8 days until our trip...and I think we have chicken pox

[princessmom29]

WOW! Seriously? YOU ARE THE SMARTEST WOMAN ALIVE~ Its really nice to meet you. Can I get an autograph? Who are you again? Oh, the only person to have a degree in biochemistry the world. That's right. Ill send you my Disney autograph book. Do you honestly feel that ppl choose to opt out of a vaccine are just not understanding the science behind it? People devote their ENTIRE lives researching this, and have multiple degrees, as well as the complete capacity to understand the "science" behind it, and choose NOT TO VACCINATE. Its spelled epidemiology. Unreal.

No, but I do read, a LOT, and i have been a part of vaccine development research. AS for the personal attack, A had a GREAT professor once tell me that this is what people do when they have nothing left to contribute to the discussion. I am dyslexic. I make spelling errors. It has nothing to do with my ability to think and reason. There is no need to be rude becuase you have nothing further to counter with. The scarcasm is really unecessary and childish. Yes, there are those that choose not to vaccinte in all walks of life, but the data show that non-comliance with vaccine recommendatinos drops sharply when parents have an advanced degree in the sciences. That should tell you something.

 

[Svhadden]

This is true in the liberal arts, but the statistics go COMPLETELY in the other direction for those in the SCIENCES. The people who actually UNDERSTAND the science behind what they are reading. The higher the level of education in the sciences, the more likely that parents choose to vaccinate. This also holds true of those in the mediacl profession. The more advanced the degree, the more likley that paretns vaccinate. Coming from a biochemist, I can understand why someone with a doctorate in English might think they are doing the right thing by following along with all of the propganda and not vaccinating their kids. It seems like the latest "I'm smarter and more enlightened than you" trend amoung the liberal arts set. The university I researched at was divided on this issue almost exclusively along department lines. Math and Science chose to vaccinate, liberal arts did not. Personally, I think the biology, virology, and epidimology are more qualified to evaluate the studies.

Princessmom, I'd love to see the numbers on this topic, if you can provide your source . I'm sure you didn't intend for your comments to be insulting, but I'd assert that it doesn't require a PhD to understand that mercury is a neurotoxin (hasn't been removed, contrary to what we've been led to believe). As is aluminum (being researched for possible links to Alzheimers disease). Or that it's unwise to inject people with the same ingredients found in anti-freeze (2-phenoxyethanol), or with formaldehyde...at least as long as they're still alive. Or that it's questionable at best to inject them with the cells of totally separate species of animals, and the cells of aborted babies.

It sounds like you've done your own research and are making the best decisions for your family based on what you know. I've done the same. And because my decision not to vaccinate my children (or myself) has not been made lightly, I refuse to be bullied, insulted, or brow-beaten into changing my mind. I'm sure you feel the same way .


MommyBell, I'm glad to have provided you with a breath of fresh air . It's a shame that we can't have polite, intelligent discussions among ourselves, especially on a topic that touches, quite literally, billions of people. I'm quite invested in this topic as well, and what I've learned in the last 11 years has caused my husband and I to completely change our lifestyle. Everything from what we eat and don't eat, our healthcare, where we live, how we educate our children...it's all been changed by what we've learned since the birth of our first child. And I wouldn't change it a bit.

 

[MommyBell08]

No, but I do read, a LOT, and i have been a part of vaccine development research. AS for the personal attack, A had a GREAT professor once tell me that this is what people do when they have nothing left to contribute to the discussion. I am dyslexic. I make spelling errors. It has nothing to do with my ability to think and reason. There is no need to be rude becuase you have nothing further to counter with. The scarcasm is really unecessary and childish. Yes, there are those that choose not to vaccinte in all walks of life, but the data show that non-comliance with vaccine recommendatinos drops sharply when parents have an advanced degree in the sciences. That should tell you something.

No. The reason why I pointed out your spelling error is because I got the feeling from your post that you can do no wrong. I am sorry that you are dyslexic, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you act like you know more than anyone in the world about vaccines. The sarcasms is because I am spent on this discussion with you, and I am to the point where I can only laugh. I'm wore out, honestly. You are so matter-of-fact, black and white about it. Its not that simple, if it was there wouldn't be a debate. I find it offensive that time and time again you hint that people that choose not to vaccinate are in some way on a power trip, or trying to just be different. That's rude. Also, you told me the professor story last time we had this conversation. Nice story, Im sure your professor was a great guy, but It does not apply here.

