July 28, 2019 8:22 am at 8:22 am #1765996
You are absolutely right. I myself am a healthcare professional and have been involved in multiple research studies. That is NOT how a study should be done, as the results will not yield good accuracy.
Out of all the people that I know who got the vaccine, most of them WERE vaccinated. Thus, if someone has an unvaccinated individual in their class, they technically should NOT be worried, as they had the vaccine 🙂
While actual cause and effect between vaccines and specific illnesses have not been confirmed yet with studies, foreign chemicals entering your body cannot be to good for you. How about taking a roll of heavy duty aluminum foil, cutting it up and eating it? I am pretty sure the average person woupd not do this. These heavy metals are probably not the best for you.
By the way, I am fully vaccinated, but if I would be due for another in the future, I probably would not get it!July 28, 2019 8:42 am at 8:42 am #1766011
“foreign chemicals entering your body cannot be to good for you. How about taking a roll of heavy duty aluminum foil, cutting it up and eating it?”
Lol!! Every “Healthcare professional” has been wondering that same thingJuly 28, 2019 8:53 am at 8:53 am #1766029
PracticalPost – so intersting. You are a young adult who cant sit still asking a 22 year old guy if he has available friends and are also a health professional who has been involved in multiple research studies. ..July 28, 2019 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm #1766109
Have been involved in a few studies funded by federal and private grants and I also happen to want to eventually get married! No contradictions. Though the Coffee Room is a great way to spend a Sunday morning!July 28, 2019 4:18 pm at 4:18 pm #1766169
Letter from a PhD Immunologist on why unvaccinated pose no risk and how even 100% measles vaccination would not stop measles outbreaks due to the number of non-responders and mmr antibodies waning after several years:
An Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.
Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?
It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide.
You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement.
I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases.
People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.
1. IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus. (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces. Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.
2. Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.
3. While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.
4. The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis. The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding. 
Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.
5. Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f). These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #4). The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign. Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.
6. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.
In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is. No discrimination is warranted.
How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?
It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events.
Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science.
A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).
When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.
Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?
Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:
“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.” 
Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated. 
Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait.  The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA. 
Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%, see appendix for scientific studies, Items #6&7). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.
It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.  
Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases.
Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?
The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15.
Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.
Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism.
The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.
Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure (see appendix, Item #8).
1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all;
2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not risk-free;
3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and
4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases.
Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue risk to the public.
~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhDJuly 28, 2019 5:27 pm at 5:27 pm #1766204
Wow dooms, your cut and paste skills are quite professional. Do you pay someone to find you articles or is there a “pre-screened posts to cut and paste” website you all use?July 28, 2019 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm #1766206
First off, I really do not understand why you are still at it, after being exposed as twisting facts for your position, you have left us hanging at the other thread in the coffee room, you have been exposed as someone that is willing to twist the facts to support your position.
Second, a quick google search will direct you to a snopes and other sources that dismantle all of her work.
This is not new.July 28, 2019 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #1766217
2scents, you were the one exposed as a serial liar. I invite anyone wanting to know who was “exposed” to read the Vaccine Studies Thread.July 28, 2019 6:35 pm at 6:35 pm #1766220
Each of these points are facts. They are well researched and availabe online and scholarly journals. You just arent used to seeing them presented in this way.July 28, 2019 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #1766230
Ohhh, don’t worry, we’re plenty used to it.July 28, 2019 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm #1766238
I will tell you that 1 year ago, there was a large study conducted in NYU Oncology linking high presences of aluminum to certain diseases (not sure if the full study is available for viewing yet) Presented by one of the high honchos there. I know someone present during the study presentation who told me that he strongly encouraged that if using aluminum foil or pans, they should be lined with 1-2 layers of parchment paper due to free aluminum molecules absorbing into hot food. To reiterate, this was presented by a MEDICALLY TRAINED DR IN NYU…and there is an actual study to back it up!July 28, 2019 8:01 pm at 8:01 pm #1766234
Anyways, way too much hate is engendered with this topic…July 28, 2019 9:18 pm at 9:18 pm #1766274☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
2scents, you were the one exposed as a serial liar. I invite anyone wanting to know who was “exposed” to read the Vaccine Studies Thread.
