Vaccines Harmful, Ineffective: Mainstream Studies

a reply to: Petros312

If thimerosal is a "toxin" (note: no dosage specified) because it's "mercury" then salt is a "toxin" because it's "chlorine" (twist: both are false if you have even the faintest idea of how chemistry works).

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Petros312

If thimerosal is a "toxin" (note: no dosage specified) because it's "mercury" then salt is a "toxin" because it's "chlorine" (twist: both are false if you have even the faintest idea of how chemistry works).

Such sham logic! It is POINTLESS to suggest that everything is toxic in some amount. We are talking about mercury! Some of us understand that there isn't really an "acceptable" limit to ingesting a toxin as dangerous as mercury, just like when people get sick from the vaccine it is not simply a "side effect."

a reply to: Petros312

Do you understand the difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury? Clearly not. You don't even understand basic chemistry. No surprise another anti-vaxxer demonstrates a woeful level of scientific illiteracy.

a reply to: GetHyped

Nice try, but one analysis suggests:

ethyl mercury: toxic

methyl mercury: more toxic.

Generally, a broad research agenda is needed to develop the toxicology of thimerosal, given the paucity of our current information. Studies should be directed to test the assumption that the toxicology of thimerosal is similar to that of methyl mercury, given the fact the current estimates of human health risks, in particular in infants receiving vaccines, are based on this assumption. The immediate tissue disposition of mercury following a dose of thimerosal appears to be both qualitatively and quantitatively similar to that of methyl mercury, as discussed in this review. However, such limited evidence as now exists suggests that the rate of conversion to inorganic and, subsequently, the rate of excretion are more rapid, perhaps substantially so, compared with methyl mercury. Data on the biologic half-time of the ethyl mercury radical in body tissues, especially the brain, are essential for estimates of tissues burdens and health risk from cumulative exposure from repeated doses of thimerosal in vaccines given to infants. Such information needs to be gathered both during and after the suckling period.

Thimerosal also differs from methyl mercury in that it causes kidney damage at about the same doses that damage the nervous system. Experimental evidence indicated that damage to the nervous system is caused by the intact organomercurial radical, whether methyl or ethyl. However, inorganic mercury released from ethyl mercury may be the proximate toxic agent for kidney damage. Indeed, the suspected greater rate of release from ethyl mercury may explain why kidney damage, if any, occurs only at the later stages of intoxication from methyl mercury.

Source: Ethyl Vs. Methyl

Mock away all you like. I posted this so that others can see it is not a simple matter of ethyl mercury being transformed to lesser toxic organic or inorganic forms by gut flora blah blah blah...

So sick of these arguments made by people who want to inject people with garbage that doesn't belong in the human body.



Allowing yourself to be injected with the garbage put in a flu vaccine that's only about 23% effective is not a matter of chemistry or a matter of science. It's a personal decision.

a reply to: Petros312

EVERYTHING is toxic, it's all a matter of dose. Did you even go to school? Let me guess... Home schooled?

Also, your source is "vaccine truth", a mumbo jumbo pseudo-science anti vaccination website? Nice try. Not only is the dosage of ETHYLmercury in vaccines not toxic, it isn't even in vaccines anymore!. Talk about intellectually dishonest scaremongering.

originally posted by: Petros312
Allowing yourself to be injected with the garbage put in a flu vaccine that's only about 23% effective is not a matter of chemistry or a matter of science. It's a personal decision.

Anti-vaccination family that refused the measles vaccination, attended a clinic after they contracted measles leading to the infection of almost 200 children and adults in that clinic as well as an already chronically ill child with leukemia.



Do you have anything in common with the anti vaccination 'doctor' in the last segment?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Petros312
Allowing yourself to be injected with the garbage put in a flu vaccine that's only about 23% effective is not a matter of chemistry or a matter of science. It's a personal decision.

Anti-vaccination family that refused the measles vaccination, attended a clinic after they contracted measles leading to the infection of almost 200 children and adults in that clinic as well as an already chronically ill child with leukemia.

Do you have anything in common with the anti vaccination 'doctor' in the last segment?

All hail the new anti-vax god!!!


Why is he even pretending to be a doctor?

originally posted by: Petros312
a reply to: GetHyped

Nice try, but one analysis suggests:

ethyl mercury: toxic

methyl mercury: more toxic.

