Hey! Let's Open The Vaccination Can Of Worms!

baru wrote: is there a conclusive answer?

Yes Baru there is.

The Vaccine debate is framed in such a way that it is a false dichotomy.

It's much like spraying fresh fruits and vegetables with neurotoxins, and then being told you are against fruits and vegetables for objecting to the poison they are sprayed with.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that mercury is one of the most potent neurotoxins we know of.

There is nothing wrong with vaccines till mercury gets added to the equation.

Whether it be from consumption of fish like tuna, or dental amalgams, or from thimerosal which is used as a preservative in vaccines. It is absolute lunacy to be polluting our bodies with it.


TLDR:

Fruits and Vegetables=Good

Spraying them with neurotoxins=Bad.

Vaccines=Good

Loading them up with potent neurotoxins like mercury=Bad.

Being against neurtoxins, doesn't make you anti fruit and vegetable, anymore than it makes you an antivaxxer.

baru wrote: So my question is - after all of this long discussion - is there a conclusive answer? Is there a Yes or No in this? Or is it still a "Maybe"? Or a "it depends on......"?

Luckily, in science, there is no room for opinion on such widely tested and verifiable matters such as the safety and validity of vaccinations. The large consensus of scientists (86% - http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/) agree that childhood vaccinations should be mandatory, and that isn't even including all the other scientists who agree that vaccines are safe but don't think they should be mandatory (if those are included, I seem to remember it being around the 99% mark, although I can't find any clear information either way).

In short, there is definitely a conclusive answer. Having a debate like we are/were here doesn't make the facts less verifiable. If you're still not sure, you can feel free to read some medical and scientific peer-reviewed journals, and the answer will quickly become apparent.

Welcome to science, where nobody cares what you think unless you can prove it.

Fenton wrote: In short, there is definitely a conclusive answer.

Vaccines are good, adding neurotoxins to them is bad.

That is the answer.

This page from the FDA has a list which shows many regularly used vaccines for kids (including MMR) are in fact Thimerosal free (need to scroll down a bit) http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1

Edan wrote: Thimerosal free

FALSE

You know how you have "unlimited" data on your cell phone, but if you go over 3GB they throttle you to 1kbps for the rest of the month, so it isn't really unlimited. It's like that.

"Thimerosal free" means 3mcg or less.

If I used to smoke 25 cigarettes a day, but now I just smoke 3 cigarettes a day, am I cigarette free?


[hr]

www.ok.gov/health/pub/PRG/07c.pdf

"may contain trace amounts ( mcg) of mercury left after post-production thimerosal removal, but these amounts have no biological effect."





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018252/

"Subsequently, the maximum amount of mercury in vaccines an infant could be exposed to has been less than 3 mcg per vaccine since the 2002 TCV expiration date, with the exception of certain MDV influenza vaccines"






[hr]

But now it's just a trace amount, so there is nothing to worry about... right?

Wrong


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21350943



Integrating experimental (in vitro and in vivo) neurotoxicity studies of low-dose thimerosal relevant to vaccines.



Neurochem Res. 2011 Jun;36(6):927-38. doi: 10.1007/s11064-011-0427-0. Epub 2011 Feb 25.


"activity of low doses of Thimerosal against isolated human and animal brain cells was found in all studies and is consistent with Hg(mercury) neurotoxicity"

animal studies have shown that exposure to Thimerosal-Hg(mercury) can lead to accumulation of inorganic Hg(mercury) in brain, and that (d) doses relevant to TCV(Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines) exposure possess the potential to affect human neuro-development. Thimerosal at concentrations relevant for infants' exposure (in vaccines) is toxic to cultured human-brain cells and to laboratory animals.

FALSE

Ok, my bad I didn't see that. But I'm not sure bright red large capitals are required, it's generally considered the equivalent of shouting.