 

[princessmom29]

Princessmom, I'd love to see the numbers on this topic, if you can provide your source . I'm sure you didn't intend for your comments to be insulting, but I'd assert that it doesn't require a PhD to understand that mercury is a neurotoxin (hasn't been removed, contrary to what we've been led to believe). As is aluminum (being researched for possible links to Alzheimers disease). Or that it's unwise to inject people with the same ingredients found in anti-freeze (2-phenoxyethanol), or with formaldehyde...at least as long as they're still alive. Or that it's questionable at best to inject them with the cells of totally separate species of animals, and the cells of aborted babies.

It sounds like you've done your own research and are making the best decisions for your family based on what you know. I've done the same. And because my decision not to vaccinate my children (or myself) has not been made lightly, I refuse to be bullied, insulted, or brow-beaten into changing my mind. I'm sure you feel the same way .


MommyBell, I'm glad to have provided you with a breath of fresh air . It's a shame that we can't have polite, intelligent discussions among ourselves, especially on a topic that touches, quite literally, billions of people. I'm quite invested in this topic as well, and what I've learned in the last 11 years has caused my husband and I to completely change our lifestyle. Everything from what we eat and don't eat, our healthcare, where we live, how we educate our children...it's all been changed by what we've learned since the birth of our first child. And I wouldn't change it a bit.

When I saw those stats, it was on paper and part of a roundtable discussion at the university I worked for. I will see if I can find an internet source I can share.

You throw out a lot of scary ideas, but no numbers with them. The reality is that while those ingredients are in vaccines, they are also in a lot of things we use and consume regularly, and are present in minute quantities in vaccines. They have NEVER been proven harmful in the quantities present in vaccines. I don't have a problem with the cells, human or otherwise. Everyone who has ever had a blood transfusion has been injected with someone els's cells, and insulin dependent diabetics rely on animal cells to produce thier insulin. People consume all of this stuff every day and aren't dropping like flies.

 

[princessmom29]

No. The reason why I pointed out your spelling error is because I got the feeling from your post that you can do no wrong. I am sorry that you are dyslexic, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you act like you know more than anyone in the world about vaccines. The sarcasms is because I am spent on this discussion with you, and I am to the point where I can only laugh. I'm wore out, honestly. You are so matter-of-fact, black and white about it. Its not that simple, if it was there wouldn't be a debate. I find it offensive that time and time again you hint that people that choose not to vaccinate are in some way on a power trip, or trying to just be different. That's rude. Also, you told me the professor story last time we had this conversation. Nice story, Im sure your professor was a great guy, but It does not apply here.

So essentially, you aer botherd by the fact that I continue to present rational counters to your argument rather than getting emotional? Emotions don't sway me on things like this, facts, presented in a matter of fact, non-emotional manner, do. You get into real trouble with scientific questions when you let your emotions influence your judgment. You lose the ability to be objective, so I choose to present a rational, non-emotional argumet rather than playing on people's emotions. I am sorry that upsets you, but science and emotion do not mix well.

I don't see how it doesn't apply? Sarcasm takes over when one has ntohing left to say. I am not trying to be superior to anyone, but to present a reasonable, well thought out discussion on the subject. I do find that most poeople that I know personally are not doing it because the have done a rational scientific inquiry into the subject. They are basing decisions on equal parts emotion and being part of the "I'm a better mommy" game. This is part of what the roundtable we had as part of our research was about. We found that a lot of liberal arts professors fit this mold. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[MommyBell08]

Princessmom. You can have the last word. I think I have said enough here of what I wanted to say, and I feel good about being over with this conversation. Your last comment to me was so far out in left field, I cant even respond.

 

[Svhadden]

When I saw those stats, it was on paper and part of a roundtable discussion at the university I worked for. I will see if I can find an internet source I can share.

You throw out a lot of scary ideas, but no numbers with them. The reality is that while those ingredients are in vaccines, they are also in a lot of things we use and consume regularly, and are present in minute quantities in vaccines. They have NEVER been proven harmful in the quantities present in vaccines. I don't have a problem with the cells, human or otherwise. Everyone who has ever had a blood transfusion has been injected with someone els's cells, and insulin dependent diabetics rely on animal cells to produce thier insulin. People consume all of this stuff every day and aren't dropping like flies.

