Slashdot Mirror

thanks for those points.

re hazmat suits - i was talking about a 10 dose vial falling on the floor and breaking, not a squirt on a shirt.

up until 2002 or so, most if not all vaccines had mercury in them. the form of mercury is thimerosol, which is a disinfectant used in the manufacturing of vaccines. This is extremely toxic. I read of cases where there was an improper application of thimerosol to disinfect a new born umbilical are and it killed the child.

here's a table of mercury content in (some) vaccines, from 2013. more or less current. follow this link: http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm. You'll notice that, yes, the flu vaccine has mercury in it, but it is not the only one. Also showing up is a meningococcal vaccine.

presently, mercury (thimerosol) is used in any multidose vial. the flu shots are usually packaged in 10 dose vials. those have mercury in them. if you can get a flu shot in a one dose vial, then it probably won't have any mercury in it. just aluminum salts and all the other toxins they use to really rev up the vaccine.

there is no form of mercury that is not harmful. i understand the relationship to be linear with quantity. mercury does not just pass through the body, not thimerosol and not any of the other kinds of mercury that cause mad hatter disease, minimata disease, grassy narrows disease, and so on.

the links i posted are good, well referenced and not hard to read. there is no reference there to the wakefield study. however, wakefield is one of the people quoted or commenting in the links I posted. I've probably read more about the wakefield thing than most. i wouldn't say his theory has been discounted so much as it's been smeared. You'd never know there were other names on the study, but wakefield was the only one without insurance to defend himself.

if you were to read up on the simpsonwood thread, you would find how the cdc and big-pharma hacked at the data until the autism link disappeared. read up on thompson and find out how big-pharma used tobacco science to make it look like there's no link. they funded a lot of bad science and meta studies.

we've all seen bad science before made in the service of profits. the tobacco companies got by for years saying smoking wasn't bad for you, in fact they'd tell you it was even good for you. they had lots of (paid for) studies published to prove it too, but it was all lies.

independent science is what's needed.

evils of vaccines, eh? I didn't say that. the thing that really gets me is the simpsonwood conference. now that was evil, and it was done by evil people, not a vat of some snake oil.

I see Diptheria toxoid all over the place in this table. other references seem to confirm that the 4 or 5 way vaccine contains the toxin and not components of the bacteria.

The vaccine coverage rate for barcelona is 95%

That would seem to be a nail in the coffin for this herd immunity theory. Where is patient zero?

Other literature indicates that whatever immunity the vaccine confers dissipates after a few years. here: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/2/11-0987_article

also in there, it says the largest cofactors for diptheria are: #1 war; #2 unemployment. Spain has a really high unemployment rate now. Also, note that eastern europe has high vaccination rates but a persistent diptheria problem. Seems to me eastern europe has a persistent war problem too.

also in there, it says 75% of the people getting diptheria have already had the vaccine. Sounds like this vaccine has got snake oil as it's active ingredient. reading the product insert i see more than 50% of the people getting the vaccine suffer from side effects, with around 10% having very unpleasant consequences. safe? effective? strike out on both counts.

the numbers there say that the vaccine reduces symptoms, but I suspect they put some lipstick on those stats.

Most (75%) case-patients reported in the European Region were at least partially vaccinated, but most (74%) case-patients and (93%) infants who died were unvaccinated).

they don't appear to have factored for the most vulnerable groups, who are also least likely to be vaccinated - the very old, the very young, and the very sick.

It certainly raises a red flag for me when you consider that a single vaccine can give a child an exposure 5-10x the OSHA limit for mercury poisoning.

Really? From childhood.com: "An infant who is exclusively breast-fed will ingest more than twice the quantity of mercury that was ever contained in vaccines and fifteen times the quantity of mercury contained in the influenza vaccine."

And: "Thimerosal — a preservative still used in the influenza vaccine — contains a different form of mercury called ethylmercury. Studies comparing ethylmercury and methylmercury suggest that they are processed differently in the human body. Ethylmercury is broken down and excreted much more rapidly than methylmercury. Therefore, ethylmercury (the type of mercury in the influenza vaccine) is much less likely than methylmercury (the type of mercury in the environment) to accumulate in the body and cause harm."

Are you going to argue that we should stop breastfeeding our children, since through breastfeeding children ingest a larger quantity of a more harmful form of mercury than was ever contained in vaccines?

And where are you getting the OSHA limit from? All I can find on their website is a limit on the air concentration of mercury, which is an entirely different issue.

All true, although the comparison of a single exposure to a lifelong exposure is a bit of a stretch. Particularly, since as you pointed out, since ethyl mercury is expelled from the body pretty quickly compared to methyl mercury which tends to accumulate.

What do you mean by "large"? According to this chart, the vaccine with the most mercury (Influenza-A) contains only .025mg of mercury, and is a one-time dose; this is much lower than OSHA's air-exposure limit of 0.1mg/m^3 per work week, if you somehow managed to ingest all of that mercury vapor.

And, as noted, most vaccines now contain zero mercury.

So much for your point ;)

The OHSA limit is 0.01mg/m^3 for long term occupational air exposure. The EPA daily intake limit is 0.1 micrograms/kg/day. Prior to 2000, the average round of vaccines for a 6-month infant contained 187.5 micrograms of thimerasol, almost three times the calculated exposure limit of 65 micrograms, based on this EPA guideline. (ref AAP, 1999, interim report; United States schedule, Tables 1 and 2). It's even worse for a small, underweight child.

Even the FDA cites isolated cases where far lower exposure has caused neurological problems http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm096228.htm#guid.

