Adjuvants.

a reply to: rickymouse

For the third time already, at what dose? Cite your claim.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: rickymouse

For the third time already, at what dose? Cite your claim.

I kind of stated that it depends on your metabolic condition. For some people who cannot excrete the metal correctly do to lacking enzymes it would be a lot less needed. If you can make enzymes well, then it is no problem. If you don't detox sulfur compounds well because of genetic restrictions caused by variances in the suox gene or the MOCS genes, then you may have more problems with the sulfur in it.

Some people will handle a flu shot well, others may have problems with the shot. The intolerance to the adjuvants in some vaccines is well noted at official CDC sites and also at the manufacturers sites. If you have a reaction to the adjuvants you should not take any vaccines that have that adjuvant in them. They say a person can actually take the live flu vaccine up the nose in this case, but there is no way I am sticking a live weakened virus up my nose.

So I can not answer your question. All I can say is that if you have a reaction to a vaccine, don't take the vaccine again. They say this in official literature supplied by many medical and pharma sites. My knowledge comes from many sites, I researched this subject to try to figure out why I cannot get a flu shot and also why my one daughter and grandkids can't. This intolerance has been orally verified by many doctors throughout the years. We were verbally advised not to take the flu shot.

a reply to: rickymouse

So you are refusing to state the dose at which it is toxic? How can you claim it's toxic in vaccines, then?

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Pardon?

If you read all of my post, not just parts of it you want to discredit, you will see that I address that I am not attacking vaccines but just note that the aluminum is not cleared by some people and the buildup can cause an overreaction to some people. The Aluminum compound is in the vaccine to stimulate a reaction to the vaccine. This way they can get a better result. Note that I point out I can get a bad reaction to Alum.

Read the PubMed link, that link addresses the adjuvants too. Now if you want to put yourself into a bubble and say that all evidence that does not fit your beliefs is wrong, I guess there is nothing I can do to help open your eyes. If you believe that any article that goes through Natural News is wrong, I guess you are a fool. Sure some evidence is misinterpreted is in Natural News, but I see more misinterpretation in Pharma than anything. I have seen many medicines removed because of extreme side effects. With Bextra my BP shot through the roof. The doctors panicked. That was not a listed side effect when I got it prescribed. It was removed because of that side effect, how many people did that kill.

Here is a quote from Wiki: en.wikipedia.org...

On September 2, 2009, the United States Department of Justice fined Pfizer $2.3 billion after one of its subsidiaries, Pharmacia & UpJohn Company, pled guilty to marketing four drugs including Bextra "with the intent to defraud or mislead."[4] Pharmacia & UpJohn admitted to criminal conduct in the promotion of Bextra, and agreed to pay the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter, $1.195 billion.[5] A former Pfizer district sales manager was indicted and sentenced to home confinement for destroying documents regarding the illegal promotion of Bextra.[6][7] In addition, a Regional Manager pled guilty to distribution of a mis-branded product, and was fined $75,000 and twenty-four months on probation.[8]

I just quit the pill, the doctors had no knowledge that Bextra was actually doing this at the time.

So you are saying that Pharma companies never misrepresent anything.

Most medicines are removed silently from the market, replaced with a different drug after they discover the side effects.

I read your post.
And I read the articles you're using to back up what you've written.
The articles are bad science.
If you actually take time to read them thoroughly you'll see there's no actual research in them at all. They're a mish-mash of other studies and research.
So I'm not in a bubble and sorry, I don't do belief.
With that in mind it stands to reason that the rest of your post will be wrong too.


The vaccine mention was because those two citations are commonly regurgitated on anti-vax sites.

And no, I haven't said that any post on (Un)natural news is wrong, just that it's not very credible.
Which it isn't.
Nor is Greenmedinfo.
So please don't try to make out I've said something I haven't.
That's not a good trait.

a reply to: GetHyped

Show me where I said it was toxic in vaccines.

Not one sentence out of context either.

a reply to: Pardon?

Easy for you to say, you live in the UK. How many vaccinations do they require there?

You won't accept summations, you want to see all the research they used to make the summations?

a reply to: rickymouse

You decided to reply to a post of mine that wasn't even directed at you and now you're backing down on bringing facts to the table?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: rickymouse

You decided to reply to a post of mine that wasn't even directed at you and now you're backing down on bringing facts to the table?

Show me where I said it was toxic. I do not try to defend myself against things I did not say.

a reply to: rickymouse

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: rickymouse Aluminum phosphate is, as you've written, a neurotoxin

originally posted by: GetHyped

At what dosage? Mentioning toxicity without dosage is meaningless. But then again, you are the master of lies and misinformation so no surprise there.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: GetHyped The dose would be relative to how you excrete the aluminum. If your body doesn't take it out right, then it could be worse. Remember though that there is also some sulfur chemistry in these adjuvants and the sulfides can cause problems with some people too.