Isn't that exactly what you did, Princessmom? I asked for a source for your information, and you haven't provided it. The reason I didn't provide numbers for my assertions is that none are needed. I stated that vax contain neurotoxins and carcinogens (mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde). You're asking for numbers? That's like me saying, "The sky is blue" and you asking, "Can you provide numbers to back that up?" None were provided because none are needed...I stated an easily observable fact.

And the fact is that no studies have been done to examine the cumulative effects of injecting these poisons into children in the quantities that are present in todays multi-shot vax. Todays children will receive 70 doses of 16 vaccines by the time they reach the age of 18, over half of them in the first 15 months, when the blood-brain barrier is most fragile, and the brain is experiencing incredible neurological growth. These numbers can easily be found on the CDCs website.

You say that these toxins have never been proven harmful in the amounts present in vaccines, and to a degree, you're right. No longitudinal peer-reviewed studies have been done examining the cumulative effects of these toxins on the developing child, as I stated before. My children are not guinea pigs.

And yes, these toxins are harmful. Just to examine one, a "trace amount" of mercury is defined as 1,000 PPB (parts per billion) or less, according to the US EPA. Here's a little comparison:

2 PPB=US EPAs limit for safe drinking water (US EPA website)

200 PPB=US EPA classification of toxic waste (again, US EPA website)

20 PPB=neurite membrane structure destroyed (Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37) BTW, a neurite is a projection from the cell body of a neuron. The overwhelming majority of neural connections are developed in the first 3 years of life...when they're being bombarded with the highest amounts of neurotoxins from vaccines.

25,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in multi-dose, Hepatitis B vaccine vials, administered at birth from 1991-2001 in the U.S.

50,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in multi-dose DTP and Haemophilus B vaccine vials, administered 8 times in the 1990’s to children at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months of age and currently “preservative” level mercury in multi-dose flu, meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines.

The last two numbers were gleaned from the journal Pediatrics, which of course is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Here's the link: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/letters/?first-index=816&hits=10

So, your assertion that these poisons are present in "minute amounts" in vaccines is inaccurate, relative to what we're told is "safe."


You stated that we encounter these toxins from other sources that we consume. I don't know what you're eating/drinking, but I can say with certainty that my family isn't consuming large quantities of toxins. I could give you a run-down of what we eat and how we live, but I'm sure you're not interested. Let it suffice for me to say that we're extremely vigilant about what we put into our bodies and the bodies of our children.

I think the bottom line is that you'll not convince me to your way of thinking, and I'll not sway you to mine. But I value the chance to discuss this topic rationally, so thank you.

 

[princessmom29]

Isn't that exactly what you did, Princessmom? I asked for a source for your information, and you haven't provided it. The reason I didn't provide numbers for my assertions is that none are needed. I stated that vax contain neurotoxins and carcinogens (mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde). You're asking for numbers? That's like me saying, "The sky is blue" and you asking, "Can you provide numbers to back that up?" None were provided because none are needed...I stated an easily observable fact.

And the fact is that no studies have been done to examine the cumulative effects of injecting these poisons into children in the quantities that are present in todays multi-shot vax. Todays children will receive 70 doses of 16 vaccines by the time they reach the age of 18, over half of them in the first 15 months, when the blood-brain barrier is most fragile, and the brain is experiencing incredible neurological growth. These numbers can easily be found on the CDCs website.

You say that these toxins have never been proven harmful in the amounts present in vaccines, and to a degree, you're right. No longitudinal peer-reviewed studies have been done examining the cumulative effects of these toxins on the developing child, as I stated before. My children are not guinea pigs.

And yes, these toxins are harmful. Just to examine one, a "trace amount" of mercury is defined as 1,000 PPB (parts per billion) or less, according to the US EPA. Here's a little comparison:

2 PPB=US EPAs limit for safe drinking water (US EPA website)

200 PPB=US EPA classification of toxic waste (again, US EPA website)

20 PPB=neurite membrane structure destroyed (Leong et al., Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37) BTW, a neurite is a projection from the cell body of a neuron. The overwhelming majority of neural connections are developed in the first 3 years of life...when they're being bombarded with the highest amounts of neurotoxins from vaccines.

