What you're putting in your kid...

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2007
What you're putting in your kid...
20
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 3:18pm

Vaccine Fillers and Ingredients
In addition to the viral and bacterial RNA or DNA that is part of the vaccines, vaccine fillers and ingredients include:
aluminum hydroxide
aluminum phosphate
ammonium sulfate
amphotericin B
animal tissues: pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain,
dog kidney, monkey kidney,
chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg
calf (bovine) serum
betapropiolactone
fetal bovine serum
formaldehyde
formalin
gelatin
glycerol
human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)
hydrolized gelatin
monosodium glutamate (MSG)
neomycin
neomycin sulfate
phenol red indicator
phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
potassium diphosphate
potassium monophosphate
polymyxin B
polysorbate 20
polysorbate 80
porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein
residual MRC5 proteins
sorbitol
sucrose
thimerosal (mercury)
tri(n)butylphosphate
VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells
washed sheep red blood cells.

Do you provaxers even know what this stuff is????

Photobucket Thanks to Andie for my siggy!



Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2008
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 4:26pm

Actually, as a chemist, the two that jump out to me from your list are:

phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
Phenoxyethanol is most definitively not antifreeze. Ethylene glycol is a component of antifreeze, but phenoxyethanol is a different chemical altogether. I've linked to the wiki articles below so you can see the structures. This is like saying that ethanol and methanol are equivalent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenoxyethanol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol

Before my son was born and I was researching vaccines, one of the criteria I applied to determining if I could trust a source was to look for the "vaccines contain antifreeze" claim - once I see that, I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in what the website has to say.

thimerosal (mercury)
Pretty sure this has actually been removed from all childhood vaccines, and there are thimerosal-free flu vaccines available. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that. Either way, saying thimerosal is the same as mercury is false. It is an ethyl mercury compound which is eliminated rapidly from the body. Methyl mercury or metallic mercury, are indeed harmful, but that's not relevant to the discussion of vaccines.


Photobucket

PhotobucketPhotobucket
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2009
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 4:55pm

insidevaccines did an article on the vaccine ingredients stuff:


http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/03/13/common-anti-vaccination-myths-and-misconceptions/


I think you'll like it :)


I'm puzzled about the ethylmercury stuff though. What actual scientific evidence do you have that this form of mercury is rapidly excreted from the body? And is rapid excretion true for everyone, or might some people have difficulty getting rid of it?


quote: It is an ethyl mercury compound which is eliminated rapidly from the body. Methyl mercury or metallic mercury, are indeed harmful, but that's not relevant to the discussion of vaccines.


I've seen this claim a lot, but I've never, ever, seen any evidence to support it. And I react to this claim pretty much the way you do to the anti-freeze business, especially sans evidence.


http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2008
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 5:30pm

Thanks for the link! I was familiar with Inside Vaccines, but hadn't seen that post previously. As for the ethyl vs methyl mercury metabolism, I've linked to two studies below, one on infants and one with mice. Are you able to access the full text? There may be some better ones as well, I'll check my saved articles at home. I'll also see if I can find a description of the difference between the metabolic pathways for the two compounds.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114281545/abstract

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)11682-5/fulltext

As for differences between individuals, obviously there is a range of data, but in the infant study above, not one showed mercury levels in the blood anywhere near the minimum threshold considered unsafe as measured in cord blood. I'll see if I can find a study with a larger cohort to perhaps get a better idea of the range in metabolism of ethylmercury.

~Jenifer


Photobucket

PhotobucketPhotobucket
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2009
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 7:25pm

The mice study has a huge problem if we try to compare it with what happens with babies. Methyl mercury comes in via food and is handled by the digestive system. No one ever injects it. This shows good sense. Thimerosal is always injected. So it doesn't really matter a whole heck of a lot if methyl mercury is more dangerous to inject than thimerosal, since it isn't injected. The comparison is silly and it doesn't actually demonstrate the "safety" of thimerosal, just that it isn't as dangerous as injecting something we don't inject in the first place.

The second one wasn't opening up at all. I'll try again later. If it is the study I think, the follow up study by Pichichiero, it is probably just as bad as his first study, which was a mess.

Mercury, in any form, should never have been in vaccines in the first place. It still shouldn't be in vaccines. The safety of thimerosal has never been demonstrated...

and millions of babies are being dosed with this garbage, all over the world.

Sigh...