Lol, not only are you a liar, you have a bad memory. You’re the one who was exposed as a fraud and a liar.July 29, 2019 1:09 am at 1:09 am #1766284
As DY pointed out, you simply lied here.
I urge anyone that is skeptical about this subject to take a look at that thread, especially the last two pages, dooms was left out to dry. The facts and the data are straightforward and stacked against the radical anti medicine position.
Practical, your posts do not make you seem like someone that is well educated and actually practices medicine.July 29, 2019 7:50 am at 7:50 am #1766321
All because someone does not share your views, it does not make them less or more knowledgeable. But thanks for giving in your 2 cents.July 29, 2019 8:53 am at 8:53 am #1766347
True, but not 2scents didnt say you were less or more knowledgeable (though obviously half of that statement is true) 2scents said that your posts “do not make you seem like someone that is well educated and actually practices medicine” which is unquestionably true .
The comparison between ingesting ” a roll of heavy duty aluminum foil, ” to the minute amount contained in some vaccines (note live attenuated vaccines like MMR generally contain no aluminum while interestingly many foods including human milk does) can not be made by someone either well educated nor a “Healthcare professional”
Tell me healthcare professional to healthcare professional. I have a patient who needed a blood transfusion, I figured hey whats the difference between how we get it in him let him just drink the blood. another patient I figured lets inject him with some health veggies again, using the same logic (I pureed them of course ) none of these patients are doing well, did any of the studies you’ve been involved in uncover why?
thanksJuly 29, 2019 9:00 am at 9:00 am #1766351Some Common SenseParticipant
again you ignore my comment and in that this, as frum jews, is a matter of Halacha. Clearly, you feel that you are a medical professional able to argue and disagree with the far majority of medical professionals in the country.
Again, what is your halachic basis for not getting your vaccination and who is the Gadol that you rely on?July 29, 2019 9:55 am at 9:55 am #1766373
My point was not about a specific vaccines aluminum content, rather the overall idea that vaccines obviously contain different elements that are not healthful to the body. Even though these amounts may be small, they have multiplicative effects with what ever other garbage is in our environment. Also, have you checked the vaccine schedule lately? I happen to be fully vaccinated but while the Al content may be relatively small in 1 vaccine, if you are getting 90-100 vaccines (which are usually done in large groups), even excluding the live attenuated ones, many have aluminum or other harmful components.
BTW, It seems like people on this thread have a tendency to misconstrue. I said that I am in the healthcare field, not someone who practices medicine.
Also, all because you do not love what I am saying, does not make what I am saying less true.
Although mother’s milk does have a bit of aluminum and it has been shown to have significantly LESS aluminum than certain vaccines. I can provide links to scholarly journals if you would like! There are many studies regarding that, that are not pro or anti vaccine, they are neutral studies just reporting occurrences. Additionally, due to moms nutrients being passed to the baby, moms who ingest more aluminum with have more aluminum in their milk. Same logic for why many meds cannot be used during pregnancy/nursing, due to passing it on to infant-which I am SURE you understand as a healthcare professional.
And regarding blood transfusions-due to longer time of absorption, it would be unwise for someone to drink blood. It is quite a circuitous route from the mouth to the bloodstream. Unless you want the person to pass out, infusion is the better way to go. Veggie infusion wouldn’t help as some components are more naturally and abundantly found in blood; the veggies nutrients then have to be “digested”. This is all basic physiology, so please check your facts.
My intention is not to be argumentative, while some is opinion, what is written above are physiological facts-nothing we have control over-that’s how G-d designed the body.July 29, 2019 10:01 am at 10:01 am #1766359
“All because someone does not share your views, it does not make them less or more knowledgeable. But thanks for giving in your 2 cents.”
True, well said.July 29, 2019 10:32 am at 10:32 am #1766396
“. Even though these amounts may be small, ” … Although mother’s milk does have a bit of aluminum”
You need to make up your mind.
“if you are getting 90-100 vaccines ”
Is that more or less than the number of times a baby feeds?
If anyone is interested in learning more about aluminium in vaccines CHOP’s website has a great detailed rundown as to how much aluminum is contained in vaccines compared to formula, and milk
fun fact there is MORE aluminum in milk than in the MMR (the subject at hand) maybe to protect our children we should feed them MMR vaccines instead of milk?