25,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in multi-dose, Hepatitis B vaccine vials, administered at birth from 1991-2001 in the U.S.

50,000 ppb mercury = Concentration of mercury in multi-dose DTP and Haemophilus B vaccine vials, administered 8 times in the 1990’s to children at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months of age and currently “preservative” level mercury in multi-dose flu, meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines.

The last two numbers were gleaned from the journal Pediatrics, which of course is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Here's the link: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/letters/?first-index=816&hits=10

So, your assertion that these poisons are present in "minute amounts" in vaccines is inaccurate, relative to what we're told is "safe."


You stated that we encounter these toxins from other sources that we consume. I don't know what you're eating/drinking, but I can say with certainty that my family isn't consuming large quantities of toxins. I could give you a run-down of what we eat and how we live, but I'm sure you're not interested. Let it suffice for me to say that we're extremely vigilant about what we put into our bodies and the bodies of our children.

I think the bottom line is that you'll not convince me to your way of thinking, and I'll not sway you to mine. But I value the chance to discuss this topic rationally, so thank you.

Your numbers do not take into account method of exposure. Being exposed via and injection is VERY different than via injection. The mercury is MUCH more mobile when injected becuase of the exposure to stomach acid and that intestinal membreane. Intramuscular injection is a much less mobile means of exposure with a MUCH higher threshold limit. Hence the higher concentration in vaccines being withi acceptable limits for that type of exposure. Agian, you have to know what you are looking at to correctly interpret what the numbers are telling you. That number has gone down significantly since the 1990's as well. Scientists continue to improve vaccien technology.

ETA: You might want to note also that the most common route of exposue for many of the toxins you are concerned about in vaccines is respiratory. You cannot avoid breathing and lung contact is another high rate of transfer exposure. You will get more of these toxins actually into your bloodstream by breathing that you will thorugh a vacciantion series.

 

[Svhadden]

Your numbers do not take into account method of exposure. Being exposed via and injection is VERY different than via injection. The mercury is MUCH more mobile when injected becuase of the exposure to stomach acid and that intestinal membreane. Intramuscular injection is a much less mobile means of exposure with a MUCH higher threshold limit. Hence the higher concentration in vaccines being withi acceptable limits for that type of exposure. Agian, you have to know what you are looking at to correctly interpret what the numbers are telling you. That number has gone down significantly since the 1990's as well. Scientists continue to improve vaccien technology.

ETA: You might want to note also that the most common route of exposue for many of the toxins you are concerned about in vaccines is respiratory. You cannot avoid breathing and lung contact is another high rate of transfer exposure. You will get more of these toxins actually into your bloodstream by breathing that you will thorugh a vacciantion series.

Once again, I have to completely disagree with you. The research I've amassed over the years proves that injected mercury is shed at a much slower rate than injested mercury. We absorb 2-10% of injested mercury. However, injected mercury is stored in the body (specifically the brain) for protracted amounts of time.

The following quote is from Environmental Health Perspectives (August, 2005), a peer-reviewed journal focusing on environmental and human health issues.

"Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturing vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants can receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for methylmercury (MeHg) exposure, depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the infant. This study compared the systemic disposition and brain distribution of total and inorganic mercury in infant monkeys following thimerosal exposure with infants exposed to MeHg. Monkeys were exposed to MeHg (via oral gavage) or vaccines containing thimerosal (via i.m. injection) at birth and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of age. Total blood mercury (Hg) levels were determined 2, 4 and 7 days after each exposure. Total and inorganic brain Hg levels were assessed 2, 4, 7 or 28 days after the last exposure.

The initial and terminal half-life of Hg in blood following thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days, which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life of Hg following MeHg exposure at 21.5 days. Brain concentrations of total Hg were significantly lower by ~3-fold for the thimerosal-exposed infants when compared to the MeHg infants, while the average brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the thimerosal-exposed infants (3.5±1.0 vs. 2.5±0.6). A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic mercury for the thimerosal-exposed infants (34% vs 7%). The current study indicates that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal derived Hg. Knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to afford a meaningful assessment of the developmental effects of thimerosal-containing vaccines."