+1, Des

Not only that, but I'm glad you brought up the idea of a 'false dichotomy' here, REJ. I don't know that anyone here, conversing from any stated position, is promoting the idea that being at risk for preventable disease is better than not, and are applying that exclusively to non-vaccine/vaccine stances. ...if they are, they should probably thank you for making them aware of potential health risks they were otherwise unaware of. Now that they are, the choice still remains - taking into account the potential risks, and taking into account that there is no magic line for minimal neurotoxin effective dose...do we voluntarily/mandatorily vaccinate? Even with your info - which I, for one, appreciate - there really are only two choices - do we eat the fruit, or no? Yes, we can demand mercury-free compound vaccine preservatives (for children under 6, etc.)...but we still may not get them. This is NOT an ideal world, and I guarantee that the company who can truly eliminate neurotoxic preservatives from their vaccinations without affecting costs or durability will be very wealthy very quickly. We don't understand how prohibitive that might make vaccines, man - or maybe we do and I haven't seen the data. I'm certainly willing to concede that possibility. So if we DO remove thimerosal from our vaccinations and the price goes up...big deal, we can afford it. Not so for people in developing nations at the front lines of a potential'patient zero' situationwho need it most. If abandoning mercury-containing compounds was not in the least bit cost or shelf-life prohibitive, I'd be for it. However, if people start dying of preventable diseases because we have driven up the cost to preserve an effective vaccination, or if a village is left exposed to a disease because it cannot be reached without contaminating their vac due to climate...their opinion might sway on the statistical risks of mercury-containing vaccination preservatives. Looking at the data you provided and understanding their use in context, I WANT the neurotoxins in there. It looks like there is a body of work out there, and scientists with enough expertise to understand it, who are telling the scientifically uninitiated that (statistically speaking) X amount of this mercury-containing compound seems to be okay. I've looked at what everyone here has posted, and have looked into the matter myself (with the understanding that what ALL of us are looking at are secondary sources at best), and believe that these guys have forgotten more about this scientific debate than we will ever bring to light here. Knowing that, I've got to place a little trust somewhere. I guess I'll place it in both the scientific community and the judgement of those who experienced the horrors of epidemics and found an acceptable way to counter them. Sure, herd immunity is AN option, but it isn't an option for everyone. Those who depend on herd immunity are living on the good graces and assumed risks of everyone around them. They're saying that it's okay for your child to risk the side-effects of mercury-containing compounds, but my kids are too important.

This system isn't perfect, but it's the best we have. Moreover, it's working.

Let's try to keep this in context.

I’ve been watching this conversation rather carefully and without comment, as my own opinion on the matter hardly seems relevant. But what I do keep thinking about is about the compromises we make when our focus is too personal and the things that we decide are acceptable to us.

There are so many things in our everyday lives that cause harm and even fatalities one way or another. And yes, there are always on going efforts to find safer ways to do things. But to try remove every possible danger to ourselves and our children…. Can you picture it? I cant. It’s not possible.

For me this debate is less a case of “does it have dangers or not”, and more about picking your battles, and doing what’s right for the whole.

I've always thought the mercury argument was a bit of a misdirection myself, and so go the cytokine storm angle instead, but its worth considering that if you don't get vaccinated then your body is going to have a more difficult time if/when you actually get the real disease. I think they just agitate the immune system too much for babies, and some people's bodies cannot handle so much immune activity. I had a look at the first 12 months here in Australia and the vaccination schedule is scarey to me!!! In the first 12 months they get exposed to;

Birth - hepB
Hepatitis B

2 months - hepB-DTPa-Hib-IPV & 13vPCV
Hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (whooping cough), Haemophilus influenzae type b, inactivated poliomyelitis (polio), Pneumococcal conjugate, Rotavirus

4 months - hepB-DTPa-Hib-IPV & 13vPCV
Hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (whooping cough), Haemophilus influenzae type b, inactivated poliomyelitis (polio), Pneumococcal conjugate, Rotavirus

6 months - hepB-DTPa-Hib-IPV, 13vPCV & Rotavirus b
Hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (whooping cough), Haemophilus influenzae type b, inactivated poliomyelitis (polio), Pneumococcal conjugate, Rotavirus b

12 months - Hib-MenC & MMR
Haemophilus influenzae type b and Meningococcal C, Measles, mumps and rubella

That, to me, is a lot of load onto the immune system all within the first year of a kids life. Personally I'd be stretching them way out over the first 3 years.