Generally, a broad research agenda is needed to develop the toxicology of thimerosal, given the paucity of our current information. Studies should be directed to test the assumption that the toxicology of thimerosal is similar to that of methyl mercury, given the fact the current estimates of human health risks, in particular in infants receiving vaccines, are based on this assumption. The immediate tissue disposition of mercury following a dose of thimerosal appears to be both qualitatively and quantitatively similar to that of methyl mercury, as discussed in this review. However, such limited evidence as now exists suggests that the rate of conversion to inorganic and, subsequently, the rate of excretion are more rapid, perhaps substantially so, compared with methyl mercury. Data on the biologic half-time of the ethyl mercury radical in body tissues, especially the brain, are essential for estimates of tissues burdens and health risk from cumulative exposure from repeated doses of thimerosal in vaccines given to infants. Such information needs to be gathered both during and after the suckling period.

Thimerosal also differs from methyl mercury in that it causes kidney damage at about the same doses that damage the nervous system. Experimental evidence indicated that damage to the nervous system is caused by the intact organomercurial radical, whether methyl or ethyl. However, inorganic mercury released from ethyl mercury may be the proximate toxic agent for kidney damage. Indeed, the suspected greater rate of release from ethyl mercury may explain why kidney damage, if any, occurs only at the later stages of intoxication from methyl mercury.

Source: Ethyl Vs. Methyl

Mock away all you like. I posted this so that others can see it is not a simple matter of ethyl mercury being transformed to lesser toxic organic or inorganic forms by gut flora blah blah blah...

So sick of these arguments made by people who want to inject people with garbage that doesn't belong in the human body.



Allowing yourself to be injected with the garbage put in a flu vaccine that's only about 23% effective is not a matter of chemistry or a matter of science. It's a personal decision.

You can argue (badly) about the specific ingredients in a vaccine until the cows come home but the simple fact remains that vaccines are extremely safe and very good at preventing harmful diseases.

Being a chemical-phobe will never change that fact.

a reply to: Petros312

What do you think is happening in this picture?



Hint: it's not the super soldier program.

I believe the problem is the flu is one of the diseases where the pathogen tends to have many mutations or varieties, so a vaccine for one type may not be effective for the other. Of course, I believe this doesn't apply to other vaccines, such as polio and smallpox.

"You totally should avoid vaccines. They're evil."
Sincerely,
Measles

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: soficrow

From your link....

People who receive flu vaccines year after year can sometimes show reduced protection

But yeah, encourage the spread of ignorance and increase the chances of people (especially the young and old) dying.....GJ!

Wow! Did you even read the OP or follow the links? Obviously you didn't or you would of realized these studies were done by reputable clinics and facilities. Talk about an unfounded knee-jerk reaction to a headline. Get a grip and actually put some effort into understanding the topic before commenting.

originally posted by: Pardon?
You can argue (badly) about the specific ingredients in a vaccine until the cows come home but the simple fact remains that vaccines are extremely safe and very good at preventing harmful diseases.

A "simple fact" ??? Vaccines are "extremely safe" and "very good" at preventing a disease like the flu?

Increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine

We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.8). Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses.

Would you be interested in a vaccination that results in more than 5 times as much illness?



How about this: Study finds flu shot really did make people sicker

TORONTO – A strange vaccine-related phenomenon spotted at the start of the 2009 flu pandemic may well have been real, a new study suggests. Canadian researchers noticed in the early weeks of the pandemic that people who got a flu shot for the 2008-2009 winter seemed to be more likely to get infected with the pandemic virus than people who hadn’t received a flu shot. Five studies done in several provinces showed the same puzzling and unsettling results. But initially research outside of Canada did not, and the effect was dismissed as “the Canadian problem.” Many people in the flu research and public health communities found the whole event unhelpful, and many rejected the findings. Some suggested if there was a problem, it might have been with the flu vaccine used in Canada, because the problem wasn’t seen elsewhere. But a new study suggests the findings may indeed have been real.

And regarding the replies above about all meds having side effects, in relation to the flu vaccine, you mean like this:
Guillain Barré Syndrome is #1 Side Effect of Vaccine Injury Compensations due to Flu Shots


You mean "side effects" like hyperactivity, sinusitis, allergy, hayfever, asthma, chronic bronchitis, and neurodermatitis?

The results of our survey with currently 13753 participants show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases than vaccinated children.

source: health better in unvaccinated children



Doesn't look either "extremely safe" or too particularly "effective" to me. And accusing ME of scare tactics? I'm waiting for the local Walgreens to put up one of those CDC flu distribution maps as advertisement for the vaccine, like they've done for the past several years right around this time.

ATTENTION!!

Discuss the topic.

Not each other.

If you can not refrain from doing so after this warning, you WILL have your post removed and Post Bans will be handed out.

Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: Pardon?
You can argue (badly) about the specific ingredients in a vaccine until the cows come home but the simple fact remains that vaccines are extremely safe and very good at preventing harmful diseases.

A "simple fact" ??? Vaccines are "extremely safe" and "very good" at preventing a disease like the flu?

Increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine

We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.8). Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses.

Would you be interested in a vaccination that results in more than 5 times as much illness?

How about this: Study finds flu shot really did make people sicker

TORONTO – A strange vaccine-related phenomenon spotted at the start of the 2009 flu pandemic may well have been real, a new study suggests. Canadian researchers noticed in the early weeks of the pandemic that people who got a flu shot for the 2008-2009 winter seemed to be more likely to get infected with the pandemic virus than people who hadn’t received a flu shot. Five studies done in several provinces showed the same puzzling and unsettling results. But initially research outside of Canada did not, and the effect was dismissed as “the Canadian problem.” Many people in the flu research and public health communities found the whole event unhelpful, and many rejected the findings. Some suggested if there was a problem, it might have been with the flu vaccine used in Canada, because the problem wasn’t seen elsewhere. But a new study suggests the findings may indeed have been real.

And regarding the replies above about all meds having side effects, in relation to the flu vaccine, you mean like this:
Guillain Barré Syndrome is #1 Side Effect of Vaccine Injury Compensations due to Flu Shots


You mean "side effects" like hyperactivity, sinusitis, allergy, hayfever, asthma, chronic bronchitis, and neurodermatitis?

The results of our survey with currently 13753 participants show that unvaccinated children are far less affected by common diseases than vaccinated children.

source: health better in unvaccinated children



Doesn't look either "extremely safe" or too particularly "effective" to me. And accusing ME of scare tactics? I'm waiting for the local Walgreens to put up one of those CDC flu distribution maps as advertisement for the vaccine, like they've done for the past several years right around this time.

Yep, a simple fact.
Your first link only took me to an article which was someone's explanation for it. Someone who is not exactly bias frr.
I found a direct link to the study so it's unambiguous.
Please read it.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Surprisingly (well not surprising at all, typical anti-vax misrepresentation) the study DOESN'T say you are 5.5 times more likely to get an infection at all.
Discussion
"In the prepandemic period of our study, we did not observe a statistically significant reduction in confirmed seasonal influenza virus infections in the TIV recipients (Table 3), although serological evidence (Supplementary Appendix) and point estimates of vaccine efficacy based on confirmed infections were consistent with protection of TIV recipients against the seasonal influenza viruses that circulated from January through March 2009 [16]. "
And it's far from conclusive, in fact it's shows correlation NOT causation.
"Additional work is required to more fully characterize temporary nonspecific immunity overall and in specific groups, such as children. Animal studies [44–50] and volunteer adult human challenge studies [51] could provide useful evidence. Additional community-based observational cohort studies and community-based experimental studies, such as our vaccine trial, may be particularly suitable for investigating temporary nonspecific immunity, because most acute URTIs do not require medical attention."

In your link "Study finds flu shot really did make people sicker" the body of the text actually doesn't say that at all.
(HINT don't just read the headlines).
What it said that although they were vaccinated against a specific subset of flu viruses, they caught a different one, a pandemic virus which MAY have made them more susceptible.
"Skowronski likened the mechanism to what happens with dengue viruses. People who have been infected with one subtype of dengue don’t develop immunity to the other three. In fact, they are more at risk of developing a life-threatening form of dengue if they are infected with one of the other strains.

Skowronski called the second theory the infection block hypothesis. Having a bout of the flu gives the infected person antibodies that may be able, for a time, to fend off other strains; flu shots only protect against the strains they contain. So under this theory, people who didn't have flu in 2008 because they got a flu shot may have been less well armed against the pandemic virus."

"Compensation due to flu shots."
First of all, a court of law isn't a repository of medical science.
If your lawyer is better than the other one you will win, irrespective of the real evidence.
That out of the way, how many flu shots have been administered over, say the last 5 years?
Millions?
Millions and millions?

How many cases are presented in your link?
Hundreds? Thousands?
No.
27.
Whilst that's still too many it's a miniscule percentage isn't it?

Try getting information from several sites other than the one which have "vaccineinjury" in the title as they're a little bit shy in giving the full facts.
Your last link is probably the most dishonest one you've posted.

It was a survey.
A survey sent out by an homeopath to his patients and their friends.
Just from that alone it's obvious what the result is going to be (bed-wetting??? Seriously???).
That's not science.
This is science though.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
"Conclusion

The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status."

Go and talk to a real doctor about it rather than "doing your research" via Google.