Another alarming indicator of the dangers of injected thimerosol:

This information is from The International Journal of Molecular Medicine (2006).

"There is a worldwide increasing concern over the neurological risks of thimerosal (ethylmercury thiosalicylate) which is an organic mercury compound that is commonly used as an antimicrobial preservative. In this study, we show that thimerosal, at nanomolar concentrations, induces neuronal cell death through the mitochondrial pathway. Thimerosal, in a concentration- and time-dependent manner, decreased cell viability as assessed by calcein-ethidium staining and caused apoptosis detected by Hoechst 33258 dye. Thimerosal-induced apoptosis was associated with depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, generation of reactive oxygen species, and release of cytochrome c and apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF) from mitochondria to cytosol. Although thimerosal did not affect cellular expression of Bax at the protein level, we observed translocation of Bax from cytosol to mitochondria. Finally, caspase-9 and caspase-3 were activated in the absence of caspase-8 activation. Our data suggest that thimerosal causes apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells by changing the mitochondrial microenvironment."

The mitochondrial damage was so profound that the cells literally self-destructed. Apoptosis is cell death.


Also, keep in mind that the same injections are given to infants regardless of whether they weigh 5 lbs or 10 lbs...a drastic difference when considering that levels of mercury exposure are calculated in large part based on the weight of the individual (as a reflection of relative metabolism).

I'm very aware of environmental toxins. When we built our house, we went to considerable effort and expense to reduce the amounts of toxic chemicals that went into the process. Everything from treated lumber, to paint, to formaldehyde-free insulation, to drilling our own well...we looked at all of our options and were able to take advantage of many of the "greener" products. We have our own organic garden. We keep our own hens for fresh organic eggs. The meat we buy (we eat very little meat) is steroid/hormone/antibiotic free.

Again, this is no flight of fancy for my family. We've literally changed our entire lifestyle based on what we've learned. And we believe we're better off for it. Between us, my husband and I have three college degrees. We're not gullible, uneducated sheep who are just following a fad in order to make a point.

You can continue to preach the safety and efficacy of vaccines as long as you want. I've seen enough peer-reviewed, reputable research to believe that we've made the best decision for our family.

 

[princessmom29]

Once again, I have to completely disagree with you. The research I've amassed over the years proves that injected mercury is shed at a much slower rate than injested mercury. We absorb 2-10% of injested mercury. However, injected mercury is stored in the body (specifically the brain) for protracted amounts of time.

The following quote is from Environmental Health Perspectives (August, 2005), a peer-reviewed journal focusing on environmental and human health issues.

"Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturing vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants can receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for methylmercury (MeHg) exposure, depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the infant. This study compared the systemic disposition and brain distribution of total and inorganic mercury in infant monkeys following thimerosal exposure with infants exposed to MeHg. Monkeys were exposed to MeHg (via oral gavage) or vaccines containing thimerosal (via i.m. injection) at birth and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of age. Total blood mercury (Hg) levels were determined 2, 4 and 7 days after each exposure. Total and inorganic brain Hg levels were assessed 2, 4, 7 or 28 days after the last exposure.

The initial and terminal half-life of Hg in blood following thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days, which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life of Hg following MeHg exposure at 21.5 days. Brain concentrations of total Hg were significantly lower by ~3-fold for the thimerosal-exposed infants when compared to the MeHg infants, while the average brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the thimerosal-exposed infants (3.5±1.0 vs. 2.5±0.6). A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic mercury for the thimerosal-exposed infants (34% vs 7%). The current study indicates that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal derived Hg. Knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to afford a meaningful assessment of the developmental effects of thimerosal-containing vaccines."

Another alarming indicator of the dangers of injected thimerosol:

This information is from The International Journal of Molecular Medicine (2006).

"There is a worldwide increasing concern over the neurological risks of thimerosal (ethylmercury thiosalicylate) which is an organic mercury compound that is commonly used as an antimicrobial preservative. In this study, we show that thimerosal, at nanomolar concentrations, induces neuronal cell death through the mitochondrial pathway. Thimerosal, in a concentration- and time-dependent manner, decreased cell viability as assessed by calcein-ethidium staining and caused apoptosis detected by Hoechst 33258 dye. Thimerosal-induced apoptosis was associated with depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, generation of reactive oxygen species, and release of cytochrome c and apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF) from mitochondria to cytosol. Although thimerosal did not affect cellular expression of Bax at the protein level, we observed translocation of Bax from cytosol to mitochondria. Finally, caspase-9 and caspase-3 were activated in the absence of caspase-8 activation. Our data suggest that thimerosal causes apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells by changing the mitochondrial microenvironment."