” It seems like people on this thread have a tendency to misconstrue. I said that I am in the healthcare field, not someone who practices medicine.”
no, YOU tried to mislead, you label yourself as “a healthcare professional ” as if you are some expert. you didnt just throw it in haphazardly. It was the opening sentence of of a comment on one of your first day’s posting. Of course you were quickly called out, as it is clear you dont know what you are talking about
“Also, all because you do not love what I am saying, does not make what I am saying less true.”
You said that already. However what DOES make it less true is the fact that it is nonsense.
spare me the physiology lesson. Especially since again you dont know what you are talking about ” It is quite a circuitous route from the mouth to the bloodstream” There is no such route for red blood cells. The human GI tract does not contain any channel, transporter or mechanism to absorb red blood cells.July 29, 2019 10:34 am at 10:34 am #1766393
“Also, all because you do not love what I am saying, does not make what I am saying less true.”
now you’ve said it twice, but you imply that someone is saying you are not telling the truth (or is disagreeing) just because you oppose their view. I think that is a bit naive. Sometimes (as is the case here) posters aren’t disagreeing because they don’t love what you are saying. They disagree because they believe you are wrong.July 29, 2019 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm #1766537
I don’t have young children so I didn’t ask a Shayla. On the other thread, a parent said they asked THEIR Rov and were told Not to vaccinate.
Everyone has a right to ask their OWN Rov.July 29, 2019 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm #1766442
Btw over time, Al in moms milk decreases less than the first feeding with every subsequent feed. Also imagine moms milk plus other sources of aluminum (vaccines, environment) will have a multiplicative effect.
And regarding RBC, that’s exactly why drinking blood won’t help so you are just strengthening what was iterated, thank G-d I won’t have to do a study on that 🙂
And I don’t believe I presented myself falsely-all because I’ve done research and am interested in medical bits does not make me a doctor-which I don’t believe I presented myself as one. The same way everyone here is presenting their knowledge, irrelevant of working in the health field/being a medical professional or not.July 29, 2019 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm #1766485
Syag: I accept that-that is what a coffee room is all about.July 29, 2019 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm #1766506
Injecting a poison is Faaaaar more harmful then ingesting (eating) a poison. Hashem created protections against people eating poison – you vomit, get diarhea – where the body rapidly expels the poison. The body has no such protection against INJECTED poison which rapidly enters the bloodstream and can harm all the organs of the body, especially the DEVELOPING brain of babies.July 29, 2019 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm #1766510
Emotion has no place when it comes to science especially medical science. I hope that in whatever areas of health care you claim to be involved they do not practice based on what they love or because they happen to share some view.
Using authority as part of your argument, especially when the context of the argument is poor, undermines the argument.
I do invite you to take a peek at the otherwise very long thread in the coffee room about this topic, (something about vaccines studies that you might have missed). Some tried very hard to push an agenda against established medical science yet were unable to do so. In fact, they were exposed for being frauds (or maybe simply just posting from sites that are fraudulent).July 29, 2019 1:33 pm at 1:33 pm #1766698
“The same way everyone here is presenting their knowledge, irrelevant of working in the health field/being a medical professional or not.”
Again (for the last time since this is getting boring)
you commented in an attempt to defend Dooms, who has been thoroughly debunked and exposed as a liar “You are absolutely right. I myself am a healthcare professional and have been involved in multiple research studies”
you did not explain how or why you thought dooms was right. you slapped the label “healthcare professional” on yourself and paskened dooms correct.
you THEN went on to make an absurd comparison that Because eating a ” roll of heavy duty aluminum foil, ” is not something an average human would do, therefore MMR (the subject of the thread) causes illnesses.
Never mind the fact that MMR contains no aluminum, never mind the fact that eating and injecting (vaccines arent injected in the bloodstream btw) are not equivalent your whole comparison makes no sense. Strangely when I pointed out the absurd comparison, by comparing to injecting vegetables, what should have been obvious as nonsense, you took that seriously too, you similarly dsiplayed a lac k of understanding of elementary physiology “And regarding blood transfusions-due to longer time of absorption, it would be unwise for someone to drink blood. It is quite a circuitous route from the mouth to the bloodstream.” When your lack of understanding was pointed out you bizzarley claimed ” you are just strengthening what was iterated, ”
Yo u win
I thought conversations on vaccines could not possibly get any dumber. I was absolutely wrong. congrats you have succeeded in lowering my incredibly low expectations for anti-vaxxers ie pro-dieasers .July 29, 2019 1:33 pm at 1:33 pm #1766779
With regards to aluminum,
First off, by adding more of a substance, it does not multiply, it just adds. So it does not have a “multiplicative” effect on the child.
