Monday, May 11, 2009

The Toxin Gambit Part 1: Formaldehyde

We will be conducting a multiple-part series describing some of the vaccine constituents that many consider 'toxins' or just have what the actual chemical is, just plain wrong. The first part of our series will be dedicated to information regarding formaldehyde, what it is, why it is in vaccines and any health implications. So thank you to Valo for your suggestion.

For the purpose of this series, it is important to understand the metric scale, not so much the actual measurements but their relationship to one another. For example, if a microgram (mcg) is a grain of sand, then a milligram (mg) is a slice of American cheese, so a gram (g) is an average 5.5 year-old boy and a kilogram (kg) would be 7 H2 Hummers. Again, these aren't actual weights, volumes or measurements, but rather, their differences on a visual scale.

Formaldehyde is a naturally-occurring chemical that can also be synthesised. The chemical formula is CH2O and is also known as methanal (not to be confused with methanol), formal and methyl aldehyde. It is also not to be confused with formalin, which is an aqueous solution of formaldehyde. Numerous isomers of formaldehyde exist but they are not formaldehyde. It is used in the manufacture of resins that are then used for the production of pressed wood products, paper, textile fibres, adhesives and plastics (EPA 2009 and WHO 2006). Of course, those involved with the manufacturing of products with formaldehyde may sustain occupational exposure and subsequent pathologies (EPA, 2009 and WHO, 2006). Formaldehyde is also a by-product of tobacco smoke and combustion reactions from stoves, kerosene space heaters and automobiles (EPA 2009).

Naturally occurring sources of formaldehyde are found in plants, fruits, vegetables, animals (including humans) and seafood (Mason et al. 2004 and Inchem 1989). Table 14 of the Environmental Health Programme on Chemical Safety: Formaldehyde, and Table 95.2, Chapter 95: Formaldehyde, lists some commonly-consumed foods and their formaldehyde concentrations. (Clary and Sullivan 2001 and Inchem 1989). In a study of Shiitake mushrooms, investigators reported formaldehyde concentrations of 100-300 mg/kg; this wide variation is a result of a combination of analysis techniques, naturally-occurring formaldehyde and also possible contamination with exogenous formaldehyde (Mason et al. 2004).

Formaldehyde is a normal, essential human metabolite with a biological half-life of about 1.5 minutes (Clary and Sullivan 2001). It is endogenously produced and is involved with methylation reactions for and biosynthesis of some proteins and nucleic acids. It is also rapidly metabolised to formate and excreted in urine or to carbon dioxide and exhaled (WHO, 2006 and Clary and Sullivan 2001). Some common routes of exposure for exogenous formaldehyde include dermal, from occupational handling, inhalation, from occupational exposure and environment, oral via dietary intake and of course, intramuscularly or subcutaneously from vaccines. (Franks 2005, Clary and Sullivan 2001 and Inchem 1989).

Human normal blood concentrations of formaldehyde are 2.74 +/- 0.14 mg/L (Franks 2005). The average adult male (86 kg) in the U.S. has a blood volume of 5.8 litres; the average adult female (74 kg) has a blood volume of 5.0 litres and an average 2 month old infant (5 kg), 0.43 litres. So this translates to 15.1-16.7 mg of normal formaldehyde range in an adult male, 13.0-14.4 mg in an adult female and 1.1-1.2 mg in a 2 month-old infant which works out to be 0.22-0.24 mg/kg (CHOP 2008 and Franks 2005). Using the visual scale provided earlier for the infant, that would be a little more than 1 slice of American cheese/35 H2 Hummers.

Toxic levels of formaldehyde can induce a variety of illness from localised skin/respiratory tract irritation to cancer (Bosetti et al. 2008, Sundstrom et al. 2001 and Pandley et al. 2000). Inhalation of 1.0-2.0 parts per million or ppm (ppm=mg/kg) is considered mildly irritating, while 3.0 ppm causes moderate eye irritation although there is variation of sensitivity in individuals (Sundstrom et al. 2001 and Inchem 1989). Chronic inhalation studies on rats and mice have resulted in nasal cavity squamous cell carcinomas, when exposed to levels above 6-15 ppm (Bosetti et al. 2008 and Clary and Sullivan 2001). Formaldehyde toxicity resulting in death occurs in humans at a volume of about 60-90ml (Pandey 2000). The CDC conducted a survey of 'travel trailers' used for displaced people from hurricanes Katrina and Rita and found levels ranging from 0.003-0.59 ppm with an average of 0.077 ppm (CDC 2008). Thus far, only symptoms of local irritation have been reported (CDC 2008). A 2005 study of single-family homes in 3 cities detected an average of 0.17 ppm and 0.016-0.025 ppm in travel trailers (Weisel et al. 2005).

Formaldehyde in vaccines is left over from the production process, where it serves a couple of different functions, depending upon the type of antigens used. Essentially, it is used for killing cells and/or inactivating toxins. For example, the diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine is a toxoid vaccine. The toxins produced by the bacteria are what causes illness in humans and what we need antibodies against. The addition of formaldehyde internally cross-links the toxin and also cross-links it to other toxins, effectively detoxifying to eliminate pathogenicity. Viral vaccines such as influenza and hepatitis A vaccines utilise formaldehyde to inactivate viral activity, allowing the recipient to produce antibodies to the antigens without pathogenicity (Aunins et al. 2000).

The actual amount in vaccines is minuscule, even when considering an infant that receives the full CDC schedule. If you look at this table, it contains a list of vaccines and their final formaldehyde content. Not included in this table is Pentacel which contains 0.005mg of formaldehyde. If all vaccines are given as per the CDC recommendation and separately, the most a 2 month old infant would receive is 0.1204 mg of formaldehyde or 120.4 mcg. Going back to what normal formaldehyde levels for a 5kg, 2-month old infant are 1.1-1.2 mg or 0.22-0.24mg/kg so the total formaldehyde exposure from vaccines would raise that to 1.22-1.32 mg or raises the baseline level by less than 1 grain of sand/35 Hummers. Put another way, the amount contained within a vaccine is more than 50 times less than what is in a pear.

Given what is known about human formaldehyde metabolism, excretion and toxic levels, along with what is actually in vaccines, we hope that this gives some perspective about the safety of the amount of formaldehyde that an infant would receive via vaccines. There is simply no valid argument, beyond the scope of fear-mongering that formaldehyde exposure from vaccines is implicated in any health problems, whatsoever.

References:
Aunins JG, Lee AL, Volkin DB. Vaccine Production. In: Bronzino JD, ed. The Biomedical Engineering Handbook 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Springer Publishing; 2000. http://books.google.com/books?id=T2UIoAxcFdIC&pg=PT175&lpg=PT175&dq=&source=bl&ots=J4Skfly-bt&sig=InDm5MbbsfSOztSu5WoeSGAYh7A&hl=en&ei=s938SciZD4TCM6Gi8csE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8. Accessed May 10, 2009:105-8—105-9.

Bosetti C, McLaughlin JK, Tarone RE, Pira E, La Vecchia C. Formaldehyde and cancer risk: a quantitative review of cohort studies through 2006 . Annals of Oncology. 2008; 19:29-43. http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/1/29.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2009.

The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). Vaccine Education Center Web site. http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=75809. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Clary JJ and Sullivan, Jr. JB. Formaldehyde. In: Sullivan, Jr. JB and Krieger GR, eds. Clinical Environmental and Toxic Exposures. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2001. http://books.google.com/books?id=PyUSgdZUGr4C&pg=PA1008&lpg=PA1008&dq=formaldehyde+human+normal+metabolite&source=bl&ots=IJTP64uYmW&sig=jttT7L4_AseC6hm3eVXzUP56hQI&hl=en&ei=Gmv7SfTkJ46UMrvr3dQE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP1,M1. Accessed May 10, 2009:1007-1008 and 1010.

Indoor Air Quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Web site. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formaldehyde.html. Accessed and link repaired Aug 1, 2012.

Franks SJ. A mathematical model for the absorption and metabolism of formaldehyde vapour by humans [abstract]. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2004; 206(3):309-320. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXH-4F7B42G-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7617394a3010f1b021e3164141aefec1. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Environmental Health Criteria 89: Formaldehyde. International Programme on Chemical Safety (INCHEM) Web site. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc89.htm#SubSectionNumber:5.1.4. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Mason DJ, Sykes MD, Panton SW, Rippon EH. Determination of naturally-occurring formaldehyde in raw and cooked Shiitake mushrooms by spectrophotometry and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry [abstract]. Food Additives and Contaminants. 2004; Nov;21(11):1071-1082. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Edb=all?content=10.1080/02652030400013326. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Pandey CK, Agarwal A, Baronia A, Singh N. Toxicity of ingested formalin and its management [Abstract]. Human & Experimental Toxicology. 2000;Jun,19(6);360-366. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10962510?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log$=citationsensor. Accessed May 10, 2009. PMID: 10962510.

CDC Final Report on Formaldehyde Levels in FEMA-Supplied Travel Trailers, Park Models, and Mobile Homes Web site http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/trailerstudy/pdfs/FEMAFinalReport.pdf. July 2, 2008. Accessed May 10, 2009.

Weisel CP et al. Relationships of indoor, outdoor, and personal air (RIOPA). Part I. Collection methods and descriptive analyses [abstract]. Research Report (Health Effects Institute). 2005;Nov(130 Pt 1):1-107; discussion 109-127. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Cmd=ShowLinkOut&Db=pubmed&TermToSearch=16454009&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVCitation. Accessed May 10, 2009. PMID: 16454009.

IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. World Health Organization (WHO). Volume 88 Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butxypropan-2-ol. 2006. Web site. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol88/volume88.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2009.

137 comments:

  1. Holy cow. You actually explained all of it. Bravo, and thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent summary. I love the comparison to formaldehyde in a pear!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you and I'm glad that it was informative, just what we were going for.

    As an amusing side note, I tried to comment on this quaint, little antivax blog in an effort to provide accurate information regarding formaldehyde in vaccines. But it appears as though the owner is moderating comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should mention that the liquid version of formaldehyde which is used in vaccines is called formalin and also contains methanol, a highly toxic substance on its own. Also, you can crunch numbers all day, but doesn't your common sense tell you that a chemical used as an industrial fungicide, germicide, and disinfectant, is a known carcinogen, and that can cause death at 100ppm, does not belong in a baby?

      Delete
    2. Ummmm....you do realize that Formaldehyde is Formaldehyde, right? The chemical composition is identical - just because it is in a vaccine, doesn't change the physical properties.

      Chemistry is obviously not your strong suit.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous from 14 Sept 2014 did you even bother to read the blogpost and the subsequent comments? I'd have to either say no you didn't or you are wilfully obtuse. The amount of formaldehyde in a full suite of vaccines doesn't even raise the baseline over a detectable level. Formaldehyde is manufactured by our own bodies.

      Delete
  4. Nicely done, and glad to find your blog, after having followed your efforts on the Babycenter (anti)vax board. I read your exchange with anti-vax Dawn on her blog with great amusement, before she pulled the usual plug with the "so much we don't know" flourish.

    Add y'all to my humble blogroll.

    ReplyDelete
  5. With the news that there has been a case of polio in Argentina, do you guys think you can do some kind of emergency piece on this news? can you tell us abou tOPV v IPV, travel, protection against transmission, and about the polio virus itself-- does it live in the community waiting for vaccine numbers to drop? could it come back even to clean, first world nations?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon, We are trying to find out more information on the case. When we do, we can certainly break it down for our readers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Case closed times ten. This blows Paul Offitt's explanation out of the water, by the way. It's nice to have such an exhaustive treatment of a commonly raised concern.

    ReplyDelete
  8. how does natural formaldehyde compare with a formaldehyde releaser like aspertame?

    I personally have no issue with the natural formaldehyde in food or me for that matter.

    However as soon as I drink a diet coke I ache.

    If I use a cream with a formadehyde releaser then I get excema.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous, it's the same. Aspartame metabolism produces methane and then that is converted to formaldehyde and then that is converted to formalin. It's chemically identical.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Could you explain the difference that exist between exposure due to inhalation, ingestion, etc versus injection directly into muscle and the bloodstream? Has this difference been studied and compared? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Unknown, here is a fact sheet that you may find helpful: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1219908739327

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not quite sure if that fact sheet answers the question or has done the research in question. I don't see any mention of exposure by "injection" which would cause the formaldehyde to bypass the cellular immune response. All the other points of entry would activate this cellular immune response. I'm looking for a real study done on the affects of formaldehyde when ingested, inhaled, etc vs injected directly into muscle/blood stream (intramuscularly, subcutaneously). Does this research exist to your knowledge? What are your thoughts on these differences of entry into the body?

    ReplyDelete
  13. For starters unknown, you seem to be confusing formaldehyde with something else. Formaldehyde has nothing to do with immune activation, cellular or otherwise. So no, there is no research that will answer your question because you aren't asking the right question.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I was under the impression that when a foreign agent enters the body via inhalation, or via the skin or nose, etc it activates the cellular (cell-mediated) immune response. This is the first level of defense against foreign agents, pathogens, virus, bacteria, etc. Pretty much any article I bring up on immunology states this. My question is simply whether or not you know of any research or studies done that compare methods of entry of foreign agents into the body. It is reasonable to question whether injecting directly into the blood stream, muscle tissue might be more harmful than ingesting or inhaling. After all, the first line of defense in the immune system is attempting to keep the foreign agent from getting to the blood in the first place. One would naturally assume that it could be dangerous to bypass this natural immune response by injecting foreign pathogens directly into the blood. So again, do you know of any studies done comparing method of entry? Not just for formaldehyde, but also for aluminum, mercury, etc? I think this would be a critical piece of research in helping to prove vaccine safety.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Unknown, perhaps you should read the blogpost on the topic you are commenting/asking questions about. Formaldelhyde isn't a "foreign agent", our bodies produce it and it is an essential metabolite. As such, when it is injected, it is no different that what is already present in our bloodstream and is metabolised in exactly the same way. This is also explained in the blogpost. Formaldehyde is not a pathogen either, neither is aluminium and mercury. Perhaps you wish to formulate a specific question.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Formaldehyde is a gas. So when it is added to a liquid vaccine it no longer exists as pure "formaldehyde", the gas. It is chemically impossible to add formaldehyde to a liquid substance and still call if formaldehyde. Formaldehyde does not dissolve in water, but instead instantly reacts with the water to change into a completely new and different substance called methylene glycol. Not only is it completely different, methylene glycol belongs to an entirely separate chemical family. Formaldehyde is a gas and methylene glycol is a liquid with very different chemical properties. Now, if a vaccine were only pure water, we would be talking about Methylene Glycol. But since vaccines contain many other additives, it would take sophisticated chemical testing to determine what it is actually becoming once added to the vaccine. I'm not sure this has ever been done.