The mitochondrial damage was so profound that the cells literally self-destructed. Apoptosis is cell death.


Also, keep in mind that the same injections are given to infants regardless of whether they weigh 5 lbs or 10 lbs...a drastic difference when considering that levels of mercury exposure are calculated in large part based on the weight of the individual (as a reflection of relative metabolism).

I'm very aware of environmental toxins. When we built our house, we went to considerable effort and expense to reduce the amounts of toxic chemicals that went into the process. Everything from treated lumber, to paint, to formaldehyde-free insulation, to drilling our own well...we looked at all of our options and were able to take advantage of many of the "greener" products. We have our own organic garden. We keep our own hens for fresh organic eggs. The meat we buy (we eat very little meat) is steroid/hormone/antibiotic free.

Again, this is no flight of fancy for my family. We've literally changed our entire lifestyle based on what we've learned. And we believe we're better off for it. Between us, my husband and I have three college degrees. We're not gullible, uneducated sheep who are just following a fad in order to make a point.

You can continue to preach the safety and efficacy of vaccines as long as you want. I've seen enough peer-reviewed, reputable research to believe that we've made the best decision for our family.

I don't think you really read what you posted. The first study you posted clearly sates that the half life of thermisol is less than a quarter of the half life of MHg. That means that while the initial levels in the blood may be slightly higher, it is eliminated more than 4 times quicker from the body than mHg, therefore it does significantly less damage. You have to understand the context of the numbers for them to make sense.

The second study addresses mecury exposure tp raw cells, not cells in vivo. It also does not say to what level of thermisol they were exposed.

You obviously feel very strongly about this, but so do I. I DO know what I am talking about. I DID vaccine development research. You have to know the contect of what you are reading and have a solid understanding of microbiology and human physiology to really understand the implication of these studies. You can quote them all day, but without solid context they are just numbers.

 

[Leajess99]

Forget it because it never seems to end and the I'm better than you attitude is getting sickening

 

[Leajess99]

This is true in the liberal arts, but the statistics go COMPLETELY in the other direction for those in the SCIENCES. The people who actually UNDERSTAND the science behind what they are reading. The higher the level of education in the sciences, the more likely that parents choose to vaccinate. This also holds true of those in the mediacl profession. The more advanced the degree, the more likley that paretns vaccinate. Coming from a biochemist, I can understand why someone with a doctorate in English might think they are doing the right thing by following along with all of the propganda and not vaccinating their kids. It seems like the latest "I'm smarter and more enlightened than you" trend amoung the liberal arts set. The university I researched at was divided on this issue almost exclusively along department lines. Math and Science chose to vaccinate, liberal arts did not. Personally, I think the biology, virology, and epidimology are more qualified to evaluate the studies.

Nevermind, so not worth it

 

[Svhadden]

I don't think you really read what you posted. The first study you posted clearly sates that the half life of thermisol is less than a quarter of the half life of MHg. That means that while the initial levels in the blood may be slightly higher, it is eliminated more than 4 times quicker from the body than mHg, therefore it does significantly less damage. You have to understand the context of the numbers for them to make sense.

The second study addresses mecury exposure tp raw cells, not cells in vivo. It also does not say to what level of thermisol they were exposed.

You obviously feel very strongly about this, but so do I. I DO know what I am talking about. I DID vaccine development research. You have to know the contect of what you are reading and have a solid understanding of microbiology and human physiology to really understand the implication of these studies. You can quote them all day, but without solid context they are just numbers.

Princessmom, that is ABSOLUTELY NOT what the first abstract states.

Referring to the second study, if you want all of the specifics, I clearly provided you with a reference for the document, so feel free to read it in it's entirety. Posting the entire document here would be too cumbersome.

In vivo??? You want living people (kids) to have thimerosol injected directly into their cells??? Ever heard of Nuremburg?