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2005
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 8:34pm

"Please let me know if I'm wrong about that. "

It's only trace amounts now except the flu and I believe Hep B. There's info on this site, if you do a search you should find many threads about it but here are two I had bookmarked:

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

http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/080829_ThimerosalInVaccines_InconvenientReality_b.pdf

I had one of the "Orac" types explain the difference in mercury to me and some others on a news site. I'll see if I can find it sometime this weekend. It is an interesting topic but I don't understand why the pro-vax scientists don't take into consideration the difference in eating a substance and injecting a substance into muscle tissue. That's so aggravating. Maybe you can shed some light on why they ignore certain facts like that. Facts, that to me, are really big parts of the equation.

Robin here's a link that I don't think came from IV so some of you may not have seen it:

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7712/7712.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2008
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 9:23pm

Regarding injections vs. oral administration, the study I posted involved injections of both the MeHg and the EtHg in mice, and I think that when considering the body's ability to metabolize the compounds, one should consider a single exposure route. Who cares how it got there, we're looking at how the body processes it.

However, if you're concerned about this distinction, the study below from Toxicology Letters looks also at oral administration of MeHg. They observe that injection of MeHg results in blood levels about 30% those seen for oral dosing.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16416096

And you're right, this doesn't prove "safety" - I was only addressing the issue of how thimerosal is metabolized (and thus accumulation of mercury in the body is reduced). But no study ever proves safety, they can only eliminate the likelihood of risks. In humans, the toxicity of thimerosal and its byproducts has been studied, and you can find a review of the literature on the subject below. They do note an injected dose in one of the case studies in which 0.65ug Hg/mL showed no adverse effects, and also an apparently lethal dose that was a little over twice that amount:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/76510597/abstract

Has there been any study indicating a change in the rate of autism/neurological disorders/allergies/whatever in the vaccinated population since the removal of thimerosal now that it has been removed from childhood vaccines? I'm not aware of any, but I'd be interested if they are out there. I would think that if thimerosal had adverse effects, then there would be a difference between those children vaccinated before and after its removal. Am I missing something?

Oh, and yes, the second study I posted was indeed Pichichiero from 2002. I'd be curious to know why you would dismiss it so quickly. Is it his conclusions or a methodological issue? Or both?

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2009
Fri, 02-27-2009 - 9:57pm

Okay. First, thimerosal was very gradually removed. I know of kids who got significant doses as late as 2003. Second, just at the point where the thimerosal containing doses were used up, they started giving pregnant women and infants influenza vaccines containing thimerosal. Third, no study has been done to see if the children currently presenting with autism are the same children who got the thimerosal containing flu vaccines, either prenatally or as infants. Fourth, no study I've been able to find ever studied a block of children with autism, whose parents claim a vaccine connection. You know, a study that looks carefully at case histories, common factors, environmental exposures?

This is a huge mess and I don't see the pro-vaccine science really addressing it.

quote: Oh, and yes, the second study I posted was indeed Pichichiero from 2002. I'd be curious to know why you would dismiss it so quickly. Is it his conclusions or a methodological issue? Or both?

I haven't had a chance to carefully review his second study, but the first one was terrible. I couldn't believe that the Lancet accepted it. For example, he was studying mercury excretion in a group of infants, but he never established a base line level of mercury in their systems before vaccination. This means that carefully measuring the amount being excreted doesn't mean much, because we can't know how much was in there to begin with. Another point, in the first study, he used samples from different babies on different days and just assumed that they were all excreting at the same rate. He never accounted for all the mercury. Some could easily have ended up in the baby's brains and his methodology would never have shown that there was any problem.

The best I can say for thimerosal is that it doesn't cause immediate death in most infants. But it is an insane thing to be injecting into babies.

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2008
Sat, 02-28-2009 - 12:47am

"Okay. First, thimerosal was very gradually removed. I know of kids who got significant doses as late as 2003. Second, just at the point where the thimerosal containing doses were used up, they started giving pregnant women and infants influenza vaccines containing thimerosal."

While I understand that thimerosal wasn't completely removed overnight, the number of children receiving doses of it would have dropped dramatically. And regarding flu shots, considering that only about 10% or school-aged children and about 15% or pregnant women get the flu shot according to the CDC, how can this possibly have the same effect as +95% of children getting vaccinated with thimerosal? Even if you ignore the difference in the overall dosage of mercury, you need to consider that the vast majority of children are no longer even being exposed. And yet this has no impact on the diagnosis rates of autism?

"Third, no study has been done to see if the children currently presenting with autism are the same children who got the thimerosal containing flu vaccines, either prenatally or as infants."