As you pointed out, the FDA placed restrictions on the use of thimerasol in child vaccines. A large portion of vaccines like the flu shot still do. It's not uncommon to see pneumonia and flu vaccinnes administered to kids outside of the official guidelines from the drug maker. In some cases, thimerasol-free child versions of some vaccines simply are not available.

I'm not saying I agree that thimerasol is causing autism. In fact, I'm a bit skeptical. I'm saying that there is no concrete data proving it's absolutely safe for 100% of the population. Given the doubts and some conflicting data, it's safer to be conservative.

As another interesting point of data. I recall reading that 5% of contact lens wearers are sensitive to thimerasol containing saline solutions. I'm not how this compares to internal injection though.

But the large volume of anecdotal evidence should be enough to get the vaccine manufacturers to consider stopping the use of thimerasol as the preservative.

According to the CDC, "Since 2001, no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children under six years of age have been thimerosal-free, or contain only trace amounts, except for multi-dose formulations of influenza vaccine."

And even better, from later down on that page:

"Unfortunately, we have not seen reductions in the numbers of children identified with autism indicating that the cause of autism is not related to a single exposure such as thimerosal."

It certainly raises a red flag for me when you consider that a single vaccine can give a child an exposure 5-10x the OSHA limit for mercury poisoning.

Really? From childhood.com: "An infant who is exclusively breast-fed will ingest more than twice the quantity of mercury that was ever contained in vaccines and fifteen times the quantity of mercury contained in the influenza vaccine."

And: "Thimerosal — a preservative still used in the influenza vaccine — contains a different form of mercury called ethylmercury. Studies comparing ethylmercury and methylmercury suggest that they are processed differently in the human body. Ethylmercury is broken down and excreted much more rapidly than methylmercury. Therefore, ethylmercury (the type of mercury in the influenza vaccine) is much less likely than methylmercury (the type of mercury in the environment) to accumulate in the body and cause harm."

Are you going to argue that we should stop breastfeeding our children, since through breastfeeding children ingest a larger quantity of a more harmful form of mercury than was ever contained in vaccines?

And where are you getting the OSHA limit from? All I can find on their website is a limit on the air concentration of mercury, which is an entirely different issue.

It's quite likely that some small percentage of people are unusually sensitive to mercury, and a large dose can trigger autism in them.

What do you mean by "large"? According to this chart, the vaccine with the most mercury (Influenza-A) contains only .025mg of mercury, and is a one-time dose; this is much lower than OSHA's air-exposure limit of 0.1mg/m^3 per work week, if you somehow managed to ingest all of that mercury vapor.

And, as noted, most vaccines now contain zero mercury.

So much for your point ;)

No, you are almost guaranteed to get a shot with thimerosal because most flu shots are multi-dose. Since they guess as to the strain that will be prevalent, they generally make shots that protect against several strains at once.

In addition to mercury, these shots also have aluminum and formaldehyde. Mercury and Aluminum are neurological poisons-they accumulate in the brain. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and is used to embalm the dead. There is no safe level of formaldehyde established for injection into a living organism.

Multi-dose doesn't mean it has inoculations against multiple strains. It means that the same liquid in a single vial is used to inject multiple people. A larger vial is used and several people get shots from it. This reduces costs. In the US, they are more concerned about getting sued if you catch something that could be traced to a contaminated vial than the cost of the vial, so they use single-dose vials where one person gets a shot from it and then the vial is thrown away. Thimerosal is not used in these vials.

See this chart:

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm

The 0s are single-dose preparations. For example Fluarix "FLUARIX is supplied as a 0.5 mL dose in a prefilled syringe." These are what is used in the US.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

In addition to mercury, these shots also have aluminum and formaldehyde. Mercury and Aluminum are neurological poisons-they accumulate in the brain. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and is used to embalm the dead. There is no safe level of formaldehyde established for injection into a living organism.

Formaldehyde is used to prepare the deactivated viruses used in the shot. It is not part of the final shot (of course there could be trace amounts).

There's no aluminum used in flu shots either it seems.

You might want to look into the idea of not spreading false info.

Since I have never had the flu (in the past 10 years anyway) I fail to see why I should get an injection. If you are susceptible or if it would be hazardous to get the flu, then by all means if you choose to do it then get the shot. But injecting a perfectly healthy person with chemicals known to cause problems simply doesn't make any sense. My body, my choice as to what goes into it.

I don't get flu shots either. That's my choice. But it isn't because I feel they are unsafe.

If you think thimerosal-based vaccines are so safe you should consider the latest flu vaccine in a lead-based hypodermic. Heavy metals (mercury, lead, arsenic) do, in fact, affect the CNS http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic237.htm and cause dysfunction in children. Many, but not all, children's vaccines are thimerosal-free or use thimerosal as a binding agent during the mixing of multiple vaccinations. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm
In the latter case, the thimerosal is removed, but a trace amount still remains. Is this trace amount the sole cause? Likely not, but for those with a genetic predisposition it could be a trigger. The initial scare of developmental disorders associated with vaccinations are largely derived from a rescinded study on the link between autism and thimerosal from a competing vaccine manufacturer. Unfortunately, the name of the initial study escapes me (likely because my vaccine had thimerosal in it ;-)).

I agree with your final statement as it would assure an international ban on your procreation.

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-exem.htm

Unfortunatly Mercury is not gone from vaccines, it is just no longer regulated. It was agreed that Thimerosal would be "reduced or eliminated" but it still exists, especially in flu vaccines. Trace amounts of debilitating neurotoxins is not good enough for my children, how about NONE...