    This "mislabeling" of formaldehyde as an ingredient in vaccines, is basically the exact same situation that occurred in the nail polish industry. Nail polish manufacturers were listing formaldehyde as one of the ingredients in their nail polishes until it was discovered that inhaling formaldehyde gas over long periods of time can cause cancer. Suddenly advocacy groups were claiming that these nail polishes contained a dangerous, cancer causing ingredient. This was false however, since formaldehyde, as a gas, cannot exist as formaldehyde in a liquid. It changes completely. So a guy named Doug Schoon, Co-chair of the Nail Manufacturer’s Council, worked with others in the industry to officially correct the naming error, which was finally approved in December 2008 and is now in effect. Manufacturers using formalin in nail hardeners can now use the correct name for this ingredient, “methylene glycol”. He says that, "If you find “formaldehyde” on a cosmetic label, you will know this is an incorrect name and you can be sure that formaldehyde was NOT added to the product. You can also be sure that the formaldehyde related cancer risks claimed by these advocacy groups doesn’t apply to cosmetics." Why? Because formaldehyde is a gas and is impossible to mix in liquid without a chemical change, thus creating an entirely new and different compound.

    So the real question here isn't even about formaldehyde. The real question is, what is this formaldehyde becoming once added to the liquid vaccines? Formalin? Formol? methylene aldehyde? Paraforin? Morbicid? Oxomethane? Polyoxymethylene glycols? Methanal? Formoform? Superlysoform? formic aldehyde? Formalith? Tetraoxymethylene? Methyl oxide? Karsan? Trioxane? Oxymethylene? methylene glycol? You get the point? Once you determine the new compound created, then you must determine what it's affects are, both immediate and long term on the body and our health.

    Quotes taken from: http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/08/exposing-the-formaldehyde-myth/

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mindquest, an aqueous solution of formaldehyde is often referred to as formalin and in spite of reaction with water to form methylene glycol, there are still formaldehyde molecules that are chemically identical to what is found naturally in animals. Perhaps you should read better sources for your information rather than cutting and pasting from a guy's blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have attitude, which is a serious turn-off to concerned parents like me who are seeking informed information. I don't care how smart you are or think you are, if you speak with attitude then you're gonna be ignored.

      Delete
    2. Hopefully your ego will calm and at that point I look forward to returning and finding fewer "I know this..." "I know that..." "I'm better than you..." "I'm smarter than you...." "You're an idiot..." "You are all crazy...." self-righteous, self-serving rants which only end up in showing the world how insecure you are.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, I provided copious references and links to support my information. Take it or leave it. Go take your tone-trolling somewhere else; I'll give you the facts with some attitude, not tell you what you want to hear with saccharine.

      Delete
  18. Lol, yet I suppose if I had pasted information from YOUR blog, I would be a hero, right? Get over yourself.

    But let me get this straight. Since, according to you, there are still formaldehyde molecules, then it is OK to assume that the new chemical compound created in the reaction is "safe"? Are you serious? How can anyone take you or your "blog" serious? You know nothing about chemistry. You know, cyanide is a naturally occurring chemical as well. Maybe you could benefit from injecting some into your body.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mindquest, as you can see I've provided several reputable sources for this post which you can access. Vaccine excipients are tested and cannot contain novel compounds or must go through clinical trials and re-licensed or be considered adulterated.

    Formaldehyde metabolism and safety threshold are well-documented and the amount in a vaccine suite does not even raise a detectable blood level above baseline. I also clearly know more chemistry than you given the one and only source you chose to provide and your absurd comparison to cyanide also demonstrates your ignorance. Try using valid and reputable sources to understand a topic instead of seeking out self-serving, uncited ones to support your pre-conceived beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I can't get much more unbiased than a post regarding the chemistry of formaldehyde in the nail polish industry. If anything, that should show you that I'm interested in an unbiased position based on facts, not based soem anti-vax propoganda. However, whatever "reputable sources" you think you found here are not comparing the same things. You're committing the same mistake that I pointed out. It will do you no good whatsoever to talk about formaldehyde on it's own in a vaccine, since once it hits the liquid it changes into a different chemical entirely. It's no longer formaldehyde at all. So why are you trying to show the affects of formaldehyde on the body? Pure formaldehyde is a gas and is a carcinogenic at that. It's highly toxic and that's why it's use is regulated and safety parameters must be met. But we shouldn't even be talkging about "pure" formaldehyde because it's completely different than what someone is getting in a vaccine. You obviously don't understand this yet. And the cyanide example was spot on. It goes right along with your "since it occurs naturally it must be safe" theory. I think you're in the wrong line of work or whatever this blog represents for you. It's not any more reputable or accurate than whale.to.

    ReplyDelete
  21. But does cyanide occur naturally in the body? Also, if formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body (per SM) and formaldehyde cannot be pure in liquid form (per MQ), what form is it in then when it's in the body naturally?

    ReplyDelete
  22. You're committing the same mistake that I pointed out. It will do you no good whatsoever to talk about formaldehyde on it's own in a vaccine, since once it hits the liquid it changes into a different chemical entirely. It's no longer formaldehyde at all.

    You are hung up on semantics and I made the mistake of playing into that. You are taking another, rather amateur and financially-interested blogpost from the cosmetic site and treating it as gospel. Well the fact is, is that he is wrong too. Formaldehyde exists in aqueous solution (dissolved in water) as methylene glycol (H2C(OH)2). This reaction is freely reversible and is not a "different chemical entirely" as water is removed, formaldehyde is emitted, conversely, as formaldehyde is inhaled, the water in mucous membranes converts formaldehyde to guess what? Methylene glycol (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10509029). Does that mean it's harmless in sufficient quantities? Of course not, it's still formaldehyde that will do what formaldehyde does if toxic threshold is achieved. Otherwise it is harmlessly metabolised and excreted. Ironically, your source is arguing that methylene glycol in nail products is harmless based upon the erroneous idea that it isn't formaldehyde. But strangely, a product called Brazilian Blowout which listed an ingredient called methylene glycol was causing problems with consumers and hair industry workers: http://www.webmd.com/healthy-beauty/news/20110907/fda-brazilian-blowout-hair-straightener-is-dangerous

    How can this be if methylene glycol isn't formaldehyde? What do you suppose is going on? Simple, since the reaction is reversible, the removal of water causes formaldehyde gas to be emitted, not to mention the 20% of free formaldehyde already present in methylene glycol. So much for an entirely different chemical.

    So why are you trying to show the affects of formaldehyde on the body? Pure formaldehyde is a gas and is a carcinogenic at that. It's highly toxic and that's why it's use is regulated and safety parameters must be met. But we shouldn't even be talkging about "pure" formaldehyde because it's completely different than what someone is getting in a vaccine.

    See previous comment. To use the reverse analogy; you are claiming that my potatoes won't be salty if I boil them in a pot of water with a cup of salt dumped in because sodium and chloride ions disassociate. All toxicological studies are done using liquid formaldehyde, formalin or methylene glycol where applicable so the comparison is apples to apples.

    And the cyanide example was spot on. It goes right along with your "since it occurs naturally it must be safe" theory.

    Perhaps you should actually read the blog post since I clearly stated what toxic levels are for different exposures along with reputable citations. It is just simply the amount of formaldehyde/formalin/methylene glycol in a vaccine is negligible and is orders of magnitude lower than the lowest toxic exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi MR, let me know if my post after yours answers your questions.

    And here's another article for MindQuest who thinks that methylene glycol is a completely different chemical: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/business/brazilian-blowout-agrees-to-a-4-5-million-settlement.html

    You might want to question your cosmetics source and his grasp of chemistry.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you had read my original post better you'd understand my position. Vaccines are not "pure" water. So you have no idea what you are actually creating by adding the formaldehyde to the vaccine. It can react to all of the liquid additives in the vaccine, not just the "water" part. So, in all honesty, you have no idea what is being created in the vaccine by those chemical reactions. Even your own post admits that there are many different combinations and synthetic compounds created for a wide range of fields. So again, there is no telling what is actually being created and whether or not it is dangerous long term. Simply measuring formaldehyde isn't even a valid way of measuring vaccine safety since very little if any has a change of "reversing" back into Formaldehyde in the body. It is staying in it's new state, whatever that is. So, your premise is a really poor way of looking at this issue in the first place since you are pretending that a vaccine is ONLY "pure" water and nothing else exists for formaldehyde to react with. That would be the proper study to conduct.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If you had read my original post better you'd understand my position.

    I've been responding to you so obviously I've read your original post. Your stipulation that aqueous formaldehyde is a COMPLETELY different chemical than formaldehyde gas is wrong and I have adequately demonstrated it.

    Vaccines are not "pure" water.

    I hate logical fallacies; please try to refrain from falling back on them. Note: I never said that vaccines were pure water.

    So you have no idea what you are actually creating by adding the formaldehyde to the vaccine. It can react to all of the liquid additives in the vaccine, not just the "water" part. So, in all honesty, you have no idea what is being created in the vaccine by those chemical reactions.

    Um yea we do. Now it isn't a bad question to ask, "Will we create novel chemicals by adding these things together?" and testing for that (I trust you are familiar with things like mass spec and GLPC). But to merely assume that novel chemical formations are occurring is lazy. Here is an exercise for you; here are the vaccine excipients http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf now taking into account bond strength, type and length, catalytic activity, concentration, molecular stability, etc. and see what kind of novel chemicals can be conceivably formed.

    Even your own post admits that there are many different combinations and synthetic compounds created for a wide range of fields. So again, there is no telling what is actually being created and whether or not it is dangerous long term.

    You are being terribly dishonest. You can do as I suggest above or understand a point I tried to convey to you earlier. Vaccines are tested constantly; they've been thoroughly tested prior to licensure and contain what they state they contain if they don't, they're pulled or recalled. Do you really think that pharma and FDA, EMEA or what have you for oversight biologists and chemists can't identify what is in a vaccine and just say "oh fuck it"?

    Simply measuring formaldehyde isn't even a valid way of measuring vaccine safety since very little if any has a change of "reversing" back into Formaldehyde in the body. It is staying in it's new state, whatever that is. So, your premise is a really poor way of looking at this issue in the first place since you are pretending that a vaccine is ONLY "pure" water and nothing else exists for formaldehyde to react with. That would be the proper study to conduct.

    What did I say about toxicological studies? It isn't my premise by the way, it is that of leading toxicologists so go argue with them and read this before continuing to make an ass of yourself: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.pdf

    My premise also isn't vaccines are pure water, yet again. Feel free to find anywhere that I stated or even implied that. The fact remains that you were incorrect about the chemical properties of aqueous formaldehyde and you are incorrect about measuring aqueous formaldehyde and identifying stability in vaccines. If you have something novel to add to this, great, otherwise piss off.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That answers my question. I was mostly posting it for logical thinking's sake.

    MQ: I have no scientific training, however:
    "So you have no idea what you are actually creating by adding the formaldehyde to the vaccine. . . . So, in all honesty, you have no idea what is being created in the vaccine by those chemical reactions."
    These statement strike me as terribly misinformed. Anyone who has taken a high school chemistry course can tell you that, yes, chemicals react, and, yes, we can tell what they turn into when they react. Any Chemist worth their paycheck (and I have a friend who is one) can tell you what chemicals are in a substance and what the likely outcome is for any mixture of chemicals. So even if you choose not to trust what Chemists think will happen when you mix two substances, you can trust that they know what is in a substance.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Formaldehyde in vaccines is present for the purpose of stabilizing the vaccine. In the industrial world, formaldehyde is a highly toxic gas used in the manufacture of plastics, plywood adhesives, resins, dyes, sugar, rubber and textiles. In most manufacturing processes and vaccine uses, it is used in a liquid form stabilized in methanol. Depending on the individuals tolerance or sensitization levels, new cars, homes, and carpets are an allergan to many people, especially to those who are sensitive to Formaldehyde.

    Effects of Formaldehyde on the human body vary depending on how it is absorbed into the body, but some typical effects of Formadehyde are:

    It weakens the immune system, causes neurological system damage, genetic damage, metabolic acidosis, circulatory shock, respiratory insufficiency and acute renal failure, as well as being a sensitizer which means it can make you sensitive to many other things, it is corrosive if ingested, and it is a suspected carcinogen. A friend of mine son's onchologist implied that formaldehyde in vaccines may have been the trigger for his leukemia.

    Formadehyde may be listed on an ingredient list under many different names including formaldehyde, fomalin, formic aldehyde, methanol, methyl aldehyde, methylene oxide, oxomethane, and paraform, although formaldehyde in vaccines is typically listed as formaldehyde or formalin. Formadehyde has been given a rating of 0.1 PPM for a safe level, but after the FEMA trailer incident in New Orleans, they have re-evaluated this mindset and found that due to individual sensitivities, even this is not a safe level and many suffered ill effects as a result. The latest verdict is, there is no safe level of formaldehyde for the human body, yet a very significant amount is used in vaccines. This ppm measurement is in a gasseous state, (like air), when put into liquid form it is typically 30-50% formaldehyde, which means a very concentrated level.

    Considering that babies typically have weak lungs and no immune system, it really does not sound like a prudent action to inject a young baby with a HIB, DPT or DTaP vaccine that is stabilized in formaldehyde. A baby that may be genetically sensitive to begin with does not have the body or the immune system developed to handle such an assault, and as a result common sense should tell us a baby just might suffer any number of serious reactions or conditions.

    Formadehyde has been indicated by some in connection with chemically induced asthma and Chronic exposure leads to many adverse side effects, including ADD and ADHD.