So, for the fifth time, at what dosage?

a reply to: GetHyped

But my original article never said it was a neurotoxin.

The fact is that Aluminum if it is built up in the body is a neurotoxin as stated by inverselookingglass is not wrong though. I cannot say it is a misconception because it is a neurotoxin. If our bodies work correctly they excrete it, but I would estimate from looking at the genetics statistics of people that about a quarter of people have deficiencies in the ability to rid the body of aluminum. They can slowly detox the metal, but adding more than they can eliminate causes problems.

Mountain climbers will go get the aluminum chelated out of their bodies sometimes because of constantly cooking in aluminum which is a light weight metal to cook on. Alum delivers way more active aluminum to the diet than cooking with aluminum pots, pans, and tinfoil though. That has been well tested. I am not afraid of a pickle with Alum in it, but I do not indulge and I get very sick from flu shots.

Here is an article that explains the neurotoxic effects of Aluminum. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Nobody can guess how much a person can handle, it depends on your dietary intake of Aluminum. It depends on the bodies ability to eliminate it in urine or feces. Your ability to excrete it depends on what you consume. But even then, enzymes which are controlled by genetic factors can raise risks for some people.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Pardon?

Easy for you to say, you live in the UK. How many vaccinations do they require there?

You won't accept summations, you want to see all the research they used to make the summations?

Yes please.
(Although I already have, which is why I made my original statement. Here's the full version vaccinesafetycouncilminnesota.org... .pdf just in case you haven't read it yourself).

Cherry-picking research studies to "prove" an already decided conclusion is not science.
Science does it the other way around.

Also be mindful of the difference between aluminium in its metallic, elemental form which isn't in any adjuvants and aluminium salts which are.
They both have very different physiological properties.
(For reference look at sodium in its metallic, elemental form and sodium salts.)

And what's living in the UK got anything to do with anything?
Science is global, in fact, universal.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: GetHyped

But my original article never said it was a neurotoxin.

The fact is that Aluminum if it is built up in the body is a neurotoxin as stated by inverselookingglass is not wrong though. I cannot say it is a misconception because it is a neurotoxin. If our bodies work correctly they excrete it, but I would estimate from looking at the genetics statistics of people that about a quarter of people have deficiencies in the ability to rid the body of aluminum. They can slowly detox the metal, but adding more than they can eliminate causes problems.

Mountain climbers will go get the aluminum chelated out of their bodies sometimes because of constantly cooking in aluminum which is a light weight metal to cook on. Alum delivers way more active aluminum to the diet than cooking with aluminum pots, pans, and tinfoil though. That has been well tested. I am not afraid of a pickle with Alum in it, but I do not indulge and I get very sick from flu shots.

Here is an article that explains the neurotoxic effects of Aluminum. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Nobody can guess how much a person can handle, it depends on your dietary intake of Aluminum. It depends on the bodies ability to eliminate it in urine or feces. Your ability to excrete it depends on what you consume. But even then, enzymes which are controlled by genetic factors can raise risks for some people.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Here's the follow-up to that one.
www.medstat.hu...

And here's a nice summary of the minuscule doses of aluminium found in vaccines as adjuvants as opposed to your original study which states, without definition or quantification that "children will receive...HIGH amounts of Al adjuvants through vaccinations".
So not only are they fitting research to their conclusion, they are lying in their premise for it.
Double bad.

Would you like me to dissect it even further?

And please provide these genetics statistics which show a propensity of not being able to excrete sufficient aluminium.

a reply to: Pardon?

Here is an article about aluminum's effect on gene expression. www.vaclib.org...

Now, if the aluminum salts have no effect on the body and immune system why do they bother using them? en.wikipedia.org...

The salts of metals are more bioavailable then the metals themselves many times. Look at mineral pills. They use salts to deliver the metals properly to fuel the desired reactions. Cobalt does us no good in the metalic form. It needs to be in a special form of salt. Iron needs to be in an organic compound to be absorbed, some people absorb too much iron. That is called hemochromosis. Aluminum is not a good metal to start adding to our diet and injected into our body.

Harmless? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Quote from this....The findings suggest a possible role for the aluminum adjuvant in some neurological features associated with GWI and possibly an additional role for the combination of adjuvants.

I don't pay much attention to what you say, you believe that anything created by pharma companies is safe yet their own sites talk about people's adverse reactions to aluminum adjuvants, which you seem to ignore.



This would fall under the genes that control xenobiotic breakdown I think.

a reply to: Pardon?