The mechanism that Dooms mentions such as vomiting and diarrhea are not therapeutic for someone that ingested something with aluminum. Is there any data comparing parenteral vs enteral routes for aluminum toxicity that would validate your claim?
From CHOPs website:
Given the quantities of aluminum we are exposed to on a daily basis, the quantity of aluminum in vaccines is miniscule. Aluminum-containing vaccines have been used for decades and have been given to more than 1 billion people without problem. In spring 2000, the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) reviewed aluminum exposure through vaccines and determined that no changes to vaccine recommendations were needed based on aluminum content. The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, part of the World Health Organization (WHO), has also reviewed studies and found no evidence of health risks that would require changes to vaccine policy.July 29, 2019 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #1766849
Ubiq – FAKE NEWS! Are you living in the dark ages? I heard on Art Bell (or maybe the snopes news website) I heard there is REAL scientific evidence that the appendix has a special nerve that connects the GI to the bloodstream and most of the chemicals that get injected into the intramuscular veins go DIRECTLY there. Which, of course (!!) explains why appendix rupture so often. Obviously because of all the toxins that they have to process. So that pretty much validates the claim that those aluminum balls you used to chew on in grade school went DIRECTLY to the cortical blood brain barrier!July 29, 2019 2:10 pm at 2:10 pm #1766903
(I was in the mountains over the weekend with no internet so didn’t respond to your reply to me. )
I was really surprised with yout analogy about jumping out of a parachute.. how does this compare to vaccines.. and you are writing that there is so many studies affout “efficiency” who asked about effiencey we wanted to know Safety.
I think this whole post is getting to cno where because there is a bunch of confusion here.
when 2 people disagree we first need to know
1) what are we each agreeing to each others
2) and what parts are we disagreeing
so that we can have a normal communication about those points that we Disagree and why.
so lets find the parts that we do agree first.
As far that i understand “everyone agrees” that vaccines is not something that is safe. It is something that can be harmful and CAN cause serius side affect and diseases. The question is only what percentage . is it 1 in a million or maybe 1 in a thousand.. ? do the beneifits of preventing the other diseses outway the risks of vaccines side affect.
But the main basis that vaccines can cause serius diseases everyone agrees to .
and i base this point on the fact that federal law probits manufactures from putting any side affects on their inserts unless they really think that the drug or vaccine is capable of CAUSING that disease .
Vaccine manuafactures list a whole list of diseases , including death , autisim, auto-immune, etc.
the only question is – what percentage does this happen to . do the benefits out-way the risks?
Do you agree with the above?
or you say that its TOTAL SAFE ?
(from many people commenting here , it seems that they look at it as if vaccines is like drinking water and people suspecting it on diseases and want to know how we know the safety of it … are total crazy. its just a consipiracy …. While in reality , no one says that this is safe. THe government only says that the Benefits of preventing other diseases out-way the risks )
please tell me if I am wrong with this statementJuly 29, 2019 2:57 pm at 2:57 pm #1766948Some Common SenseParticipant
I don’t have young children so I didn’t ask a Shayla. On the other thread, a parent said they asked THEIR Rov and were told Not to vaccinate.
Everyone has a right to ask their OWN Rov.
Again, you did not answer the question. the above statement makes it appear as you do not understand or know Halacha, Shas and Poskim because, if you did, you would know the when all Gadolim have all spoken and the far, far majority of medical professionsals (subject matter experts) have stated you are OBLIGATED to vaccinate, you must do so unless there is a danger to life and limb. What Germara, Shulan Aruch and Poskim allows you, as a FRUM Jew, to 1) state otherwise and 2) encourage people otherwise when same require you to follow the stated obligation (see end of Yoma and Halchos Yom Kippur)?
Question: which is more important – following Halacha or being an anti-vaxer?July 29, 2019 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #1766957
What is the definition of safe, is driving a car safe? is going to sleep considered safe?