And quite frankly, the fact that you've participated in vaccine development does not help your credibility. The revolving door between the CDC, FDA, and big pharma has seriously undermined any authority these institutions might have once held.

Please refer to the sources I've provided below that clearly outline the fraud, cover-ups, and bad science that goes into manufacturing vaccines.

http://www.naturalnews.com/023669_vaccine_babies_WHO.html

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showthread.php?t=476247
Very interesting. Relating to the discovery of genetically modified HPV DNA in Mercks Gardasil vaccine...despite the fact that it wasn't supposed to be there. These are MERCK EMPLOYEES.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/offit-lying-again/

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/02/mercks-proquad-vaccine-linked-to-convulsions/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...tailing-ten-new-deaths-140-serious-adverse-e/

I can't help but point out that, as of yet, you haven't provided ANY science or credible research to support any of your claims. Because none exists. There are NO longitudinal randomized studies illustrating the differences between vax/non-vax kids. No studies on the effects of combining multiple vax into one injection (they're manufactured separately, yet routinely administered in combinations, despite there being very little evidence on reactogenicity).

You have yet to provide a source for your assertion that those with degrees in the sciences vaccinate at a higher rate. Not that I care...I just want to know if you can substantiate ANYTHING you've said. You've repeatedly accused others of not being able to back up their claims, and of being too ignorant to understand the information that's out there.

As Mommybell said, I'll be happy to let you have the last word, princessmom. I'll not spend any more of my time providing proof to someone who has none of their own to back up their claims. I hope you harbor no ill feelings, as I do not.

 

[Svhadden]

Nevermind, so not worth it

At this point, I completely agree with you.

 

[princessmom29]

At this point, I completely agree with you.

Why, becuase someone dares to contradict you? The bottom line to all of this is that we can both continue to spout numbers and studies all day long, but it won't change the fact that NO ONE has ever sucessfully followed patients both vaccinated and non-vaccianted and proven ANY type of lasting ill effect that is prevasive and can be tied to vaccines. I wonder why, with all the anti-vaccine groups out there, with the Jenny McCarthys of the world pouring money into them, that they simply cannot find the means to prove that vaccines are harmful to children? NOt a single study has ever been able to make the link. Ever. This is why I mentioned in vivo studies. There has never been any solid proof in real human beings that vaccines do pervasive lasting harm in children without underlying risk factors. There are a wold of children out there noth being vaccinated and not being vaccianted. the data is there. If someone could prove vaccines were doing harm to kids, I owuld think they would have done it long before now.

 

[MistressMerryweather]

Forget it because it never seems to end and the I'm better than you attitude is getting sickening

Amen.

 

[Schmeck]

The initial and terminal half-life of Hg in blood following thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days, which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life of Hg following MeHg exposure at 21.5 days.

How can this be read any way besides thimerosal having a shorter elimination half-life than MeHg exposure????

 

[princessmom29]

How can this be read any way besides thimerosal having a shorter elimination half-life than MeHg exposure????

It cannot, but some want to pick and choose only the parts that support thier argumnet without looking at the context of the information. Context and physiology MUST be taken into account when looking at studies such as this. Otherwise, the numbers are meaningless.

 

[Svhadden]

How can this be read any way besides thimerosal having a shorter elimination half-life than MeHg exposure????

I can see your confusion, Schmeck. My mistake was in not reading princessmoms entire comment and finding her point of contention.

At issue was the method of mercury exposure (ingested/injected), and it's presence in the brain, not the blood. Thus, the second study I posted, which clearly shows that mercury damages neural cells. Perhaps I should have highlighted the following quote from the first study:

"A higher percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic mercury for the thimerosal-exposed infants (34% vs 7%)."

Please consider this statement:

"It's important to remember when you hear from vaccine safety promoters that ethylmercury (in thimerosal) disappears from the blood in several days, that the mercury leaves the plasma and enters the brain where it de-ethylates and remains for a lifetime...What they fail to mention is that only 7% of methylmercury is converted to ionic mercury whereas 34% of ethlymercury is converted in a short time."