    The Government Agency for Toxic Substances says children are more susceptible to formaldehyde than adults. Babies immune systems continue to develop well after birth, so a babies body is not ready to fight of such an assault on the system. It is also estimated that between 10% and 20% of the population are sensitive to Formadehyde, so when you have formaldehyde in a vaccine and inject it into your newborn baby, you have no idea if your child is sensitive or not. It is not much different from playing Russian Roulette, however you may not see the effects for 6 years or more, or you may see the effects immediately, and they may be lifelong.

    Vaccines that use formaldehyde include but are not limited to:

    (Vaccine - form of formadehyde)
    DTaP - Formaldehyde
    HIB - Formalin
    BioThrax - Formaldehyde
    DPT - Formaldehyde
    FluShield - Formaldehyde
    Havrix Hepatitus A - formalin
    IPOL Polio vaccine - formaldehyde
    JE-VAX (Japanese Ancephalitis) - Formaldehyde
    Tripedia DTP - formaldehyde
    typhoid - Aspartame (aspartame converts to formaldehyde in the body and clings to protiens).

    Formaldehyde in vaccines creates a toxic soup.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Excerpts from interview with Helen V. Ratajczak, PhD: During her career, Dr. Ratajczak developed an ELISA assay for Rat Alpha-2-Macroglobulin, the most sensitive acute phase reactant protein for the rat, and also quantitated acute phase reactant proteins in the dog and monkey. She also conducted acute toxicology studies and both in vivo and in vitro immune assays, and has studied the immunotoxicologic properties of many compounds, including immunosuppressive and immunostimulatory drugs, in several animal species including mice, rats, nonhuman primates, and humans


    Q. 12. Please talk about how adjuvants are designed to over-stimulate immune response that, in turn, can attack brain microglia and astrocytes. What happens? Do adjuvants interfere with nerve pathway development? Do they incite glutamate and quinolenic acid? What are the resultant consequences?

    A: The adjuvant and the antigen are two separate components of a vaccine. The antigen is the component that the vaccine is designed to protect against, such as influenza. The adjuvant is the added component that causes an enhancement of the immune response by slowing the release of the antigen into the body. The immune system responds to the presence of antigen and terminates the response once the antigen is eliminated. When the antigen is mixed with an insoluble adjuvant, a focus is formed, and the antigen within the focus slowly leaks into the body, giving a prolonged antigenic stimulus. (Tizard, 1988).

    In the case of the immune system’s attack on brain microglia and astrocytes, there is a cross reaction of the antibody against the antigen and the brain cells. (The configuration of the brain cells or parts of them is similar to the antigen.) Therefore, the immune system attacks the brain cells. [Refer to HVR’s answer to question 1 in Part 1.]

    The adjuvant, as stated above, causes the antigen to be released to the body very slowly, thus augmenting the immune response. Indirectly, the adjuvant could be responsible for the interference with the development of nerve pathways, but the direct reason is the cross-reaction of specificity of the immune system.

    Besides eliciting an immune response that is specifically against the antigen, the vaccine elicits a number of cytokines or factors, which enhance or regulate the immune response. The cytokines caused by the vaccine cause the secretion of harmful chemicals including two excitotoxins, glutamate and quinolenic acid (Blaylock, 2008). These chemicals elicit an excitatory reaction in the neurons, and create cellular toxicity and inflammation if too much accumulates (Jepson, 2007; Reynolds, 2007).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Q. 14. Can you please discuss the interaction of mercury as found in Thimerosal (49.6% Hg) and aluminum together in a vaccine.

    A: The addition of Thimerosal to a vaccine in an adjuvant containing aluminum can result in a synergistic toxicity. (See Haley, 2005). Haley reports that aluminum hydroxide alone showed no significant death of neuron cells in culture at six hours, and only slight toxicity over 24 hours. Similarly, Thimerosal caused only a slight increase in neuron death at 6 hours. When Thimerosal and aluminum hydroxide were added together, neuronal death increased to 60%. This is an example of a synergistic effect of two toxicants.

    Q: Lastly, what are your personal thoughts about vaccines and their implications in Autism and other childhood diseases or syndromes?

    A: Vaccines have saved a great many lives throughout the years since they were first developed in the Middle East centuries ago, with the intradermal application of powdered smallpox scabs (variolation) for the prevention of smallpox. However, it is important to remember the wisdom of the Hippocratic oath to “First, do no harm”. Epidemiologic data suggest that vaccines are intimately involved with autism. As more vaccines were given to children, and given at earlier ages, the incidence and prevalence of autism increased. [CJF emphasis]

    There are many aspects of vaccines that cause autism. Some examples follow: The pertussis component of the DPT vaccine integrates into the G proteins, which are regulatory proteins, inhibiting their function (Megson, 2000). The metal aluminum in the adjuvant(s) accompanying the vaccine(s) is toxic (Shaw and Petrick 2009). In addition, the mercury in the preservative thimerosal is a known nerve toxin. This preservative was removed from most childhood vaccines around the year 2000 (Schechter and Grether, 2008), but still is present in some vaccines, the most pertinent being influenza, which is sometimes given to pregnant women. The fetus is thus exposed to mercury, a nerve toxin, when the brain is in its most formative stages.

    About the time thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines, the host for the growth of some viral components of vaccines was changed from animal to human tissue. When a virus grows it takes some of the DNA of the host cells with it. This means that the vaccine using the virus now contains human DNA, which can be incorporated into the vaccine recipient’s DNA by homologous recombination. Now the vaccine recipient has altered DNA or altered self, which is attacked and killed by the immune system. Much of this killing occurs in the brain.

    The federal government and Dr. Gerberding, Director of Vaccines at Merck & Co., Inc. say that autistic conditions can result from encephalopathy following vaccination (Child Health Safety, 2010).

    It would be very beneficial if tests of the safety of vaccines were conducted on the following:

    Increasing the age at which the vaccines are given
    (Many vaccines are given at 2 months of age, which is the most vulnerable age. At that age, the immune protection given by the mother is on the wane and the infant’s immune system is not yet competent.)

    The effects of injecting more than one vaccine at the same time, with perhaps toxic levels of the metals in adjuvants
    Preparation of a thimerosal-free influenza vaccine
    Cessation of the practice of giving vaccines to children who are ill or are immunologically incompetent
    Design of safer vaccines (without preservatives and without human DNA)
    Conduction of safety tests on animal models prior to clinical safety tests

    ReplyDelete
  30. Also, please check out the following link for some new information (peer-reviewed) regarding Formaldehyde.

    http://vaccinesexposed.blogspot.com/2009/05/formaldehyde-harmless-in-vaccines.html

    Read down through the comments as well for links to studies.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ha. I just saw your comments among the replies to the link I posted above. I think Dawn had you pegged perfectly by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Formaldehyde in vaccines is present for the purpose of stabilizing the vaccine.

    Nope; it's present due to leftover from the manufacturing process to inactivate viruses and bacterial toxoids. Let's see what else you have gotten wrong.

    A friend of mine son's onchologist implied that formaldehyde in vaccines may have been the trigger for his leukemia.

    Oh that didn't take long. No for the child's own formaldehyde production exceeds that of all of the vaccines by several mg/kg of body weight. So I would either get a new oncologist or get a clue.

    Considering that babies typically have weak lungs and no immune system, it really does not sound like a prudent action to inject a young baby with a HIB, DPT or DTaP vaccine that is stabilized in formaldehyde. A baby that may be genetically sensitive to begin with does not have the body or the immune system developed to handle such an assault, and as a result common sense should tell us a baby just might suffer any number of serious reactions or conditions.

    Really? No immune system? Well how do they live in that rather unsterile uterine environment and come through that rather unsterile cervix and then out into the world sans sterile bubble? And weak lungs? Unless they have a disorder, the lungs are just fine and since they aren't inhaling formaldehyde it isn't an issue. If a child is "genetically predisposed" to something regarding formaldehyde (you're just puking up a lot of vapid bullshit and don't elaborate) then don't you think their going to have a little problem with their own formaldehyde production and what's in food? It's like saying they are going to have a problem with oxygen.

    Formaldehyde in vaccines creates a toxic soup.

    Oh gee how original. Anything of substance you'd like to qualify that with?

    Go clog up someone else's blog with your bullshit. What does that nutbar Ratajczak have to do with formaldehyde? I take the time to respond to comments so I don't take kindly to spam.

    Also, please check out the following link for some new information (peer-reviewed) regarding Formaldehyde.

    http://vaccinesexposed.blogspot.com/2009/05/formaldehyde-harmless-in-vaccines.html

    Read down through the comments as well for links to studies.


    Let's see, I wrote an entire post about the subject with excellent expert references and you want me to "check out" some mummy blog (which I already have long ago) written by a half-wit whose idiocy is only rivalled by your own. You dimwit.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ha. I just saw your comments among the replies to the link I posted above. I think Dawn had you pegged perfectly by the way.

    Yea, stick with Dawn, you're peas in a pod.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mummy blog? That's exactly what YOUR blog is...SCIENCE MOM! Lol. You are way to into yourself.

    Ratajczak is a nutbar? Haha. You just completely exposed yourself as a completely biased, blinded by your own agenda, mommy blogger. Ratajczak is only an incredibly respected expert on immunology and immunotoxicology. But I suppose your supposed "experts" are better than other "experts". You are a sad individual unable to see anything through reality. You only see through your own hyper-biased opinion and only validate your own resources. Nobody else has anything valid to say according to you, except for YOUR so called experts. Go tell VAERS that vaccines are 100% safe and harmless. Go tell the NVICP that vaccines are 100% safe and harmless. Your so called expert opinion is disproved by reality and even the federal gov't admits that every time they award another devastated family millions of dollars in compensation for their vaccine injured children.

    The problems with vaccines, and this would be obvious to anyone without a vaccine pushing agenda, is not that they will hurt EVERYONE, ALL the time. It's that there is a one size fits all approach used that doesn't take into account each individual's unique makeup and conditions. For a perfectly healthy child, from a strong line of DNA, and with no known history of reactions, etc they will most likely be fine. But since doctors do not even take the time to do an in depth analysis of these things, they give out vaccines as if they were candy and it's a proven fact that many children have adverse reactions, some even resulting in death. A 6 pound baby receives the exact same quantity and potency of vaccine that a full grown 200 lb adult receives. This one size fits all approach is dangerous and irresponsible. Dr. Ratajczak explained in detail that there is a compounding effect when it comes to vaccines that is dangerous. We all know there are now 6 in 1 vaccines being given. And Dr. R cited many studies done to back up her own research. But of course, everyone else is an ignorant fool except you and your "expert" resources. What a joke.

    Protection from disease has much more to do with socio-economic factors; cleanliness, proper sewage treatment, hygiene, clean water, proper trash collection and clean up, etc than it has to do with a vaccine. Scarlet fever and typhoid fever declined on the exact same trend as all other infectious diseases and yet no vaccine existed for these diseases.

    Your vaccine peddling blog is pointless if you aren't going to be intellectually honest and present both sides of the coin. Even the CDC admits vaccines carry risks. That's why the booklet that comes with each vaccine is about a mile long with side effects.

    And ever heard of Vaccine Derived Poliovirus? Yes, it's an actual disease now. India already had it's first case of the year. Yea, it's polio caused by the very vaccine supposedly used to prevent it. It causes paralysis. Wild polio only causes paralysis about 0.5-1% of the time. So the vaccine is more dangerous that the actual disease. Way to go! You guys are geniuses!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mindquest, Catherina and I are professional scientists. What are Dawn's credentials again? This will be your last post unless you can stay on topic; this isn't a venue for your idiotic anti-vaxx rants. Considering you didn't even know that methylene glycol was aqueous formaldehyde, you have a lot to learn before you lecture me. And yes, Ratajczak is an expert in her field not on formaldehyde and not in autism where she recently went off the rails. So yes, the experts I cited with regards to physiological formaldehyde toxic doses, safety threshold and health effects are more qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  36. What? I didn't know MG was aqueous Formaldehyde? Since when? I posted that in my very first post. That just confirms my point that you really don't read what anybody else actually says. You think you're right so you shut all other facts out. Ratajczak is an expert in immunology and immunotoxicology. In other words, how the immune system operates and how it reacts to toxins, foreign agents, etc. What more qualified person would you need to tell you the effects of introducing foreign agents into the immune system, etc? If you would take the time to actually read the whole interview, she actually agrees that the levels of Formaldehyde in vaccines are far less than what is naturally occurring in the body. So, she agrees with you on that front. I bet you REALLY love her now, huh? Now I bet she will become one of your experts regarding formaldehyde. But when you thought she opposed your view, she wasn't qualified. What a joke. You really need to take off the blind loyalty to vaccines if you are ever going to see the issue clearly. You are entirely too convinced that they are 100% safe and effective and that's just not the case.

    As I already pointed out, even the Fed gov't accepts the responsibility for the dangers of vaccines and to date has paid out over 2 BILLION dollars to vaccine injured persons and their families. There are 1000's of cases pending.

    And by the way, those most likely to oppose the current vaccination propaganda and out of control schedule are white, upper class families, where both parents went to college and have degrees. So those with the most resources at their disposal, who are better educated, and have the means to shop for a pediatrician that can accommodate their desires are the most likely to not vaccinate as recommended by the CDC (translate: federal gov't) It's the poor who don't have any other options at their disposal, who rarely have access to information from both sides of the argument and who can't afford to go against their gov't provided pediatrician who are more likely to vaccinate.

    That is very telling in and of itself. Any basic study of vaccines will show their are risks associated with them. It's up to the parents to weigh all the information and decide of the risks outweigh the benefits. If you look at the history of infectious disease, how mortality rates declined to practically zero almost in unison for all infectious diseases BEFORE the use of vaccines, it should be obvious to anybody that the risks associated with vaccines far outweigh any benefits. Vaccines spread the diseases they supposedly protect from. Vaccine recipients can "shed" for up to 2 weeks after received a vaccine. Vaccine induced polio is a real disease caused by the polio vaccines and it cripples people worse than wild polio. And I'm not even getting into autoimmune diseases, seizure disorders, etc. All of these are associated with vaccines and this is easily verifiable through VAERS or NVICP. So, even IF Formaldehyde is "safe" in vaccines...what exactly does that prove in regard to vaccine safety? All of these reactions and risks mentioned above are still REAL and you can't escape from that fact.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mindquest - one acronym: IPV

    As for Formaldehyde - you are not introducing a "foreign" substance into the body with any residual formaldehyde in a given shot.