Is drinking water safe?
Nothing is without risk, yet there is a certain level of risk that is considered to be totally safe.
So no, not everyone agrees that vaccines can cause serious disease more than anything else that we consider safe.
You also mention the federal law with regards to the inserts, while I am not familiar with such a law, why would you think that the inserts would contain potential side effects that are not associated with the vaccine at hand?July 29, 2019 3:01 pm at 3:01 pm #1767054
Why You Cannot Compare the Amount of Aluminum in Breastmilk to Vaccines.
Aluminum in vaccines is “safe” because, in the first six months of your child’s life, they will receive 4mg of aluminum in vaccines, but 10mg of aluminum through breastmilk.
Why this claim of safety is FALSE:
Breastmilk is ingested. Anything and everything ingested is subject to the gastrointestinal tract before it is absorbed into the bloodstream and ends up in other vital organs and tissues. The GI tract is an excellent barrier (when healthy) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that only 0.1-0.4% of aluminum ingested is actually absorbed.
Therefore, up to 99.9% of aluminum is not absorbed when ingested (through breastmilk or food), and is eliminated/removed from the body before it ever reaches the bloodstream.
Some math (using 10mg aluminum in breastmilk, and 0.4% for absorption rate):
(10mg aluminum) x (0.004 absorption rate) = 0.04mg
Conversion from mg to mcg = 40mcg total absorbed aluminum.
In contrast of course, most vaccines are injected.
The contents of an injected vaccine are not subject to the gastrointestinal tract. Aluminum, along with other ingredients, are injected intramuscularly in order to intentionally bypass the natural barriers of the body (skin, mucus membranes, etc. which exist to help to prevent absorption). Blood flows to and from our muscles, so the contents of a vaccine can enter the bloodstream rapidly. Therefore, absorption of aluminum via vaccine is 100%.
Now we can make an accurate comparison between absorbed aluminum via breastmilk vs vaccines, in the first 6 months of life:
Breastmilk: 40mcg (0.04mg) | Vaccines: 4000mcg (4mg)
Vaccines have 10x more aluminum ABSORBED then Breastmilk
Aluminum in vaccines is “safe” because it is quickly eliminated from the blood once injected.
Why this claim of safety is FALSE:
First, elimination from the blood does not equal elimination from the body. Depending on the individual, blood levels may drop as the aluminum becomes deposited in organs and tissues, or aluminum may get trapped at the injection site. Second, there is evidence from in vivo scientific research that once aluminum is injected via vaccine, it is not quickly eliminated from the blood. One study sought to measure the amount of aluminum eliminated from the body 28 days after injection. Urine and blood samples were taken daily. After 28 days, only 6% of the total aluminum injected had been eliminated. Blood levels demonstrated the persistence of aluminum as well.
“The blood concentration of aluminum was fairly steady from days 2 to 28 indicating a relatively constant absorption rate…”
According to what was found, up to 94% of the aluminum injected remains in the body (tissues, organs, and bloodstream), even 28 days post-vaccination. The study concluded at 28 days, so there’s no way to know how much longer it might persist in the blood, however studies have found that in rare cases, aluminum injected via vaccine can remain at the injection site for ten years.
Aluminum in vaccines is “safe” for healthy individuals.
Why this claim is FALSE:
NO SAFE LIMIT of injection for aluminum has ever been scientifically determined.
The claim that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is safe, based on a flawed comparison to the amount of aluminum in breastmilk, is not science. It’s a trick.
Part of this trick is allowing you to make the assumption that the amount of aluminum in breastmilk is safe and non-toxic. This is untrue. Any amount of biologically active aluminum that reaches the bloodstream can cause adverse effects. The degree and location of that effect will vary depending on the individual, however, it is known that chronic, low level exposure to aluminum accelerates brain aging and neurodegeneration.
The risk of injury from aluminum-containing vaccines is significant for adults as well as infants and children. Previously healthy adults are developing autoimmune diseases as their immune systems begin to attack the persistent aluminum which remains deposited in muscle tissue and slowly translocates to other organs and the brain. Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to know if you will be affected by a recent vaccination you received, as symptoms from vaccine-induced autoimmune disease may take months or years to manifest.
For more information, please listen to this presentation by aluminum toxicology expert, Dr. Exley, and watch the documentary, Injecting Aluminum.