From an offshoot regarding aluminum in vaccines from your own listed link.

translate.google.com... aluminium

Read the whole thing now, not just what you want to see.

a reply to: rickymouse

I think the main issue with this post is that pubmed article. Not all research and science is created equally, and Shaw/Tomlejnovic are both well known for their anti vaccine propaganda studies. Unfortunately, the information you're regarding as real here, is largely fabricated with that agenda in mind, and pub med is not a peer reviewing journal. This is a pretty good blog post
About how to evaluate scientific evidence. I firmly believe that if there was legitimate evidence that these adjuvants were dangerous, immediate action would be taken. The point is, that current evidence has weighed the risks and determined vaccines reasonably safe, and aluminum is merely the flavor of the week. Autism is a complicated condition, but the biggest factor in the increasing rates of autism diagnosis is that the DSM diagnostic criteria changed. Another, is that people are having children later in life than they were before. It's more likely genetic than environmental.

I'm comforted by the fact that California is well on it's way towards mandating vaccines for children in public schools (allowing for medical exemptions only). But, I believe it wouldn't have been necessary to mandate if there wasn't so much profit motivated, scare mongering misinformation being spread. I understand that autism profoundly impacts folks lives, but there's no point in continuing to blame something that has been as vindicated as possible through modern scientific means. It's come to the point where there are no legitimate, fact based, anti vaccination arguments anymore. It's all heated, emotionally charged, propaganda. That propaganda is endangering folks, so state governments are taking prophylactic measures to mitigate the potential risks here. The good news is though, that those who still choose to not vaccinate won't be forced to, but they won't be able to go to public schools, which pretty much was the main concern I had.

a reply to: hearows

I am not saying the Aluminum compounds in vaccines are bad for everyone, just those who cannot rid the body of it. There could be many reasons for a person not being able to rid it. Natural chelating foods might not be consumed that stimulate their excretion. The reason these foods may be being avoided is because the person cannot tolerate much sulfur in their diet. This could be because of a reduction in creation of an enzyme, either because they are overconsuming something that shares this enzyme or a deficiency in the minerals that make the enzyme. A reduction could also be caused by a genetic variant on a gene that is used in creating the enzyme.

There are a lot of reasons for aluminum to be a problem for people. This may only effect ten to twenty percent of the population.

I spent a lot of time researching adjuvants, and most times they are not harmful to most people. Caffeine is an adjuvant, and some people cannot tolerate that at all if they can't break down the methyl correctly. There are many steps in most of the processes. Sugar even has adjuvant actions, so does alcohol.

I just went searching when challenged, I read a lot of articles from all over to form my oppinion and in my case I think that the aluminum compound is what causes my family problems. I am not talking about autism, I am talking about stimulating autoimmune issues. Even alum in pickles makes my grandkids sick all the time. I have avoided alum for over forty years. I actually forgot why I was avoiding it. My daughter bought a big bottle and they hauled my granddaughter to the hospital many times because it caused her asthma to get worse. One doctor just said, that could be a trigger and to avoid it. She lives with us now and has not got really bad anymore. She also gets a severe reaction to the flu shots, she is not supposed to get them anymore.

I am not against vaccines. The intolerance to adjuvants in a vaccine is noted on pharma sites, if it wasn't an issue for some people they would not be saying it is. Most vaccines containing the alum like compounds have something that says that you should not get it if your allergic to the adjuvant. But they do not actually tell you which adjuvant it is, you have to search all over to find out.

Now isn't information of side effects to the adjuvant at Pharma company sites relevant?

a reply to: rickymouse

Environmental aluminum wasn't discussed in any of the links provided in the OP. Nothing is 100% safe, and the logical fallacy that a treatment needs to be 100% safe and effective to be implemented doesn't make much sense. All medicine weighs risks carefully, and this hyper focus on a small population's potential sensitivity to an adjuvant (if it's even able to be proven, itself) in an otherwise useful vaccine is a waste of effort. This hysteria is making someone money, and unfortunately those "doctors" and proponents of the anti vaccine movement are taking advantage of folks real concerns for their children's safety.

They asked for more information. Information that, once provided, would refute the claims in the OP, or at least show adjuvants as they are, without the cherry picking and fear tactics commonly present in anti vac materials. The only way you can support your argument is to provide links to publications with known biases and anti vac shill doctors with less background in immunology than... What is it... I'm fairly certain their background is Opthalmology. Science is cooperative, and the best information available right now has stated the rewards of vaccination far outweigh the risks, and that the risks presented are relatively few. It's not that all information to the contrary doesn't exist, it's that the links cited in the OP contain no empirical facts which weigh the argument against standard vaccination procedure. Still, those with medical reasons not to vaccinated are able to do as such, and still are able to go to school safely, provided those taking a "philosophical" exemption are home schooled. There's nothing wrong with keeping a watchful eye on potential complications with vaccines, but there's currently no evidence to suggest that not vaccinating is a healthier alternative, morally and logically sound decision. Because, frankly, it isn't. But now folks are free to make that logically bankrupt decision in the privacy of their own spheres of influence without subjecting the necessarily unvaccinated to needless medical risks.

a reply to: rickymouse

I brought up autism because the pub med link in the OP was a study done by folks well known for their "vaccines cause autism" stance, and questioning overall safety of vaccinations. I'm saying that bad faith science is not relevant to any discussion.