    ReplyDelete
  38. What? I didn't know MG was aqueous Formaldehyde? Since when? I posted that in my very first post. That just confirms my point that you really don't read what anybody else actually says.

    Yes, and I did read what you wrote as is obvious in my subsequent responses to you. You seemed to be under the impression that since aqueous formaldehyde was methylene glycol that it was a completely different chemical and thus be doing all kinds of dreadful things. You were obviously wrong about that.

    If you would take the time to actually read the whole interview, she actually agrees that the levels of Formaldehyde in vaccines are far less than what is naturally occurring in the body. So, she agrees with you on that front. I bet you REALLY love her now, huh? Now I bet she will become one of your experts regarding formaldehyde. But when you thought she opposed your view, she wasn't qualified. What a joke.

    No, I prefer my experts stay consistent and in the realm of their expertise. Why you would use her on the topic of formaldehyde safety in vaccines is beyond me but then again, you're all over the place to begin with.

    As I already pointed out, even the Fed gov't accepts the responsibility for the dangers of vaccines and to date has paid out over 2 BILLION dollars to vaccine injured persons and their families. There are 1000's of cases pending.

    And your point is? Isn't it nice to have a compensation scheme available for putative vaccine injuries? Can you name any other industry which has a mechanism in place to compensate injuries with the use of their products? Given that 2/3 of vaccine injury claims are not found viable and with the low burden of proof and also that compensation is not proof of causation, it doesn't appear to support your contention that vaccines are the horrible "toxic soup" death traps you purport them to be.

    And by the way, those most likely to oppose the current vaccination propaganda and out of control schedule are white, upper class families, where both parents went to college and have degrees. So those with the most resources at their disposal, who are better educated, and have the means to shop for a pediatrician that can accommodate their desires are the most likely to not vaccinate as recommended by the CDC (translate: federal gov't)

    Again your point being? That these "white educated upper middle class" beings are entitled prats? This trope is also getting old as "educated" merely means college, not that they have relevant degrees in the sciences. I have multiple higher degrees, doesn't mean I'm qualified to be a lawyer or defend myself in a court of law which is really tantamount to what your referenced group is doing. They have deluded themselves into thinking that because they have some higher education in liberal arts that they can Google their way into becoming a doctor or scientist.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If you look at the history of infectious disease, how mortality rates declined to practically zero almost in unison for all infectious diseases BEFORE the use of vaccines, it should be obvious to anybody that the risks associated with vaccines far outweigh any benefits.

    Wow, is this your own "higher education" talking? Not only were mortality rates not "practically zero" before the vaccines but disease risks still outweigh vaccine risks. Let's take a look at your so-called "practically zero mortality rates" before vaccines:
    Pertussis: Up to 9,000 deaths (mostly infants) each year.
    Measles: ~450 deaths/year although vastly under-reported along with cases. This also doesn't include SSPE cases which are 100% fatal.
    Hib: Nearly 1,000 children died each year from complications of invasive Hib disease.

    I could go on but you could also use your super-duper education to read the stats: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm and then perform the requisite mental contortions to disbelieve them. So tell me the maths you use to calculate the risk of vaccination is higher than risk of disease and complications.

    Vaccines spread the diseases they supposedly protect from.

    Oh do tell. Which vaccines spread disease and how does that compare to the wild-type disease?

    Vaccine recipients can "shed" for up to 2 weeks after received a vaccine.

    Which vaccines? And do you know the difference between "shedding" and "transmission"?

    Vaccine induced polio is a real disease caused by the polio vaccines and it cripples people worse than wild polio.

    No, it isn't "worse" because it's a reversion to wild-type (fabu education you have there). It also occurs about once/750K-1 million doses. How does that compare to the wild-type?

    And I'm not even getting into autoimmune diseases, seizure disorders, etc. All of these are associated with vaccines and this is easily verifiable through VAERS or NVICP.

    Such awesome sources you are using there. Do you know that VAERS is a passive reporting system? That there is no way to establish causality? Anyone can enter a report? And NVICP, how does that establish causality? Do you therefore accept that vaccines don't cause autism then? Because they said so you know.

    So, even IF Formaldehyde is "safe" in vaccines...what exactly does that prove in regard to vaccine safety? All of these reactions and risks mentioned above are still REAL and you can't escape from that fact.

    Of course, shift those goalposts and throw in red-herrings to deflect from the fact that you were so undeniably, blatantly wrong about formaldehyde to begin with. And so not expected because anti-vaccinationists are such liars. Instead of saying, "oops, sorry I was wrong, thanks for the correct information" you launch into a tirade about every whacko complaint regarding vaccines. Now, this post is about formaldehyde; if you want to post off-topic, go to our forum otherwise your posts will be dropped into the spam folder from here on out. I have been more than patient with you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mindquest, I deleted your comment from here and moved it to the forum.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Thanks for this-- the visuals are very helpful and easy to understand even for a non-scientist like me :)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi Amber, thank you very much and I'm glad you found it helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  43. interesting piece.

    the negative effects from formaldehyde exposure are seen at much less than .077ppm, I get that you are providing averages, not sure that is helpful though if people are reacting at levels far below that average, it's kinda misleading isn't it?

    given that a vaccine is injected and ends up in the bloodstream, is it really helpful to compare the amount in something which is eaten and goes through the digestive process, where after "processing" by enzymes a comparatively small amount ends up in the blood? an example would be alcohol, 1.5ml of pure alcohol injected would kill a person, 150ml pure alcohol ingested will get you a little bit drunk.

    Perhaps a better comparison might be with the exposure during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, where "average" exposure of 0.077ppm were causing reactions. This exposure was through the skin and inhalation, which leads more directly to the bloodstream than does ingestion, and so we can infer much more about potential toxicity from this example.

    to put it another way, a pear (which is quite high in formaldehyde, compared to an apple (6-22ppm)) contains a maximum of 60ppm formaldehyde (and as low as 39ppm), you say that a pear, contains 50 times the level in a standard vaccine... this would be what 1.2ppm? 1.2ppm injected directly into my child, when we have established that less than .077ppm IN THE ATMOSPHERE will cause reactions (actually much lower, the safe limit defined by the EPA is .016ppm). lets not forget normally more than one vaccine is given at a time. going back to alcohol, you say a pear contains 50 times the amount that is in a vaccine, like this shows its safe, i can probably drink 1000 times more alcohol than i can inject, that is, injecting alcohol makes it something like 1000 times as dangerous as drinking it... I think we have established that just because you can ingest something, does not mean it is safe to inject it. the fact this actually has to be explicitly stated is very telling.

    Exposure to as low as .1ppm in the atmosphere will cause allergies, irritation and neurological effects (including impaired learning and memory, sound familiar?). You start to see "reduced survival" above 6ppm in the atmosphere. Seeming safer by the minute. So, you know, we have some other evidence, admittedly not airtight, but, some of the problems anti-vaxxers are claiming to be related to vaccinations (that is learning impairments and allergies) can be observed to be caused by formaldehyde exposure in the environment above .1ppm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot about the formaldehyde that is created in your body as part of cell metabolism. It is much more than in any vaccine, and since it is in the cells it gets to the bloodstream just as fast.

      Delete
    2. I have to cry foul ball on the claims, at least in part.
      When I was in junior high school, we still dissected animals as part of biology. We still did projects that involved the dissections.
      I had taken home specimens for a project involving brain evolution and comparison between fish, frog, cat and pig brains.
      As all were immersed in formaldehyde, the space I was working in (basement) was confined and it took quite a bit of work to extract an intact brain, I suffered severe formaldehyde intoxication.
      According to the anonymous information, I should have suffered significant impaired learning and memory. 5 years later, I declined membership in MENSA.
      I have read quite a few case histories regarding formaldehyde intoxication, as it IS abused by substance abusers.
      Again, cognitive impairment, learning impairment and memory impairment was with chronic usage, not transitory usage.
      Indeed, to use the anonymous candle, we all should be with the memory of house cats, as our bodies create formaldehyde as part of normal physiological processes.
      As in 2.12-3.18μg/mL being normal in human blood.
      So, with no due respect to the anti-vaxxers, I have to proclaim their claims as pure, distilled hogwash.
      With a side dish of cattle cookies.

      Delete
  44. Add to that and anonymous isn't taking into consideration that the amount of formaldehyde found in the blood following vaccination doesn't even raise the basel level. Also, the half-life of formaldehyde is only 15 minutes. Anonymous' abuse of numbers and chemistry just demonstrates the innumeracy and scientific ignorance of anti-vaxxers.

    Put the science down buttercup; you're going to hurt yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oops, forgot my decimal point, 15 minutes should have been 1.5 minutes. And I thoroughly discuss dermal and inhalation along with what happens to formaldehyde anonymous. Please do read first.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 150ml pure alcohol ingested will get you a little bit drunk.

    150ml pure alcohol is half a bottle of vodka - if that only gets you a little bit drunk, you must be a 6'6" 300 pound rugby player.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While drinking half a bottle of vodka may not kill you, it would make you very very sick. And according to this, it might kill you if you weighed less than 100 pounds, and if you were three times that weight you'd have ten times that which is considered legally drunk (150 ml would be ten drinks).

      Delete
    2. Chris, I weigh 185 pounds and have consumed a half bottle of vodka with minimal ill effects the next day.
      It was rather a tradition at the time in the military.
      However, I always ensured hydration, as that is the primary cause of hangover symptoms.
      I've known many others who did the same, with the same minimal ill effects as long as hydration was maintained when abusing alcohol.

      That said, I do NOT recommend abusing alcohol. It's not healthy to one's liver and for some, bodes poorly toward retaining employment and a stable family life.

      Delete
    3. When I wrote that comment there was a story in the local news about a college student who had died from alcohol poisoning. I tried but could not find how much she had consumed (only that she also had energy drinks), but I did find the table I linked to (hard to see on this blog, but it is the word "this" in my second sentence).

      Delete
  47. Thanks for the information. I knew about biological attenuation, but didn't know that the toxins were cross linked by formaldehyde. I was a bit curious about why it was used though, now I know! :D

    ReplyDelete
  48. the fear from formaldehyde is widespread among anti-vaxxer.

    But the real concentration in a TBE vaccine (against tick borne encephalitis) dilutes your normal formaldehyde concentration in the muscle.

    I told this in a radio discussion to a anti-vax lady (Petek-Dimmer) then she wrote in her anti-vax book, that there is a difference in formaldehyde which is produced by the body (HCHO) to the chemically produced formaldehyde (HCHO).

    In the first moment I found this argument rather stupid. What is the difference between HCHO and HCHO ?
    But there is a difference not from a molecular point of view, but from the atomic composition.
    HCHO produced in the body has the natural content of radioactive 3H and 14 C, whereas the radioactivity from HCHO produced from oil has gone.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Jeez, it doesn't seem to matter what reasonable responses are provided to this blogger, she just seems to ignore major points, get nasty and start name calling. Way to win an argument!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What "reasonable responses" would those be Mr. Levey?

      Delete
  50. Mr Levey, you're new here, and from what I can see you haven't posted any comments about the topic of this blog.

    Have you any, um, comments, about the topic being discussed here...or are you just a tone troll?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I ended up here, a dad, looking to get a feel for the safety of the Menactra vaccine. Mostly looking for what additives are believed to exist in the soup (and revealed openly). Not the right blog I realize, but having read a lot of what's here I will comment.

    Science Mom, I think the sharing of 'facts' and rational thought is important to moving forward with anything contentious. Those that are wise accept what is offered with gratitude. Those that are willfully blind always grate on the nerves. And then there are those with a bit of both. The world has all types.

    I offer to add my life observation that having abundant knowledge and solid rational thought processes can do DIFFERENT things to different people. Some it makes humble and VERY careful as we realize we probably know far less than what remains for us to learn. Others it allows hubris to settle in, with its tentacles that blind us to the areas of our own ignorance -- even with a possibility of corrupting what we once knew.

    I believe we live in a world that largely bows to power, not truth. The best of science is truth. But weak science can and often does serve power. I relate strongly to the 'mistrust' that the anti-vaccination crowd exudes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful reply and I agree with most.

      I relate strongly to the 'mistrust' that the anti-vaccination crowd exudes.

      I'm curious, can you expound upon this? And I ask others to refrain from jumping on anonymous since I'm soliciting a response.

      Delete
    2. In my world, our shared world, which is your world too, MANY humans (maybe MOST humans) harbor at least a few beliefs (often MANY beliefs) that strongly support self-CONVENIENT behaviors -- often FINANCIALLY self-convenient ones. Beliefs that are EASILY held and favored, EVEN when there is good science available that warns of possible or probable harm, short or long term, to other humans or creatures from those convenient behaviors. The beliefs themselves are arrived at, sometimes actively, but as often passively absorbed, from cultural / societal norms.

      Basically, just a long-winded way of saying we still VERY much live in the jungle, and an UNFRIENDLY one at that. But a jungle that satisfies the demands of conscience, at least to the degree that behaviors be supported by beliefs of harmlessness. Does a monster ever believe that it's a monster ? Maybe, but usually not.

      I wish it were otherwise. But I have known people, that were in all ways 'good' people, but observed them adopt positions that were NOT 'good' for the group they belonged to (or certainly not the 'best' for the group long term) when it was 'good' for themselves in the short term.

      Delete
    3. One could take a different tact and rather than 'belief supported self-convenience' talk of more fundamental things like greed and sloth and fear and weak discriminative faculties etc. as contributors to less than ideal social behavior. From such an approach I would emphasize that both the public and private sectors are equally diseased since such individual human frailties do not respect human groupings. But I want here to emphasize MORE THAN ANYTHING, that MANY people THINK they are doing GOOD while their actions do in fact, have downsides that harm others, that harm society, to a lesser or greater extent (while possibly delivering to the public 'valued' and 'sought after' services). Excessive self-interest can be INSIDIOUS, and often flies under the radar of a conscious mind that has accepted beliefs, be they true or most pointedly, FALSE.