You copy/pasted this directly from a website without crediting the website. Most future posts of this nature will be deleted -29
Sorry, thought you weren’t allowed to mention websites. It was from thinklovehealthy.comJuly 29, 2019 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm #1766986
“from many people commenting here , it seems that they look at it as if vaccines is like drinking water and people suspecting it on diseases and want to know how we know the safety of it … are total crazy. its just a consipiracy …. While in reality , no one says that this is safe. THe government only says that the Benefits of preventing other diseases out-way the risks”
Most people probably do not fall into this characterization.
Most people understand the idea of risk vs benefit and understand that the risk is minuscule compared to other acceptable risks.
In fact, most people understand that there are a number of different unrelated scientific bodies that have each researched the safety and the claims that were made, yet have determined that there is no basis to these claims.July 29, 2019 3:09 pm at 3:09 pm #1767067joeParticipant
Mostly agree but it should be noted that water is also toxic.July 29, 2019 3:11 pm at 3:11 pm #1767066
“(I was in the mountains over the weekend with no internet so didn’t respond to your reply to me. )”
thats ok. You weren’t missed. These arguments are a waste of time .
At least if you read the comments youd learn a thing or two but you cant be bothered “ubiquitin people haven’t forgottten . they didn’t care then to read all the nonsense that people are writing . (at least I didn’t)”
Youre mind is made up and all the facts and studies in the world will not change it. So why bother?
And the responses don’t even make sense. “and you are writing that there is so many studies about “efficiency” who asked about effiencey we wanted to know Safety.” I wrote efficacy. not “efficiency” (the reason why efficay is relevent, is that it explains why depriving chidren of these proven effective vaccines is unethical) those no true RCT could be done going forward, obviosuly this doesnt stop other studies but once doen they are no longer what the pro-diseasers want because reasons)
(to others commenting here be careful with drinking water, my FDA insert points out that drinking too much can cause hyponatrmeia leading to seizures and death, IT can be contaminated with bacteria leading to death, and of course if a person falls into a pool of it and doesnt know how to swim, you gussed it death, Iadvise my pateitns not to drink any water, sadly these patients are doing worse than the fellow I injected with vegtables and the person I transfused a unit of blood by having him drink it, once IVe learnt that parental and entaral modes of ingestion were the same)July 29, 2019 3:32 pm at 3:32 pm #1767077
“What is the definition of safe, is driving a car safe, is going to sleep considered safe?
Is drinking water safe?
Nothing is without risk, yet there is a certain level of risk that is considered to be totally safe ”
I agree that nothing is without risk, but its a risk that you know EXACTLY what the risk is and you can say confidently . This low risk is considered safe.
You know that water & sleeping is safe entirely , its nature …
you know that driving a car at speed limit , the risk is this much (PERCENT)… vs. if you speed on 85 then your risks are extremely higher.. and that might not be considerd safe
the point that all the pro-safety people are saying , that any medication that has side affect . the only way to know what the risk really is so that we can decide if this is considered safe. is by having a real long-term study that is vax vs unvaxed so that we can know the risk percentage.
however the problem with vaccines is that such safety studies were never made. Some vaccines monitored just for a few days.. no vaccine ever had a real placebo
so how do we know the risks? what made the governemnt decide that this risk is considered safe when they never made a way to measure the risks.
” why would you think that the inserts would contain potential side effects that are not associated with the vaccine at hand?”
because when someone says that its SAFE .. and you ask him about the side affects on the inserts… then it goes like .. yeh , its just the company trying to protec themselves against anything.. (i.e. choking hazard and don’t eat paint , etc. )
But this is not the case here. If the vaccine manufacture wouldn’t have known that vaccine can CAUSE this disease then they wouldn’t be allowed to put it there. so its not just to “protect” the company. This diseasse can be CAUSED by the vaccine . and back to my precous point “if you have no way of knowing the risk percentage – how can you say confidently that this is considered safe??? at most this is a wild guess . nothing substantial to it.( as its IMPOSSIBLE to know long-term affect of a medicine without testing)July 29, 2019 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #1767078
Some Common Sense – Again, everyone is entitled to follow THEIR Rov – even if a minority opinion.July 29, 2019 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #1767080
“Most people understand the idea of risk vs benefit and understand that the risk is minuscule compared to other acceptable risks.