Now, again, the subsequent information you linked was a wonky 90's style webpage talking about Alzheimer's, and yet another looking at the anthrax vaccine which came under scrutiny for the squalene adjuvant which, to my knowledge, would be more of a concern than something we come into contact rather regularly.

Nobody's arguing that some shouldn't vaccinate, many are well aware that there ate legitimate medical concerns for some not vaccinating, but these links don't happen to provide any support.

You're preaching to the convinced about the medical necessity for the immuno compromised not to vaccinate. The push to mandate vaccinations is to keep the immune compromised safe as possible via herd immunity, and these "philosophical" exceptions in public schools were creating unnecessary risk.

So, I don't take issue with your main assertion, I take issue with linking sources which are known for bad science. The OP did little but state the obvious and currently accepted medical fact, but slipping in anti vac nonsense rings all the hoax bells. It's a shakedown, and it's a shame to include information from profit hungry opportunists when you could have just as readily used ANY other source to assert your point.

a reply to: hearows

I tried finding research to back what they are saying that the vaccines are safe. I couldn't find one research article that actually said they were safe for everyone. Not one. Yet so many people are saying they are completely safe for everyone, except of course the doctors who tell you not to take the vaccine anymore after you had a bad reaction to it.

I have read hundreds of articles on both sides of the issue on vaccines. The ones that say they are safe do not say they are safe for everyone. They do not lie, but people do not understand that some people cannot take vaccines for a reason. That is why I started this thread. I am not an anti-vaxer. My wife and youngest daughter do well with the flu shot, but they do get the flu often. My other daughter and her kids, from my first wife, don't get the flu, and they have went in many times being sick but the test for flu was negative. I think that their bodies might throw an immune response as soon as the sense it. When my wife gets the flu it lasts a week, verified flu by the test at the doctor many times. I get mildly sick maybe for a day. Now the immune system blocking incorporated into my AED drugs when I was taking them made me get very sick sometimes. I have not been sick since quitting them. Why they stick immune suppressors in epilepsy drugs I do not understand. I won't take any long term med ever again, I can research the basis of the medications and correct the problem on my own. All the medications are easy to hack once you read many thousands of articles on how the basic classes work.

The articles I listed said nearly the same thing as the official articles I have read in the past. In fact, they explained it in better way that common people with limited knowledge of medical terminology could read the research articles. I find many misinterpretations of research going on and these misinterpretations are actually accepted a lot by the medical field. So the reason I do not supply technical research is because it intimidates a lot of people. If I find an article that explains simply what is about right, I would rather post that because people misinterpret research articles all the time and do not read all the parameters of the research to know what it applies to.

So maybe I will just keep what I know to myself from now on.

a reply to: rickymouse

That's the thing though. It's an accepted fact that there is an inherent risk for a small population to not be tolerant to vaccinations. Those individuals are coached not to take the vaccine, and legislation would never require those individuals to take the vaccine. The safety that folks are expressing is relative, it's safer than the diseases they protect against, for all but those few individuals who are intolerant to vaccinations. Few medicines which are effective are 100% safe. Aspirin, for example, is considered safe, even for infants and animals in tiny doses, but for some small population it can cause a devastating reaction. But, when a fever needs reduced, the potential for a reaction is so small that many will use it, unless they've had a reaction before. Same with antibiotics, etc, the list is long. It's unfortunate that you're among the folks who are reactive to vaccines, and you should take your docs advice on the relative safety for you.

The reason there's so much push to discuss the safety of vaccines is because many are not gauging their personal risks successfully, and are being misled by bad science docs to believe that vaccines are more dangerous than they really are. Modern medicine is well aware of your condition and others like it, and take appropriate steps, as your doctor likely told you not to take other vaccines after reacting negatively to one. But your condition is extremely rare, negative side effects of vaccines are still extremely rare, so it's still better to vaccinate and take the relatively tiny risk of a bad reaction, vs potentially contributing to the degradation of the human race's defenses against known maiming, deadly, and ultimately preventable diseases.

Folks are fairly likely to get killed in a car accident, but the convenient transportation is still worth the risk, every choice is about weighing risks, and the risks for vaccines are relatively low compared to the risks of these diseases becoming prevalent again. You'll never find a study to say they're 100% safe for everybody, because they aren't, and folks tend to speak in black or white language but I imagine if you went back and read some of the threads about vaccines you'll find many mentions on both sides about those who are unable to vaccinate for medical reasons, especially since much of the current vaccination legislation in the works is designed to protect folks like you who cannot safely vaccinate.