      Delete
    4. So how does all the above relate to VACCINATIONS ? Only in this. As I consider our society a collective that is MASSIVELY self-delusional (for individual self-convenience) no group escapes my scrutiny. No-one gets a blanket pass. Including NIH scientists even though its probable that ** some ** of the best humans work within its component organizations (best in the sense of conscientiously guarding against harm to others while offering a service). But even if I said, wow I'm sure the peer-reviewed work of NIH scientists is beyond reproach, I would not trust NIH politicos, and certainly not BIG pharma, and certainly not the FDA. Read way too much and experienced too much life at 52 to trust those named groups. And that would be my starting point. Suffice it to say that a book like Shiv Chopra's "Corrupt to the Core" (a former Canadian scientist at Health Canada) are memorable.

      For the specific vaccination I am interested in, the next step for me is to question Public Health (in my jurisdiction) and read what has been claimed, by those offering the vaccine as safe, and by any independent critics I can find (that won't be making millions or billions selling the shot).

      This thread has been useful to me, and I respectfully thank you for your efforts, in that I did not know beforehand that formaldehyde is produced within the human body, and that that was the rational (with quantity comparisons) for saying its not an issue when a vaccine contained residual formaldehyde.

      Delete
    5. "Only in this. As I consider our society a collective that is MASSIVELY self-delusional (for individual self-convenience) no group escapes my scrutiny. No-one gets a blanket pass."

      Why don't you make it simple and just provide a simple financial analysis of the two following scenarios:

      1: One where each child gets the vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

      2: Where vaccines are made voluntary, and most children do not receive any.

      For an introduction to the subject please read Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009. Remember in your analysis of vaccines you cannot neglect the cost of diseases, from hospital care to time of work.

      Delete
    6. My kid has all of her vaccines to date. But I read the ingredients for each new one that Public Health adds. My trust has an expiry date on it. And I'm not sure about the need for the Menactra one yet. As long as it has no likely hidden preservatives or contaminants we'll probably do it (rather than get an exception form here in Ontario), but only after I believe in a true need for the vaccine -- 200 cases a year in Canada (or was it Ontario) ? is there such a thing as an 'meningococcal outbreak' even ? that endangers others, given that the bacteria responsible are believed to be 'naturally' occurring in the throats of say, 25% of our population). Clearly I am missing something here or Canada Public Health is. I need to time yet to research.

      Chris: At best what a numbers game supports is good spending of our tax dollars. I hope Chris you don't feel that good numbers, for say measles, obviates the need for additional research -- for all time.

      I personally hope that all the right questions are being asked in a pursuit of an understanding of adverse reactions / syndroms and other possible deleterious effects on the human body of the various vaccines (including the role of genes, and their expression, and the possible interactive role of other contaminants in the blood, etc.)

      Delete
    7. PS:

      Yes, of course, good spending of our tax dollars and 'A' minimizing of ATTENDANT SUFFERING ... [before you jump all over me] ... BUT understand, we should ALWAYS try to improve what we know, especially when our 'interventions' potentially shift suffering from one group to others, or change its nature.

      If we all fought less wars, and stopped making some of the worst humans so rich in doing so, we'd have the resources to do a lot more things in the realm of understanding what we really are, on the physical plane and on others ...

      Delete
    8. "I hope Chris you don't feel that good numbers, for say measles, obviates the need for additional research -- for all time. "

      Then clearly state what that research is supposed to be and who is to pay for it.

      Delete
    9. While you are devising what else needs to be studies and who should pay for it, check out this graphic:
      It Took Studying 25,782,500 Kids To Begin To Undo The Damage Caused By 1 Doctor

      Delete
    10. Chris “Then clearly state what that research is supposed to be and who is to pay for it.”
      I don’t know if Anonymous will answer the question, but I do have one for you: stop giving money to those folks who are looking for spurious links between vaccines and autism, and instead use it to follow up the families of children with confirmed adverse effects – were their siblings given the same vaccine, and did anything happen? This kind of information would have saved me a lot of worry back when I had to make the decision.

      Delete
    11. That looks like it could be done using the Vaccine Safety Datalink Program. It is how the issues with the first rotavirus vaccine were discovered.

      Still, Anonymous said "I would not trust NIH politicos, and certainly not BIG pharma, and certainly not the FDA.", so she/he really needs to come back and explain who pays for the studies, and also who conducts the studies.

      Delete
    12. Chris “That looks like it could be done”

      I agree – easily. That’s one of things I find so frustrating about how vocal the “vaccines cause autism” crowd is – those of us with legitimate, documented concerns have been drowned out.

      Delete
    13. What is also disturbing is the moving the goal posts in regards who does the studies and funding sources. When it turned out that most of the large scale studies were not from "Big Pharma" they decided that public health agencies were not to be trusted.

      This is why I included a study from Japan, and have requested we be told who is to be trusted.

      Delete
  52. @Anon - I believe this is the information you are looking for:

    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm131170.pdf

    Doesn't seem to warrant the kind of concern you exhibit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank-you. I'll try to take a look soon. Appreciate it.

      Delete
  53. One thing that the writer of this article fails to account for is the localization and concentration of delivery. Yes, the body naturally has trace amount of formaldehyde ... but that's distributed somewhat evenly throughout the vessel of the body (liver and kidneys accepted). This is far different from what amounts to a dump of not only localized toxic concentrations of formaldehyde, but also a lot of other heavy metals and foreign bodies. Yes, after a considerable bit of time, this dump is dissolved into the wider vessel. But before that happens, this toxic pool of crud acts as a wrecking ball. Obviously, there is immediate cellular damage to the surrounding tissue, but sometimes this terrible stew can travel throughout the body doing other damage. There are many cell type throughout the body that are especially sensitive to these toxins. The damage occurs when these cells are exposed to concentrations that would NEVER occur naturally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JV, first read the post to see what the amount and half life of formaldehyde is in vaccines. Then take some physiology and biochemistry courses. Then learn proper nomenclature; "heavy metals and foreign bodies" really? Then come back and put a coherent comment together.

      Delete
    2. Okay slowpoke ... let me spell it out for you. Heavy metals=MERCURY/ALUMINUM. Foreign Bodies=ANIMAL DNA/MYCOPLASMA/SOMETIMES VIRUSES, ETC.

      Got it, Mr. Wizard? Dar-dar. You're not really that slow, are you? You knew what I was talking about, right?

      As for the amount and half-life ... can you understand that you are not evenly distributing this crap upon administration? Cellular damage doesn't take hours to occur. It takes blood about one minute to circulate through the body. In some cases, concentrated levels can quickly find its way into the main pathways of the circulatory system before half life is even a consideration.

      Let me explain it in another way that hopefully even you can understand. In the average 200 lb. human, there is about 113 grams of chlorine. Just because there's 113 grams of chlorine in the body doesn't mean it's safe to inject 11 grams of chlorine into a person's thigh.

      I guess it's true that common sense is something that can never be taught. Either that, or you have an agenda ... and there's never any room for common sense when an agenda is the star of the show.

      Delete
    3. Besides, formaldehyde is hardly the biggest strike against vaccination. The biggest strike against vaccination is that (in the U.S. at least) it's often statistically riskier (far, far riskier) than disease.

      Example:

      According to the CDC, there are 2-3 deaths for every 1,000,000 shots of MMR. And the risk of serious injury from the MMR vaccine is about 1 in 30,000.

      What about the risk from measles? Well according to CDC and WHO, an unvaccinated person in the U.S. has about a 1 in 140,000,000 chance of dying from measles and a 1 in 60,000,000 chance of being seriously injured from measles. Is this low risk because of vaccination? Maybe. But it still doesn't change the numbers of here and now.

      Who would be stupid enough to take on that risk from vaccination? Oh yeah, idiots. And we both know there are plenty of those out there. So let them keep putting their children through unnecessary risk time and again. Some will be injured/killed, but most won't. As for our family, we'll take a pass and try our best to inform all of those who are bright enough to listen and understand. In most circumstances, vaccination is sham medicine. It's that simple. Primum non nocere!

      Delete
    4. By the by ... the word you were looking for is "terminology," not "nomenclature." Nomenclature is a set of rules governing the creation of terms.

      Looks like you could stand to take a few classes yourself.

      Delete
    5. Okay slowpoke ... let me spell it out for you. Heavy metals=MERCURY/ALUMINUM. Foreign Bodies=ANIMAL DNA/MYCOPLASMA/SOMETIMES VIRUSES, ETC.

      Got it, Mr. Wizard? Dar-dar. You're not really that slow, are you? You knew what I was talking about, right?


      Nothing better than a cocksure ignoramus. Since when is Aluminium a heavy metal? You do also realise that ethylmercury was removed from paediatric vaccines decades ago in many countries and over a decade ago in the U.S. right? What you listed are neither foreign bodies nor are found to be harmful at all.

      As for the amount and half-life ... can you understand that you are not evenly distributing this crap upon administration?

      Bolus administration is irrelevant since a.) that amount in vaccines doesn't even raise the baseline level and b.) that amount is not harmful at all.

      Let me explain it in another way that hopefully even you can understand. In the average 200 lb. human, there is about 113 grams of chlorine. Just because there's 113 grams of chlorine in the body doesn't mean it's safe to inject 11 grams of chlorine into a person's thigh.

      Chloride not chlorine shitwit. And yes it does mean that you can inject additional chloride without toxicity.

      Delete
    6. According to the CDC, there are 2-3 deaths for every 1,000,000 shots of MMR. And the risk of serious injury from the MMR vaccine is about 1 in 30,000.

      What about the risk from measles? Well according to CDC and WHO, an unvaccinated person in the U.S. has about a 1 in 140,000,000 chance of dying from measles and a 1 in 60,000,000 chance of being seriously injured from measles. Is this low risk because of vaccination? Maybe. But it still doesn't change the numbers of here and now.


      Citation please. I ran the numbers and the risk of catching measles and being harmed is more than the risk of harm from the entire MMR jab. Even moreso now with anti-vaxx morons and their spawn spreading measles. I hope you are this excited when a kid dies and cases of congenital rubella syndrome are back again because of people like you.

      By the by ... the word you were looking for is "terminology," not "nomenclature." Nomenclature is a set of rules governing the creation of terms.

      No I meant nomenclature: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nomenclature


      noun
      1.
      the terminology used in a particular science, art, activity, etc

      Delete
    7. "Beryllium and aluminium, although light metals, are sometimes counted as heavy metals in view of their toxicity ..."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_%28chemistry%29

      Mercury is still found in flu vaccines last I checked. Cherry pick much?

      Yep, present as chloride. But since you don't seem to know that chloride is chlorine ... a little help for you:

      "The chloride ion is the anion (negatively charged ion) Cl−. It is formed when the element chlorine (a halogen) gains an electron or when a compound such as hydrogen chloride is dissolved in water or other polar solvents."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloride

      Furthermore: "Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All are necessary to life. The remaining elements are trace elements, of which more than a dozen are thought to be necessary for life, or play a role in good health (e.g., fluorine, which hardens dental enamel but seems to have no other function)."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

      And yeah, go ahead an inject that ... see what happens. In fact, inject 10% of many of the elements and compounds in the human body, and discover what bad things will happen.

      So if you already ran the numbers, why would you need citation? Why don't you go ahead a cite your numbers. Better yet, why don't you just provide your numbers. How many cases per year again? 300-400 on average, maybe we hit 1,000 this year. That's my numbers, Do you're agree? How many people who are not inoculated against measles? At least 140,000,000. Probably many more. What's your number?

      Why am I telling you any of this. First, I'm sure you're bright enough to research this yourself. And second, I doubt any amount of fact finding is going to alter your script because it's as I said before ... you obviously have an agenda — and the truth ain't it!

      Funny thing too, MMR vax rates are actually above the historic norm for the past 30 years, yet we're seeing more cases ... hmmm how could that be? So strange.

      Want a source for that? Eat it up:
      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/index.html

      I usually don't stoop to naming calling. But since you already broke the seal, and since this name is so apropos for you ... why not? You're a moron — an intellectually dishonest moron!

      By the way ... I stand corrected on nomenclature. Kudos to you, moron.

      Delete
    8. "Beryllium and aluminium, although light metals, are sometimes counted as heavy metals in view of their toxicity ..."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_%28chemistry%29


      I guess you missed the "sometimes" part which means it's not universally accepted as such.

      Mercury is still found in flu vaccines last I checked. Cherry pick much?

      Thiomersal which is an ethylmercury salt is found in ~50% of U.S. flu vaccines. It is not in other Western countries' flu vaccines. Not only that, the uptake is very low particularly in children and pregnant women. So where is all of this mercury toxicity? Who's cherry-picking when you are the one presenting the vaccine supply as mercury-laden?

      Yep, present as chloride. But since you don't seem to know that chloride is chlorine ... a little help for you:

      Here's a hint; when you dig yourself a hole, you don't keep digging. Chloride=/=chlorine. One is a trace element, the other a gas and have different enough chemical structures. Those different suffixes have different meanings and you would know that if you knew chemistry nomenclature.

      So if you already ran the numbers, why would you need citation?

      You made the claim so put up or shut up.

      Funny thing too, MMR vax rates are actually above the historic norm for the past 30 years, yet we're seeing more cases ... hmmm how could that be? So strange.

      Add epidemiology to the many things you don't know anything about. Considering the vast majority of measles cases are in unvaccinated, why don't you take a guess Einstein?

      Delete
    9. Doesn't matter ... no traffic to this blog anyway (no comments since June), and you are obviously a waste of an audience since you care so little for facts and clearly just want to argue the smallest points possible. Would rather spend my time in a less hostile conversation.

      If you want to actually have a serious conversation about vaccine risk versus disease risk (without the snotty attitude), then let's do so. Frankly, I'm bored with arguing about whether aluminum is a heavy metal or not (fine, it's not a heavy metal, whatever), or whether there is chlorine in the human body (fine, absolutely no chlorine in the human body, whatever). It's childish, and a waste of my time.