In fact, most people understand that there are a number of different unrelated scientific bodies that have each researched the safety and the claims that were made, yet have determined that there is no basis to these claims.”
The problem is that these studies do not exsist. so most people have been misinformed. Becuase without a real placebo study over the long term (at least 4-5 years that is done for allmost all medicines ) it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the risk and wherer this is minuscule.
do you agree that without a placebo its impossible to know or you say that even without a real placebo the risk can be known.??? (by all other medicines everyone agrees that wihtout a real placebo or somehting that its risk have already been determined by testing against a real placebo , etc. its impossible to know the risk of side affects, so why should vaccines be different ? ) .July 29, 2019 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm #1767086
Vaccines have Serious Risks. That is a Fact. Congress and SCOTUS stated that “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe”. Vaccine inserts list adverse events following vaccination including seizures, paralysis (Guillam-barre), autism, encephalitis and death. Vaccine Court has paid $4 Billion in compensation.
Therefore, the government should not FORCE risk on others for the “greater good”.
As I quoted from a Harvard Immunologist – even 100% vaccination will NOT stop Measles outbreaks – as some people are “non-responders” and vaccine immunity wears off after several years. Measles outbreaks have occurred even where there is a 99% vaccination rate. So forcing the 2% who don’t vaccinate is a Bogus issue. It is not to “protect” because even 100% vaccination won’t stop Measles outbreaks. The point of forcing the 2% unvaccinated to Vax is to COVER UP the harm that vaccines are causing as there won’t be any healthy unvaccinated to compare.July 29, 2019 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm #1767091
when i said that i dind’t bother to read it , becuase ususlly its just comments flying back and forth withotu addressing the actual quesitons and its non-sense.
But of course I did research both parts of the story. I have read many pro-vaccines websites and experts. My mind is made up? not true. I am still debating what to do with my children for the new school year. My wife doesn’t want to send to the new homeschooling …
But i haven’t found a normal response on all of these website about the RCT.
You can’t deny the fact that there are thousands of children that right after they get vaccines something happens to them. (seisures, autisim, SIDS.. ) So how can you say that its safe without real placebo RCT (If not RCT at least vaxxed vs unvaxxed retroactively ) .
All you are saying that because the government says BELIEVE me that its safe without any studies to back it, i have to belive it ..
this is a ridicules argument that is never used for any medicine .
if you are saving 500 death (out of at LEAST 5 MILLION measels cases 60 years ago when medicine wasn’t so advanced), you need to know how many death , and other illenses you are causing against it.
Just becuase it Helps (efficacy) doesn’t mean that the benefits outway the risks. Just like you don’t give any other medicine witoout a long term safety study even when you know that it helps.July 29, 2019 3:46 pm at 3:46 pm #1767093
HealthyOpinion – thank you for pointing out that there are no PLACEBO safety studies for vaccines like there are for other drugs.July 29, 2019 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm #1767099The little I knowParticipant
You got a big problem. You are trying to push your theories, conspiracy based, and hope there are enough suckers out there to buy into them. No, the government did not proclaim vaccines as dangerous. At least stick with truth to base your argument. There is a reality here which I suspect you will deny. The current measles outbreak resulted from exposure, and this created a ruckus in locations where there are swarms of kids. It led to a huge spike in numbers of cases in heavily concentrated areas, with the predicted complications. With all your theory, we had statistically large numbers of people at risk. Public health officials need to address such issues from the theoretical view, where they look at the predictability of the illness. During an outbreak, the basis for their actions and policies changes.
No, I do not buy into a penny of your anti-vax theories, and neither do the overwhelming majority of rabbonim and scientists of all specialties. But what you are peddling is inapplicable during an outbreak, and I wish you and the rest of your ilk would just lay down the gauntlet till this all passes.July 29, 2019 3:57 pm at 3:57 pm #1767106
” You can’t deny the fact that there are thousands of children that right after they get vaccines something happens to them. (seisures, autisim, SIDS.. )”
huh? when did that become a “fact”?July 29, 2019 4:04 pm at 4:04 pm #1767112
“If not RCT at least vaxxed vs unvaxxed retroactively”
If you read my comments you would know such a study HAS been done see the Philippines study cited above.