Agreed, but studies have been done to examine thimerosal dosing in infants and showed no association. I'm not, however, aware of any studies of prenatal vaccinations, but other environmental factors have been correlated to autism, as I'm sure you are aware. I found this summary of autism/thimerosal studies on the CDC website. There's one due out in 2010 that looks as if it could be interesting.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/documents/vaccine_studies.pdf

"Fourth, no study I've been able to find ever studied a block of children with autism, whose parents claim a vaccine connection. You know, a study that looks carefully at case histories, common factors, environmental exposures?"

I'm actually a bit confused by this. Why would the parent's claims be valuable in determining whether or not their child's autism resulted from vaccination? Wouldn't a controlled study - like taking a random sampling of the autistic population and then examining their medical history - be a better option?

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-02-2009
Sat, 02-28-2009 - 10:23am

Okay, let's take a quick look at the numbers and how it might work.

Only 10% of pregnant women get a flu shot. If 50% of those women end up with autistic children...we've got our numbers. If they don't look, they don't find.

Yes, I think it would be worth it to do a study specifically of those children whose parents think the vaccines played a role in their autism. Because, the point is not actually to find out if all cases of autism have something to do with vaccines. We already know they don't. The question is to find out if there is a sub-group who are running into trouble with vaccines. The most obvious way to locate that sub-group is to look at the sub-group. But...no, this group has never been examined. That omission is a big problem for me.

On the various statistical studies showing this and that, either the autism numbers are accurate, in which case there has been an increase and there is an environmental factor, which may have something to do with vaccines in some cases

or

the autism numbers are screwy in one way or another, in which case any conclusions about causation are useless

or

the autism numbers are screwy when some people want to dismiss something and good when people want to claim something

which is a game which can be played by all sides of this argument

Back to thimerosal:

the MSDS shows that this is a highly toxic substance. Even if it is excreted rapidly, small amounts could very well be doing harm. And there is no evidence in either of the studies you brought that ALL of the thimerosal is excreted, rapidly or not. Nor is there evidence that the thimerosal doesn't do some harm on its way out, nor that any remaining thimerosal is non-toxic to the infant brain and body.

I'm not convinced that any one thing is the "cause" of autism, but I think many children have been damaged by vaccines AND I think there has been a lot of "science" designed to cover up and dismiss any problems.

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2008
Sat, 02-28-2009 - 11:31am

"Okay, let's take a quick look at the numbers and how it might work.

Only 10% of pregnant women get a flu shot. If 50% of those women end up with autistic children...we've got our numbers. If they don't look, they don't find."

Agreed, but only if we abandon logic. Why didn't 50% of children exposed to thimerosal through vaccines get autism before it was pulled from childhood vaccines? If thimerosal results in autism 50% of the time, then 50% of children born before 2001 or so should have autism, right? And probably even more, since they were getting a lot more thimerosal. And if you want to attribute autism to maternal flu vaccination alone, why doesn't the autism diagnosis rate follow the rate of flu vaccination in pregnant women? Either the way in which autism is triggered just happened to change at the same time as thimerosal was removed from vaccines, or this connection is a bit too big of a stretch.

But the better evidence that there is no connect would be the Canadian study on thimerosal exposure and autism rate. Now, Canada does use thimerosal in their flu vaccines (at about the same rate as the US), however the same lack of a connection was found in Denmark, where they removed thimerosal from all vaccines. I assume you've seen these studies, but I'll link to them nonetheless.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/e139
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604

Anything can be toxic in the right dosage. I think the review article that I provided indicated the dosages of thimerosal that have no adverse reactions. The articles above show removing thimerosal had no impact on autsim rates. And if these studies of infants aren't controlled enough, what about the studies of mice that showed no development or neurological damage from vaccine-equivalent doses?

"Yes, I think it would be worth it to do a study specifically of those children whose parents think the vaccines played a role in their autism. Because, the point is not actually to find out if all cases of autism have something to do with vaccines. We already know they don't. The question is to find out if there is a sub-group who are running into trouble with vaccines. The most obvious way to locate that sub-group is to look at the sub-group. But...no, this group has never been examined. That omission is a big problem for me."

That part of the population is not being omitted. In large studies, parents who think vaccines are the culprit would be a part of the cross-section. Any susceptibility of this subset would show up in the cumulative data, even if all of the autistic children weren't affected. Additionally, I don't think that setting up a study group based on what the parents think is the best strategy - you'd include a good proportion who are just wrong, and you may miss a good number in which vaccines were a problem. A large study examining a host of environmental factors and without limiting your group would provide more information.

Photobucket

Pages