      Delete
    10. "Yep, present as chloride. But since you don't seem to know that chloride is chlorine ... a little help for you:"

      So you never use salt at all? How can you live without sodium chloride?

      Delete
    11. Where did I say anything even remotely close to what could be interpreted as me saying I don't use salt or I can live without sodium chloride? Enlighten me.

      Delete
    12. My point is that just because something exists in the body naturally doesn't necessarily preclude it from being dangerous if administered in a shot. If that isn't understood and agreed to, elevating the conversation here is a hopeless endeavor.

      Delete
    13. Learn some basic chemistry. Salt is sodium chloride, you seem to have something against chloride.

      Obviously you would refuse a saline drip. It would fit with your general "I don't wanna gets vaccines because theys gots chemicals! Waahhhh!"

      Delete
    14. Learn some basic communication and reading comprehension skills.

      I ask again ...

      Where did I say anything even remotely close to what could be interpreted as me saying I don't use salt or I can live without sodium chloride? Furthermore, where did I give the impression that I was unaware that salt is sodium chloride? Please, enlighten me.

      I also state my same point again since you fail to address it ... just because something exists in the body naturally doesn't necessarily preclude it from being dangerous if administered in a shot.

      Do you understand that? If not, there's not much point in carrying on because you're obviously unreasonable.

      Delete
    15. Doesn't matter ... no traffic to this blog anyway (no comments since June), and you are obviously a waste of an audience since you care so little for facts and clearly just want to argue the smallest points possible.

      Why did you bother to come here then? This is an old post so we don't expect traffic. I don't care for what you think are facts which are demonstrably wrong hence the detailed post about a seemingly scary vaccine excipient which is clearly harmless.

      Would rather spend my time in a less hostile conversation.

      Then try a different approach.

      If you want to actually have a serious conversation about vaccine risk versus disease risk (without the snotty attitude), then let's do so.

      You have to be intellectually honest and you haven't shown yourself to be. You made a claim so back it up. Show that harm from the vaccine is greater than the disease. Show that the attack rate is higher in vaccinated than unvaccinated as you claim.

      Frankly, I'm bored with arguing about whether aluminum is a heavy metal or not (fine, it's not a heavy metal, whatever), or whether there is chlorine in the human body (fine, absolutely no chlorine in the human body, whatever). It's childish, and a waste of my time.

      These are important distinctions which demonstrate that if you don't even know these then who are you to argue about formaldehyde being harmful. I provided numerous citations to support my claims, you have provided exactly none.

      Delete
    16. My point is that just because something exists in the body naturally doesn't necessarily preclude it from being dangerous if administered in a shot. If that isn't understood and agreed to, elevating the conversation here is a hopeless endeavor.

      But formaldehyde injected in the amounts found in vaccines is not harmful. Where is your evidence that it is? That's the point and you failed spectacularly. You may want to re-think your anti-vaxx beliefs because they aren't based in reality.

      Delete
    17. Let me know which of these specific facts you disagree with, and I'll provide evidence in support as best as I can:

      1) There are fewer than 400 cases of measles in the U.S. per year (2014 rates are unusual and may hit 1,000 cases)

      2) There are at a minimum 40,000,000 unvaccinated for measles in the U.S. with as many as 200,000,000 more without measles immunity (MMR only last 18 years, and prior to 1991 only one shot was given; fewer than 25% of U.S. adults have had their MMR booster)

      3) Measles mortality rate is anywhere from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 2,000 ... this is a very difficult number to pin down because of two factors: 1) death from measles is exceptionally rare in the modern era (try finding a simple list of the numbers); and 2) a large number of recent deaths have occurred in cult communities that refused medical treatment at the onset of the disease (treatable pneumonia was often the fatal culprit)

      4) Measles hospitalization rate has been quoted by the CDC as 1 in 500

      5) Measles vaccine causes serious injury in 1 in 30,000, with significant injury in 1 in 2,000

      6) There have been 234 deaths reported in connection with measles vaccination (stress CONNECTION ... likely not all caused by, but certainly some); there have been 940 NVICP MMR injury filings (including 57 deaths), 363 have been awarded damages (79 still pending) ... unfortunately they don't indicate which are from deaths, but certainly there are some ... so there's not specific sources for deaths caused by MMR, but it well acknowledged that in exceedingly rare cases, death can result from the MMR vaccine

      Delete
    18. "here have been 234 deaths reported in connection with measles vaccination "

      Citation needed. And have you really checked the NVICP statistics? Since 2006 there have been about 66 million MMR doses given, and of the 78 compensated claims, more than half were of the "settlement" kind, where very little proof was needed.

      You listed a bunch of other numbers that we can ignore because you did not provide the source citation. Now, provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that show the MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles.

      Delete
    19. Oh, to help you this is a PubMed Identification Number: PMID: 15106083

      It refers to this review:
      The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

      Now come up with that verifiable PubMed indexed citations showing the MMR is more dangerous than measles, and make sure the author has not had his medical credentials legally revoked.

      Delete
    20. You still have terrible reading and comprehension skills. I have no doubt that there were 60 million plus doses of MMR, but even if just 10 deaths occurred as a result (which is a certainty, but likely much higher), a person has a far, far greater chance of dying from the vaccine than from measles.

      Math much?

      What don't you understand about the risk of dying from the measles? It's well north of 1 in 100,000,000 in the U.S. And that's for individuals with absolutely no measles immunity.

      I don't need a PubMed citation ... the numbers are all right on the CDC website.

      You want to know where the 234 came from? Same place where you can learn that only 10 deaths have been attributed to measles since 1999 in a collective population of 3.84 BILLION individuals (many of which have no measles immunity): CDC Wonder [http://wonder.cdc.gov/] Take a look. You might just learn something.

      As for your link ... I'm not arguing the significance of measles in a past perspective or alternative universe. I'm making decision in real time based on the actual risk of the vaccine here and now versus the actual risk of the disease here and now. Can you understand that, or is it too complicated?

      Delete
    21. 1) There are fewer than 400 cases of measles in the U.S. per year (2014 rates are unusual and may hit 1,000 cases)

      That's true but you have to pick a year in order to compare apples to apples in terms of doses administered and disease incidence. That number could also go up so don't necessarily make the assumption that this is an unusual year.

      2) There are at a minimum 40,000,000 unvaccinated for measles in the U.S. with as many as 200,000,000 more without measles immunity (MMR only last 18 years, and prior to 1991 only one shot was given; fewer than 25% of U.S. adults have had their MMR booster)

      I will commend you for trying to use a susceptible population but you are way too high. My numbers are from 2008 but the birth cohort is pretty stable.

      3) Measles mortality rate is anywhere from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 2,000 ... this is a very difficult number to pin down because of two factors: 1) death from measles is exceptionally rare in the modern era (try finding a simple list of the numbers); and 2) a large number of recent deaths have occurred in cult communities that refused medical treatment at the onset of the disease (treatable pneumonia was often the fatal culprit)

      The case fatality rate of just measles in the U.S. is 1-3/1000. Here is an excellent reference for the last large outbreak in the U.S.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106092 It is false that a large number of deaths occurred as a result of "cult communities". They have contributed to measles cases but there wasn't a situation where medical treatment was withheld.

      4) Measles hospitalization rate has been quoted by the CDC as 1 in 500

      Too low and a relatively meaningless number. Look at the sequelae of both measles disease and MMR vaccination; that's what you want to compare.

      5) Measles vaccine causes serious injury in 1 in 30,000, with significant injury in 1 in 2,000

      6) There have been 234 deaths reported in connection with measles vaccination (stress CONNECTION ... likely not all caused by, but certainly some); there have been 940 NVICP MMR injury filings (including 57 deaths), 363 have been awarded damages (79 still pending) ... unfortunately they don't indicate which are from deaths, but certainly there are some ... so there's not specific sources for deaths caused by MMR, but it well acknowledged that in exceedingly rare cases, death can result from the MMR vaccine

      This isn't a viable source; you have to look at the epidemiological and clinical data which would be inclusive of these. NVICP numbers are going to vary dramatically from year to year depending upon social influences.

      Qualify this please. What is serious and significant specifically?


      Delete
    22. Drat, separated my responses. This, "Qualify this please. What is serious and significant specifically?" should be for number 5.

      Delete
    23. "I don't need a PubMed citation ... the numbers are all right on the CDC website."

      Don't send us to a database to dig for the numbers. Provide the actual links like I did. Did you happen to notice the NVICP stats from 2006 I linked to? The number of MMR vaccine does was taken from the column marked "No. of Doses Distributed US CY 2006 - CY 2012."

      Also, you need to give us the relative risk. This is not just the raw numbers but the actual risk of the vaccine versus the disease. Measles causes encephalitis in about on out of a thousand cases (see link I provided on measles), so how many cases of encephalitis does the MMR cause.

      Also, what is the relative cost of giving MMR vaccines versus treating measles. Provide a verifiable economic analysis comparable to: An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States

      Now come up with those citations, and do not cite an entire database.

      Delete
  54. @jv - how much of this stuff do you think is actually in vaccines? When you measure it, you're talking about the amount of material that would fit on the head of a pin.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read the article, you'll find the answer to this question.

      Delete
  55. @Science Mom

    1) Pick a number because it doesn't matter. Use 1,000 cases a year ... and the risk of catching measles is still on the order of 1 in 140,000 or more (among unvaccinated)

    2) Figure there is 8%-10% of the population that received no MMR vax at all (that's about 30 million people, give or take). Then figure that AT LEAST 50% of the population born before 1991 has no immunization for measles (that's about another 110 million, give or take). So at a minimum, there are 140 million people in the U.S. without measles immunity. Remember that the CDC recommended 2-3 MMR shots starting in 1991. And while it's odd that the CDC doesn't provide adult vax/booster rates for MMR, we can draw some broad conclusions about what those booster rates might be based on other vax rates.

    See here:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nhis/index.html/mm6204a2.htm?s_cid=mm6204a2_w

    Again, you're not going to find precise statistics because the CDC simply doesn't make them available.

    If you want to argue about how long the protection window is for a single dose of MMR, I'll put the burden of proof on you. No where can I find a specific answer to this question (the closest I've found it "up to 30 years"), but what I do know is that because of a lapse in protection, the CDC began mandating a second dose in 1991 (and even recommends a third in adulthood). The overwhelming majority of those born before the mid 80s never received a second or third booster.

    How about this -->

    Let's get agreement on this simple question of what the actual risk is of catching measles in the U.S. in a given year among the unvaccinated population, and then we can more onto the other areas of discussion.

    I say it's roughly 1 in 140,000.

    Based on what information you have, what's your number? Doesn't have to be precise, but what is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the American MMR vaccine that has been used in the USA since 1971 causes more harm than measles, mumps and rubella.

      Please make sure it exists, because trying the link you gave produced: "The page you requested cannot be found at this time. It may be temporarily unavailable or it may have been removed."

      Delete
    2. You can try this too:

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nhis/index.html

      Delete
    3. 1) Pick a number because it doesn't matter. Use 1,000 cases a year ... and the risk of catching measles is still on the order of 1 in 140,000 or more (among unvaccinated)

      It does matter and no, you are way too low.

      2) Figure there is 8%-10% of the population that received no MMR vax at all (that's about 30 million people, give or take). Then figure that AT LEAST 50% of the population born before 1991 has no immunization for measles (that's about another 110 million, give or take). So at a minimum, there are 140 million people in the U.S. without measles immunity. Remember that the CDC recommended 2-3 MMR shots starting in 1991. And while it's odd that the CDC doesn't provide adult vax/booster rates for MMR, we can draw some broad conclusions about what those booster rates might be based on other vax rates.

      You are just making numbers up. There are much better ways to get more precision than what you are doing.

      Let's get agreement on this simple question of what the actual risk is of catching measles in the U.S. in a given year among the unvaccinated population, and then we can more onto the other areas of discussion.

      I say it's roughly 1 in 140,000.

      Based on what information you have, what's your number? Doesn't have to be precise, but what is it?


      The 2008 measles outbreak was 140 cases. That comes out to be a risk of contracting measles, 1/67,143 - 1/107,143. The range reflects the range of unvaccinated estimates.

      There are 600 measles cases in the U.S. thus far this year. Is your risk higher or lower?

      Delete
    4. Okay, for the sake of moving the conversation forward, can we agree that the risk of an unvaccinated person contracting measles in a given year is on the order of 1 in 85,000?

      Now, according to CDC, the risk of death is anywhere from 1 in 500 to 1 in 8,000.

      References for these numbers:

      "For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die."

      http://www.cdc.gov/measles/

      "Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually."

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

      Bear in mind that the mortality rate cited by the CDC DOES include deaths that occurred in communities where medical attention was refused. Again, many of these deaths occurred as a result of VERY, VERY treatable pneumonia. If you want to learn more about this, you can do so here:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8483622

      There have been 19 deaths reported from measles since 1995 in the U.S. A significant portion of these are a result of refusal of treatment. The Philly case alone (cited above) accounts for 5 of these deaths.

      Also bear in mind that the mortality rates cited by the CDC INCLUDE the deaths of BOTH vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Since finding the precise number of only deaths among unvaccinated would prove difficult, we can lump them together ... but bear this fact in mind as we walk through this exercise.

      Other sources that might shed some light on the mortality rate of measles:

      "Beginning in April 2009 there was a large outbreak of measles in Bulgaria, with over 24,000 cases including 24 deaths. From Bulgaria, the strain was carried to Germany, Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, and other European countries."

      "As of May 2011, over 17,000 cases of measles have so far been reported from France between January 2008 and April 2011, including 2 deaths in 2010 and 6 deaths in 2011."

      "In March 2013, an epidemic was declared in Swansea, Wales, UK with 1,219 cases and 88 hospitalizations to date.[116] A 25-year-old male had measles at the time of death and died from giant cell pneumonia caused by the disease."

      The above are all from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles with individual citations.

      So given all the above information, I would put the risk of dying from measles (here in the U.S. and assuming you don't refuse treatment) at roughly 1 in 1,500.

      What would you put this number at?

      Delete
  56. Yeah, the links to CDC are dodgy sometimes. Strange that these numbers are made so difficult to find. You think in this day and age, someone would be able to easily and accurately answer the simple question, "What is the immunization rate for measles among U.S. adults?" But nope. Not a part of the agenda.

