown in cells. Because viruses tend to be species specific, the ones that infect humans need to be grown on animal cells. Some are grown in eggs, some in cell cultures. One example the "monkey kidney cells "is the Vero cell culture that was taken from a monkey's kidney about 50 years ago. Others use human cell cultures, and some use cell cultures originally from other animals.
The insect one is a substitute for egg-grown viruses, except that insect cells are used to produce certain proteins found in flu virus and not the whole flu virus.

I doubt that there will ever be anti-virus vaccine that does not have somewhere in its production some human or animal cell product.

Death rates:
http://chickenpox.emedtv.com/chickenpox/adult-chickenpox-p2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox

Time limited protection, Search on "Booster":
http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/varicella-chickenpox-vaccine.html The booster shots are now recommended because the vaccine failed after a half dozen years. Chance of death due to High School Football (for those exposed): 1.21:100000
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155424/table/T5/
Chance of death due to childhood Chicken Pox (for those exposed):
http://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/surveillance.html

A small amount of math has to be used on the Chicken pox number. Of the 4 million people a year that catch chicken pox 5% of them are adults so 4 million must be reduced to 3,800,000. 55% of the deaths are in adults, so the 100-150 (lets just go with the worst number of 150) must be reduced to 67.5.

That leaves you with 1.18:100000. Just a bit less than High School Football.

Of course, this doesn't take into account what will happen when the vaccine wears off for the adult population where the chance of death is: 27.5:100000.

The only objection I have with the MMR vaccines is an ethical one -- the Rubella vaccine was originally harvested from an aborted child back in the 60s...

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/mmr-measles-mumps-and-rubella-vaccine.html#MMR_rubella

The real issue for concern out of the childhood vaccines is the suspension solution they are delivered in. This contains preservatives to provide shelf-life and enhance the vaccine's effectiveness since we don't have Just-In-Time medical vaccination infrastructure. Some of the happy ingredients you'll find in common vaccines are formaldehyde (poison) and thimerosal (poison) which breaks down into ethylmercury (poison) and also raw mercury (poison).

This is a good illustration of the level of stupidity that one encounters from the antivaccine crowd. "Oh my god! FORMALDEHYDE! It's poison!"

Well, let's apply just a little bit of basic common sense. Almost anything is toxic at a high enough dose. People have died from drinking too much water. A whole lot of formaldehyde is certainly bad for you. But just how poisonous is the stuff? Well let's google it and see what it looks like. Wow, that's a really simple molecule--CH2O. That sort of structure is part of all sorts of molecules. I wonder if our bodies make the stuff? Back to Google. Sure enough, it's a normal metabolite. There's quite a bit of it in blood, in fact--normal blood levels are 2.5 mg per liter. How much formaldehyde could possibly be in a shot of vaccine? There can't be that much in the small volume of a shot. Let's google it just to check. The highest vaccine dose of formaldehyde is less than 0.2 mg.
So even in an infant, a vaccine dose would increase blood formaldehyde by less than 20%, and that only briefly. It's volatile, so you breathe it right out--it's half-life in blood is only 2.5 minutes (see previous links).

All it took was five minutes with Google to figure out that you don't need to worry about formaldehyde in vaccines.
Yet these antivaccine nuts have been repeating this "Ohmigod FORMALDEHYDE" canard for months. Just how stupid are they? Or how stupid do they think we are?

And no, there is no appreciable amount of "raw" mercury, either (which has comparatively low toxicity anyway). And organic mercury (thimerosal) has now been removed from most vaccines, greatly reducing mercury exposure--with zero impact on autism incidence. So much for mercury.