And of course RCT blinded placebo trials have been done
starting with the early Salk POli vaccine
down to the MMR which this thread is about :
Frequency of true adverse reactions to measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. A double-blind placebo-controlled trial in twins. Lancet. 1986 Apr 26;1(8487):939-42.
There , now you have placebo studies. Satisfied? (Don’t worry I’m not holding my breath)
“All you are saying that because the government says BELIEVE me that its safe without any studies to back it, i have to belive it ..”
not once have I said that.
So not only don’t you bother to read comments I write, you put other words in my mouthJuly 29, 2019 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #1767120interjectionParticipant
“the only way to know what the risk really is so that we can decide if this is considered safe. is by having a real long-term study that is vax vs unvaxed so that we can know the risk percentage.”
Anti-vaxxers say they would even be okay with a retroactive study.
Here’s my own retroactive study.
The first routinely recommended vaccine was in 1917. The average life expectancy then was 48.4 years.
The vaccine schedule hasn’t changed much since the 1970s until today. Life expectancy in 1970 was 67.
Now that we’ve had a few decades of relatively the same vaccine schedule, life expectancy is up to 79 years.
I fear you will argue that it has nothing to do with vaccines because the only reason we are healthier is because of hygiene. Proper hygiene definitely plays a part but if vaccines were dangerous, considering that at least 90% of people follow the recommended schedule and the average life expectancy is increasing, it seems that vaccines are not a huge killer.July 29, 2019 4:15 pm at 4:15 pm #1767125
“If you read my comments you would know such a study HAS been done see the Philippines study cited above. ”
well doomsday already pointed out that 85 kids cannot be considered a control trial. are you disagreeing with that?
the other studies you mentioned I will have to look into it . you ddin’t mention it beforeJuly 29, 2019 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #1767134
Honest Opinion – the Vax vs UnVax study that Ubiquitin cites is a FRAUDULENT study as PhD Scientists have pointed out: It is the Philippines Study.
1. Only 85 Vaxxed kids which is Waaaaaaaaaaaay too small to show any autism which has a rate of 2%.
2. Philippine Vax schedule is Waaaaaaaaay less then CDC schedule. Only 625 mcg of aluminum vs 4,295 mcg aluminum in CDC schedule.
3. The study did not study HEALTH outcomes – only height/weight and test scores. So study did not look if vaxxed kids had more allergies, asthma, ear infections, seizures, diabetes etc. then Unvaxxed.
4. The study was not randomized and implied that vaccines make kids smarter. The reality is that the vaxxed kids had parents with higher income, more education, better food and water – and THAT is why the vaxxed kids scored higher on tests.
I pointed this FRAUD out numerous times, but the Vaccine Injury Deniers just ignore the FACTS and keep spewing Propaganda.July 29, 2019 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #1767132👑RebYidd23Participant
You’re not even considering the risks of increased hygiene.July 29, 2019 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm #1767150
interjection “Here’s my own retroactive study. The first routinely recommended vaccine was in 1917. The average life expectancy then was 48.4 years. The vaccine schedule hasn’t changed much since the 1970s until today. Life expectancy in 1970 was 67. Now that we’ve had a few decades of relatively the same vaccine schedule, life expectancy is up to 79 years.
I fear you will argue that it has nothing to do with vaccines because the only reason we are healthier is because of hygiene. Proper hygiene definitely plays a part but if vaccines were dangerous, considering that at least 90% of people follow the recommended schedule and the average life expectancy is increasing, it seems that vaccines are not a huge killer. ”
So let me rephrase it.
You agree to me that a placebo study is needed in order to determine risk.
BUT based on this whole calculation you say that since life expectency went up (based on average life ) then vaccines can’t be too bad . because even if hygenie helped (+ all medication for heart attack and cancer and phenomena,etc. ) the life expectency still went up … and you feel that its right to FORCE me as a parent to take this risk based on this calculation ????
are you really saying this???
can we please keep to logic and not just arguments for the sake of arguments.
I think that driving at 85 mph can’t be too bad , because life expectency went up . so it can’t be too dangerous. so now you can force me to drive at 85 mph or ..
- The topic ‘New York State is Denying Access to Education to Anti-Vaxer Students’ is closed to new replies.