    Type "adult immunization/vaccination rates for measles" into your favorite search engine and see if you can do any better.

    Anyway, here's the best I can find at the moment. It's self-reporting and from 2007 so go ahead and start whining. But it should provide at least some context:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/adult/index.html

    If this link doesn't work, "too bad" is all I can say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It worked, and did not include MMR. Which makes sense since it is only a childhood vaccine, and the only adults I know that have had a third MMR vaccine recommended are students at a college where there is a mumps outbreak. Mumps has a terrible habit of occurring in people who have had it before (like me, I had it twice).

      So again, where are the PubMed indexed studies showing the MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles?

      Delete
    2. Yep, third dose is on condition. Second is recommended for all, but only since 1991.

      So about this PubMed thing ... I'm confused. Are you saying if a point isn't proven by a PubMed article, it has no validity? Is that what you are trying to say?

      Delete
    3. PubMed is an index of medical literature, most of it peer reviewed. This is a way to filter out the nonsense that several try to claim is actual "evidence." This includes anecdotes from their neighbors' second cousin's stepkid from another mother, random news reports and the webpage from the nutty pig farmer in Herefordshire John Scudamore who makes special "cloud busters" to protect from evil ley lines (which you actually used). Plus random numbers pulled from a database that is never clearly defined (which you also used).

      It is not perfect since some of the journals that are indexed include those on homeopathy and "Medical Hypothesis" (just look up the definition of the second word in the title). This means it is a scientific journal where there is some actual analysis of the data.

      And there is the caveat on the authors because we have been "graced" with the less than scientific writings of lawyers, finance professors, journalist, computer engineers and others who are frankly not qualified.

      Plus there are those who have tarnished their reputations by taking part in dubious ventures like being paid by a lawyer to conduct "research"(Wakefield), who claim to have a transfactor cure made from his own bone marrow on his kitchen table (Fudenberg) and have not only tried to "cure" kids by chemical castration but also had his son treat patients with on a BS in biology (Geier).

      I have posted several PubMed indexed studies in my comments (they are in imbedded links). You might try reading them.

      Unlike Science Mom I was willing to work with NVICP statistics (which I linked to!). But you have to actually read the notes. Over half of the compensations for the MMR vaccine were "settlements", which mean they were probably table injuries and it was just a coincidence. Hey! My son had seizures two weeks after his MMR vaccine. Here is pass/fail test for you: was it the vaccine or the actual disease he had which required a few doctor visits? By the way there is not a vaccine for that disease (it was twenty five years ago).

      I am not saying they have no validity, but what you have posted was less than adequate. So really, post the verifiable evidence that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles.

      Delete
    4. Let's get there together!

      Answer a simple question:

      In your opinion, what are the statistical odds of an unvaccinated person contracting measles here in the U.S.? (An example of such odds might look like 1 in 140,000).

      Delete
    5. In your opinion, what are the statistical odds of an unvaccinated person contracting measles here in the U.S.? (An example of such odds might look like 1 in 140,000).

      I really don't know where you are getting this from. With the ~600 cases this year, the odds of becoming infected are ~1/15666-1/25000. You are putting your susceptible population way too high.

      Now this is orders of magnitude higher than the risk of a serious adverse event from the MMR jab. And this is just for measles alone.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. See my reply above. Again, you pick the number. 1 in 85,000. 1 in 15,666. 1 in 25,000. Whatever you like.

      Let me revise that, pick whatever number you think is honest and reasonable. In other words, let's work with YOUR comfort level here as we speculate about the facts.

      Delete
    8. Let me revise that, pick whatever number you think is honest and reasonable. In other words, let's work with YOUR comfort level here as we speculate about the facts.

      This isn't about "picking" numbers, it's using numbers based in reality. I derived my numbers from the U.S. census and CDC vaccine uptake data to derive the PAR. As you can plainly see the risk of measles infection and sequelae are higher than vaccine adverse events.

      Delete
    9. Hold on now ... we'll get there on the matter of sequelae.

      So let's go ahead and call it 1 in 20,000. Does that seem fair and data-derived?

      Now on the issue of measles mortality per my comment above ... I say 1 in 1,500 based on the CDC range and surrounding facts. So if we treat this number similar to the way the morbidity number was treated, let's call it 1 in 1,000 (most global outbreak data indicates this, though I believe medical care in the U.S. ought be better than say, Bulgaria, where the actual rate is 1 in 1,000).

      Now for the fun part ... a little simple math. If there is a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting measles among the unvaccinated, and a 1 in 1,000 chance of dying from measles, there is a resulting 1 in 20,000,000 chance that an unvaccinated individual will die from measles on any given year (assuming every year is as bad as 2014). 1 in 20,000,000.

      Right?

      A few caveats about this number ... it assumes every case of measles-associated death occurred in the vaccinated population (which they didn't) and it includes even deaths where victims were not provided with proper medical attention.

      All that said, can we agree to the 1 in 20,000,000 number? And remember, assuming you agree to the 1 in 1,000 mortality rate, this is YOUR number we are using.

      Can we agree on this?

      Delete
    10. By the way, here are a number of studies that cast serious (very serious!), fact-based doubt on your overall immunity rate of 3.75%.

      Absence of Seroprevalence for Measles among various populations:

      6.5% (global health workers)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24280280

      15.4% (U.S. military recruits)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18155326

      11.8% (UK and Europe healthcare workers)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24229805

      10.41% (pregnant women in France)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24267820

      15.3% (population of Beijing, China)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24378131

      8% (healthcare workers in Australia)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24494952

      27% (asthmatics 9 years after vaccination)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24830696

      22.7% (doctors in Spain)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25327273

      9% (Minnesota blood donors aged 20–39)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106098

      6% (U.S. childcare providers)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8823851

      17.8% (US Navy and Marine recruits)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8259801

      While I'm not suggesting we revise that percentage for the purposes on this conversation, just understand that that number is grossly incorrect.

      I would suggest that the reality is closer to 12%. That means there are more like 40 million people in the U.S. without measles immunity (not 9-12 million, as you seem to suggest).

      This puts the real risk rate as closer to 1 in 66,000. And the risk of death from measles closer to 1 in 66,000,000.




      Delete
    11. Will you stick with a single country please? You can't do what you are doing. It's cherry-picking so you can dilute the numbers in your favour. I already ran the U.S. numbers for 2008 and it would be trivial to re-work them for 2014 so stick with the U.S.

      I used the range of 5-8% of unvaccinated to reflect the variability observed. The U.S. case fatality rate is 1-3/1000. That's what you use, not China's, Switzerland's or the UK's.

      Delete
    12. So let me get this straight ...

      1) You're using a vaccination rate from 2008 (and claiming it's 5-8% when it is in fact 8%), while using an effective rate of 3.75%.

      2) You're using an incidence rate from 2014 (which is 5 times higher than in 2008).

      3) You're using a fatality rate that can only be indicated when it includes fatalities from fanatical cults that refuse medical treatment.

      4) You're completely disregarding CDC reporting that indicates a fatality rate that ranges from 1 in 500 to 1 in 8,000 (not even sure where you came up with 1-3 in 1,000 [invention?] ... can we at least use 1 in 500?).

      5) You're assuming that everyone vaccinated for measles is 100% immune FOREVER, while completely dismissing things like waning immunity, a 2-5% failure rate and a 90-98% efficacy rate (per CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html).

      6) You're assuming every case of measles and every measles-indicated fatality occurs within the unvaccinated population.

      7) You're ignoring numerous, U.S.-based Seroprevalence studies that indicate actual immunity rates among large population samples ranging from 6% to 17.8%.

      And finally ... on top of all of this ...

      8) You're accusing me of cherry-picking?

      How ridiculously amusing of you! Wow. Just wow!

      Anyway ... using your super-duper unbiased numbers (yeah, that's sarcasm!), the new calculation puts the risk of an unvaccinated person dying from measles at: 1 in 10,000,000.

      Are you okay with this number (1 in 10,000,000), or do you want to figure out a way to revise it even lower? You know, you could insist on using the fatality rate from the 1991 Philliy outbreak (you know, the one where the religious nuts that let 5 children die of pneumonia) ... that fatality rate was 1 in 80.

      Delete
    13. 1) You're using a vaccination rate from 2008 (and claiming it's 5-8% when it is in fact 8%), while using an effective rate of 3.75%.

      Please clarify "effective rate". The most current estimates for vaccine coverage of pre-school and kindergarteners is 5-9%
      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/data/tables-2013.html#overall

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a3.htm?s_cid=mm6230a3_w

      2) You're using an incidence rate from 2014 (which is 5 times higher than in 2008).

      I reported both and as you can see, the coverage estimates are relatively stable during that time frame.

      3) You're using a fatality rate that can only be indicated when it includes fatalities from fanatical cults that refuse medical treatment.

      I'm using the most current estimates which I provided evidence for. I don't know where you are getting this "fanatic cult" nonsense and you have yet to provide a shred of evidence for this.

      4) You're completely disregarding CDC reporting that indicates a fatality rate that ranges from 1 in 500 to 1 in 8,000 (not even sure where you came up with 1-3 in 1,000 [invention?] ... can we at least use 1 in 500?).

      I am going to use the range that is reported, if you would like to supply a citation then please do so. I'm not going to use made-up numbers just to satisfy some pre-conceived belief.

      5) You're assuming that everyone vaccinated for measles is 100% immune FOREVER, while completely dismissing things like waning immunity, a 2-5% failure rate and a 90-98% efficacy rate (per CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html).

      No I am not. The statistics for outbreaks bear out that the majority of infected are unvaccinated. If you would like a separate calculation for undervaccinated then fine. I also left out deaths due to SSPE which is tracked separately. Would you like to include those as well?

      7) You're ignoring numerous, U.S.-based Seroprevalence studies that indicate actual immunity rates among large population samples ranging from 6% to 17.8%.

      Again, don't know where you are getting this from. The U.S. has a highly measles-immune population so please provide evidence of this. The epidemiology does not bear this out.

      8) You're accusing me of cherry-picking?

      Of course. You are invoking other countries vaccine uptake and fatalities and applying them to the U.S. You can't do that unless you have an agenda.

      Anyway ... using your super-duper unbiased numbers (yeah, that's sarcasm!), the new calculation puts the risk of an unvaccinated person dying from measles at: 1 in 10,000,000.

      No, it's more in the range of 1/1000000.

      ... that fatality rate was 1 in 80.

      If that's how you are calculating things, no wonder you are having trouble.


      6) You're assuming every case of measles and every measles-indicated fatality occurs within the unvaccinated population.

      Nearly all have. Again if you have evidence to the contrary then you need to provide it.

      Delete
    14. So I made a post on October 30, 2014 at 11:57 AM that provided citation for much of what I said here, but perhaps you missed it. So I'll reapply where needed.

      1) By suggesting that an vaccine-free person has a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting measles and there are 600 cases a year = 12,000,000 susceptible ... this represents about 3.8% of the population.

      Consider that the MMR vaccination rate has average 92% over the past 20 years. The coverage source you provide is an incorrect one to use. If you read it closely, you'll see that these numbers ONLY represent data from "school vaccination coverage data from federally funded immunization programs."

      This is the correct source to use for the purposes of this conversation (since we are talking about the population as a whole and not only those impacted by programs offering free vaccines) is this one:

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/figures/2013-map.html

      2) This is an important point because you are basing risk assessment on an outlier. Over the last ten years (using 1,000 for 2014) there have been an average of 130 cases. So over the last 10 years (using your 3.8% rate), there is a 1 in 92,300 chance of getting measles in an given year.

      3) See this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8483622

      4) Here's citation:

      "For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die."

      http://www.cdc.gov/measles/

      "Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually."

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

      WHERE IS YOUR CITATION FOR 1-3 IN 1,000????

      5) You just said it yourself ... "the majority of infected are unvaccinated" ... you number assumes all. There is a difference between "majority" and "all". No need for a different calculation, but beear in mind this is further skewing the numbers. And some of these individuals are not "undervaccinated" ... there is a fail rate, you know. This adds thousands to the susceptible number mentioned about. If you want some evidence for this, find it here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15176719

      6) Again, you said it yourself. "Nearly". But no, I have no evidence at the moment and no time to find it just now, so I'll concede this point for the moment.

      7) Here's your evidence, again:

      Absence of Seroprevalence for Measles among various U.S. populations:

      15.4% (U.S. military recruits)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18155326

      27% (asthmatics 9 years after vaccination)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24830696

      9% (Minnesota blood donors aged 20–39)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106098

      6% (U.S. childcare providers)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8823851

      17.8% (US Navy and Marine recruits)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8259801

      So you're claiming only 3.8% of the population has measles immunity, and here's TONS of evidence that proves that claim is in fact FALSE.

      "No, it's more in the range of 1/1000000"

      Please explain your math here. If you've agreed that the chance of getting measles is 1 in 20,000 and the chance of dying from it is 1 in 500, how do you figure that chance from getting and dying from measles 1 in 1,000,000?

      As for my comment about 1 in 80 ... there were 486 cases and 6 deaths. For the 3rd time, you can read about it here:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8483622

      Delete
    15. "WHERE IS YOUR CITATION FOR 1-3 IN 1,000????"

      It has been given to you multiple times. You might try looking where I posted this paper:
      J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
      Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.

      "For the 3rd time, you can read about it here"

      You don't read your links do you? Your last cite was:
      Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993 Apr;12(4):288-92.
      High attack rates and case fatality during a measles outbreak in groups with religious exemption to vaccination.

      Which says: "We identified 486 measles cases among 892 mostly unvaccinated church members. Age-specific attack rates were highest among children 1 to 4 years of age (94%) and 5 to 14 years of age (91%). Five (83%) of the 6 deaths occurred in females, 3 of whom had underlying illnesses. The overall case-fatality rate was 1.2%."

      It was limited to those who were not vaccinated, and the mortality of those who had measles was more than one in a hundred (mostly because those churches refused medical care, from news reports). The reason other folks in Philadelphia did not get measles was because they were vaccinated. (the abstract did not give the particulars for the other 938 cases)

      What is interesting is that before the 1963 vaccine just about every kid had measles by age fifteen. The seemingly low numbers was from not being able to count each one. The 1990 epidemic was one of the first to get an accurate count.