Russel Blaylock MD, Neurosurgeon, 'Vaccines Neurodevelopment and Autism Spectrum Disorders 3/12/08 (please google Dr. Blaylock, if you'd like)


A short video that illustrates how mercury damages nerve cells:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtFsy0rQsak&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Does anyone wonder why todays kids are so sick? I thought we were supposed to be so healthy? Please look at this article, and take note of the small inset on the top left that shows the percentage of increase in the number of kids on medication for chronic illness.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-02-kidsmedications_N.htm


And this article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-02-17-chronic17_st_N.htm

...which states, "The rate of chronic disease among children has doubled in the past two decades: More than half of children ages 8 to 14 have had a long-term health problem at some point, such as obesity, asthma, a learning disability or other ailment, a study shows. Researchers studied 5,001 children from 1988 to 2006 and followed each child for six years, according to a paper in today's Journal of the American Medical Association. (portion bolded by me)

I'm NOT saying this is strictly due to vaccines. I believe it's also strongly related to diet and environment. But what if I could reduce the toxic load my kids carry, and the damage it causes? Why is there an "acceptable" level of thimerosol in any kids brain? I want so badly for my kids to be healthy, and I know that's what y'all want as well.

If anyone wants to think this is a battle of "I'm smarter than you are," I know that's not my point. My point is that there is research out there, and there are medical/science professionals out there who are showing that the components present in vaccines ARE harmful. My intention is not to alienate or insult, and if my comments have come across that way, I apologize. My intention is to give people food for thought, and to encourage people to not just accept something as truth without questioning it. When it comes to our health, that can be dangerous.

Here's what some of these professionals are saying:

"Thimerosal was tested only once, by Eli Lilly on the 22 adult patients suffering from meningitis. There was no chance for follow-up to observe long-term effects, as all the patients in this "study" died. Even if follow-up had been possible, damage to the developing brains of very young children would have remained unknown. Eli Lilly said it was safe and the medical community accepted it. After the creation of the FDA, its use was simply continued. The federal government has never tested the type of mercury in vaccines for toxicity. This is an unconscionable oversight failure at best, at worse it is an example of how we have left consensus reality to be created by the liars junk scientists employ."

Kenneth P. Stoller, MD. 'My Open Letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics'

"You mean to tell me that since 1929 we've been using thimerosal (in vaccines) and in the only test that you know of...everyone of those people had meningitis and they all died?"

Congressional Representative Dan Burton, Congressional Hearing, 7/18/2000
_________________________________________________________________

"If you inject thimerosal into an animal, it's brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

Boyd Haley PhD, Professor and Chair, Department of Chemistry, University of Kentucky
_________________________________________________________________

"Mercury is one of the most dangerous substances known to man. It should not have a place in any vaccine for anyone of any age."

Richard Halvorsen MD


Again, mercury is only one harmful component in a vaccine. There are many others. I am NOT against vaccinating people, in theory. But I want a better option. We're smart enough to send people to the moon, and perhaps soon to asteroids etc...why can't we come up with a better option?

 

[princessmom29]

Again, mercury is only one harmful component in a vaccine. There are many others. I am NOT against vaccinating people, in theory. But I want a better option. We're smart enough to send people to the moon, and perhaps soon to asteroids etc...why can't we come up with a better option?

And I feel that vaccines are safe an effective as they are. I simply haven't seen any credible research to show that anything present in vaccines does prevasive harm to those vaccinated who do not already have undelying risk factors that make vaccines dangerous for them. Route of exposure, chemical composition of the potential toxin, and what accompanies the toxin on exposure are all factors in determining the threshold limts for harmful exposure. All of these factors MUST be taken into account when looking at vaccine ingredients, not just one or two of them. These elements that are harmful in other situations are necessary for the effective function of the vaccine, and have never been proven to be doing any harm to anyone when delivered as part of a vaccine. If anti vaccine groups are so sure these things are harming our kids, why aren't they funding real scientific studies to prove it??

AS to kids not being as healthy, FWIW my DD has had more vaccinations than I recieved and is MUCH helthier than I was as a child. She is in second grade and has had less than a week's worth of sick days since K-3. The same is true for my cousin's children. Also, the increase in things like autism and allregies are due in large part to better diarnostics resulting in more children being diagnosed. In the past, many autistic kids were just labled "odd" or "quirky". Kids with allregies often didn't know what was making them sick, or figured it out and just avoided the allregen. A Disganosis wasn't necessary, and no one discussed thier kids food allergies. Now, everyone does.