      Some other citations you missed:
      J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S4-16.
      The clinical significance of measles: a review.

      JAMA. 2007 Nov 14;298(18):2155-63.
      Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States.

      Am J Public Health. 1985 Jul;75(7):739-44.
      Benefits, risks and costs of immunization for measles, mumps and rubella.

      Am J Public Health (N Y). 1914 April; 4(4): 289–309.
      PMCID: PMC1286334
      A STATISTICAL STUDY OF MEASLES

      Again, be sure to thank your responsible neighbors who vaccinate. They are protecting your family by bolstering your community's immunity to many diseases. Unfortunately that makes you a parasite, and your kids have a higher chance of getting a serious disease.

      MMR Vaccine and Autism: Vaccine Nihilism and Postmodern Science

      Delete
    16. @Science Mom

      So I made a post on October 30, 2014 at 11:57 AM that provided citation for much of what I said here, but perhaps you missed it. So I'll reapply where needed.

      1) By suggesting that an vaccine-free person has a 1 in 20,000 chance of getting measles and there are 600 cases a year = 12,000,000 susceptible ... this represents about 3.8% of the population.

      Consider that the MMR vaccination rate has average 92% over the past 20 years. The coverage source you provide is an incorrect one to use. If you read it closely, you'll see that these numbers ONLY represent data from "school vaccination coverage data from federally funded immunization programs."

      This is the correct source to use for the purposes of this conversation (since we are talking about the population as a whole and not only those impacted by programs offering free vaccines) is this one:

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/figures/2013-map.html

      2) This is an important point because you are basing risk assessment on an outlier. Over the last ten years (using 1,000 for 2014) there have been an average of 130 cases. So over the last 10 years (using your 3.8% rate), there is a 1 in 92,300 chance of getting measles in an given year.

      3) See this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8483622

      4) Here's citation:

      "For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die."

      http://www.cdc.gov/measles/

      "Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually."

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

      WHERE IS YOUR CITATION FOR 1-3 IN 1,000????

      5) You just said it yourself ... "the majority of infected are unvaccinated" ... you number assumes all. There is a difference between "majority" and "all". No need for a different calculation, but beear in mind this is further skewing the numbers. And some of these individuals are not "undervaccinated" ... there is a fail rate, you know. This adds thousands to the susceptible number mentioned about. If you want some evidence for this, find it here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15176719

      6) Again, you said it yourself. "Nearly". But no, I have no evidence at the moment and no time to find it just now, so I'll concede this point for the moment.

      7) Here's your evidence, again:

      Absence of Seroprevalence for Measles among various U.S. populations:

      15.4% (U.S. military recruits)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18155326

      27% (asthmatics 9 years after vaccination)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24830696

      9% (Minnesota blood donors aged 20–39)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106098

      6% (U.S. childcare providers)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8823851

      17.8% (US Navy and Marine recruits)
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8259801

      So you're claiming only 3.8% of the population has measles immunity, and here's TONS of evidence that proves that claim is in fact FALSE.

      "No, it's more in the range of 1/1000000"

      Please explain your math here. If you've agreed that the chance of getting measles is 1 in 20,000 and the chance of dying from it is 1 in 500, how do you figure that chance from getting and dying from measles 1 in 1,000,000?

      As for my comment about 1 in 80 ... there were 486 cases and 6 deaths. For the 3rd time, you can read about it here:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8483622

      Delete
    17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNWVxjiswI

      Delete
    18. "For the 3rd time, you can read about it here"

      You don't read your links do you? Your last cite was:
      Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1993 Apr;12(4):288-92.
      High attack rates and case fatality during a measles outbreak in groups with religious exemption to vaccination.

      Which says: "We identified 486 measles cases among 892 mostly unvaccinated church members. Age-specific attack rates were highest among children 1 to 4 years of age (94%) and 5 to 14 years of age (91%). Five (83%) of the 6 deaths occurred in females, 3 of whom had underlying illnesses. The overall case-fatality rate was 1.2%."

      It was limited to those who were not vaccinated, and the mortality of those who had measles was more than one in a hundred (mostly because those churches refused medical care, from news reports). The reason other folks in Philadelphia did not get measles was because they were vaccinated. (the abstract did not give the particulars for the other 938 cases)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNWVxjiswI

      Delete
    19. @Chris

      Sorry, I just can't help myself ...

      Listen to how contradictory and foolish you're being:

      Out of one side of your mouth you're claiming the mortality rate for measles is 1-3 in 1,000.

      Out of the other side of your mouth you're claiming that "before the 1963 vaccine just about every kid had measles by age fifteen".

      If both of those claims were true (and based on the birthrates of the 50s and early 60s), that would equate to no fewer than 3 million cases of measles per year and 3,000 to 9,000 deaths.

      Can you find ANY EVIDENCE that suggests these rates of death from measles throughout the 50s and early 60s??????

      NO!!!!!!!!!

      WHY?????????????

      Because the mortality rate isn't 1-3 in 1,000 you giant moron!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    20. @Chris

      In case you missed it before (which it appears that you have):

      "Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually."

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

      Every large sample size (including recent outbreaks in 1st and 3rd world countries) suggest a mortality rate of 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 8,000.

      If you include religious nuts (ala Philly circa 1991) in a very, very small sample size, you get a very different mortality rate. Why do you think I keep point out that episode? ... because deaths as a result of WITHHOLDING MEDICAL TREATMENT skew the number tremendously.

      Is any of this getting through to you???????

      Delete
    21. @Chris

      From your very own source:

      J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
      Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.

      "For the underlying-cause mortality database only, the DCR increased from 0.55/1000 reported cases in 1987 and reached a peak of 2.30 deaths/1000 reported cases in 1990, before declining to 0 in 1993"

      Not only do you want to treat an outlier (2.3 deaths/1,000 cases for one year) as a standard, you want to add .7 to it (3 in 1,000). Then you want to disregard all data sets that don't support your ridiculous stance.

      @Science Mom

      Here's your answer to how many vaccinated die (from the same source):

      "Measles vaccination status of decedents. Overall, 19 (10%) of 184 decedents in the NIP database had documentation of receipt of measles vaccine. Reported measles immunization coverage ranged from 0 of 37 among those who died before 1 year of age to 3 (6%) of 53 among adults, 6 (9%) of 65 among 1- to 4-year-old children, and 10 (34%) of 29 in 5- to 19-year-olds."

      This (along with many other pieces of evidence) strongly supports a susceptibility rate that's far greater than the 3.8% which you insist on using.

      Delete
  57. "Let's get there together!"

    Come on! Why won't you provide me the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that show the MMR vaccine is causes more harm than measles?

    You seem hellbent to mung the numbers trying to tell us you, an adult, have a low chance of catching measles. Well if you are an American under age fifty that might be because you have been vaccinated! Either with one of the the three measles vaccines that came out in 1963 or the the MMR that came out in 1971.

    "Then figure that AT LEAST 50% of the population born before 1991 has no immunization for measles (that's about another 110 million, give or take)."

    There was a Measles Elimination Program in 1978 that tried to catch most kids. Those of us over 57 years actually caught the disease (with some of our contemporaries becoming permanently disabled, like the kid my mother and friend stopped talking about when I came into the room, I caught the child had to go to deaf school in Fremont, CA).

    By 1991 the importance of the MMR was realized. But you can read about that in these two PubMed indexed papers (they are available free online):

    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
    Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.

    West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.
    Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.

    This is perhaps why the university that my to younger kids attended require evidence of measles immunity, and if they do not have records of having the actual disease or vaccine they need to get an MMR, or go to another college. And since there was a mumps outbreak at UC Berkeley I was going to have my youngest get a third MMR if she ended up going there (she did not, but to a school that has a policy that limits those kinds outbreaks).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's try a different approach ... why don't you find me a PubMed indexed study by a reputable qualified researchers that shows that the MMR vaccine is 100% safe and effective and has never caused a single death or a single injury.

      Let's be honest here ... the study that you keep asking for isn't even possible because such lousy records are kept when it comes to vaccine-related injuries. But we know for a fact that they exist. This has been readily admitted by the CDC, the manufacturers and every doctor who has brain enough to practice. So let's not be silly about this, okay?

      Obviously, VEARS is a joke in terms of it's ability to precisely inform this issues ... even the CDC acknowledges that plenty of injuries are both wrongly reported and also unreported. But the facts are these ... both measles and the MMR have caused deaths and serious injuries. Thirty years ago perhaps the disease was far more risky than the vaccine. But I'm not making decisions based on the conditions of 30 years ago. And since a report on which of the two (vaccine or disease) causes more harm/deaths doesn't exist (that I know of), we are tasked with trying to figure this out from the data that is available today.

      So if you think you're proving a point by requesting a report that doesn't exist, I don't exactly know what to tell you. How about this:

      "You're Right! ... I can't find a report such as you indicate so thinking that a vaccine that has been implicated in hundreds of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries is less risky than a disease that has been implicated in the deaths of 19 people in the past 20 years."

      Are you happy and satisfied now? Great! You win! Go ahead and release from this conversation because your brilliance and unconventional wisdom has nothing left to prove here.

      Delete
    2. "Let's try a different approach ... why don't you find me a PubMed indexed study by a reputable qualified researchers that shows that the MMR vaccine is 100% safe and effective and has never caused a single death or a single injury."

      That is even more idiotic than you using a Scudumore whale.to site. The Nirvana Fallcy is just plain silly.

      "I can't find a report such as you indicate so thinking that a vaccine that has been implicated in hundreds of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries ..."

      Please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that the MMR vaccine caused that level of death and injury. Make them real verifiable statistics. Especially since the NVICP claims for the last 26 years are much lower, because you seem to have a habit of pulling stuff out of thin air.

      And if you claim that the MMR causes autism, then find the verifiable documentation dated before 1990 that autism rose in the USA coincident with the use of MMR during the 1970s and 1980s.

      "... ..is less risky than a disease that has been implicated in the deaths of 19 people in the past 20 years."

      Only because it is a highly vaccinated population, and one that reacted to the over 150 deaths 25 years ago. I see why you decided to choose a period that came after the 1989-1991 measles epidemic. Cherry picking does you no good, especially when I gave you citations about that epidemic.

      Yeah, you are clueless. You can pull all the numbers from thin air you want, but you keep forgetting that you can't make up bogus risk numbers and ignore that the MMR works. While it is not 100% effective, but 95% after one dose and 99% after the second it is better than most vaccines. And it is very much safer than getting measles.

      And you are just a parasite getting a free ride on your community's immunity due to that vaccine. Please than your responsible neighbors who vaccinate for protecting your kids.

      And trust me, that protection is lots less than "100% safe and effective and has never caused a single death or a single injury." Especially since folks like you tend to hang out together, see PMIDs 18457065, 11135778, 24913790, 24025758, 21881549, and 20308208.

      Delete
    3. Sorry ... was just trying to be as idiotic as you with your ridiculous, repetitive request for a study that we both know can't possibly exist.

      FYI, NVCIP isn't the world's only source for information on vaccine-induced death and injury.

      Sorry you can't figure out how to use the virtually fool-proof VAERS CDC Wonder search engine. But if you could, you'd see that there have been 67,000+ incidences reported regarding measles vaccinations, including 234 deaths, 928 life threatening events, 1,032 permanent disabilities and 30,168 hospitalizations. All since 1990. Mind you that it's believed that VAERS only represents a small fraction of the actual vaccine injury events that occur.

      Why you'd even try to suggest there haven't been tens of thousands of injuries is so beyond comprehension. Are you really bad a math and critical thinking?

      Let me try and help you out ... this is from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm) ... it's statistical risk associated with the MMR vaccine:

      "Mild Problems:

      Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
      Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
      Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)

      If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.

      Moderate Problems:

      Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
      Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
      Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)

      Severe Problems (Very Rare):

      Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
      Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
      Deafness
      Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
      Permanent brain damage"

      Now if tens and tens of millions of vaccines are being administered, how can you not understand that thousands and thousands of fevers, seizures, allergic reactions and case of Thrombocytopenia are occurring (plus a lot of other bad stuff, including death). The points you are trying to argue don't even make sense.

      "I see why you decided to choose a period that came after the 1989-1991 measles epidemic. Cherry picking does you no good ..."

      I used this range because that happened to be the full range of information available in the CDC database search engine. Didn't cherry pick at all, not that it would matter anyway ... since I am making a decision today, why would I really care too much about what happened in an outbreak from 23 years ago. Medicine progresses and care gets better, you know?

      You want to dismiss all of this information. Go ahead, I don't really care. You obviously have no intellectual integrity, and it seems as if this conversation is beyond you.

      As for your comment about autism ... never mentioned the word, so whatever. Again, it seems like this conversation is beyond you and your looking for a red herring.

      As for "pulling stuff out of thin air" ... again, whatever. You're obviously not going to be bringing any honesty or integrity to this conversation ... just parroting foolish requests and name calling.

      I'll continue to engage Science Mom so long as the conversation continue to progress. As for you, I apologize, but I'm done. Like I said in my early comment -- "YOU WIN!" -- enjoy it.

      Delete
    4. "Sorry you can't figure out how to use the virtually fool-proof VAERS CDC Wonder search engine."

      I have actually read the warning on the official portal to the database. I know better to not take raw self-selected survey data without further analysis.

      "Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)"

      Now compare then to the numbers of actually getting measles. Try reading the "Clinical Significance of Measles" review I linked to. Less than subtle hint: my kid had seizures from a disease before its vaccine was available.

      "I used this range because that happened to be the full range of information available in the CDC database search engine."

      I did not want to use this word because I thought you were just clueless, but now I must: liar. The CDC Pink Book Appendix G has the incidence and death rates for measles going back to 1950. I even gave you two citations about the 1990 measles epidemic.

      Please thank your responsible neighbors who vaccinate. They are protecting your family by bolstering your community's immunity to measles and other diseases. Unfortunately it is not perfect because we have these things called "airplanes" that can bring people to your community from all over the world, including places where measles is endemic.

      Delete