Immunizations/Vaccinations

[sandgk]

Formaldehyde

Ethylene Glycol

2-Phenoxyethanol

Methanol

Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate

Tributyl Phosphate

Latex

In what proportions are such materials found in the vaccinations or immunization fluids. Proportion is the key thing here.
Very small levels of mercury compounds - to cite one example known or suspected as a problem - can raise the hackles. Particularly among parents whose child suffers a rapid and irreversible change called autism. But, I note that obvious bad actor isn't listed above.
So, in light of the compounds you did list I'd suggest that unless the levels employed are high it is once again back to risk assessment, favoring, on balance the use of vaccines or immunizations.

Just so you're aware, I shall clarify my use of the word "sound":

: exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience <sound scholarship>

: showing good judgment or sense <sound advice>

Thus you feel that you are well qualified to interpret the implications of these chemicals, their purported use in vaccines, and the danger they represent at the levels in which they are found in the same.

All but Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate (Borax) are involved in my industry.

Thus making abundantly clear that you don't make soaps, nor do you make certain glasses.

I have access to MSDS and such. While Borax I have played with at home.

Remember if it's safe to play with at home, it's safe to drop a microgram or two in your young'uns hiney.

All other ingredients can be found, but I don't have a working knowledge of them.

Well, for the most part the primary carrier ingredient will be H2O. But, let's take some of those ingredients you listed as carriers one by one.

I'll start with formaldehyde -

Formaldehyde

which we all know from biology class.

The levels of formaldehyde found in a broad range of vaccines can be found here: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Hot Topics: Formaldehyde

What I think is crucial is to put this into context ..

Levels in typical vaccines are max per dose < 0.1mg, sometimes they are at the <0.05 mg / dose level.
More critically, the level of formaldehyde naturally present in the body is 2.5 ug per ml of blood.
Given that the natural blood volume to body mass for an infant is in the 85 ml /kg body weight range this indicates a total blood volume of 1.02 liters for a 2 year old. (Which is an age at which some immunization or vaccination programs begin - thus the blood volume number would lead to the most conservative assessment of risk). Thus there is at least 2.5 mg of Formaldehyde present in the infant's blood already. Basically, in layman's terms, a dose rate of <0.1 mg formaldehyde means that you are not possibly increasing the temporary concentration of blood-borne formaldehyde by less than 4% of it's normal value.
If the immunization is performed at a very early age (2-months old to use CHOP's example) this means the increase in formaldehyde concentration that temporarily results is approximately 9%.
Given that this chemical is normally metabolized, I doubt this provides a significant risk.

Ethylene Glycol

Again, an obvious red flag, as we all know not to let our pets take that sweet drink. But that is at 100% concentration - or, if pre-diluted, around 40%.
How much is present then in vaccines?
Well, according to those irrefutable internet sources - none. And, in truth, if such were present it would have to be listed on an MSDS. I looked up several MSDS from Pharma giant GSK - for instance: their Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids, Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine. Ethylene Glycol, absent. At least one pro-vaccine horn-tooter decries Ethylene Glycol in vaccines as a complete and utter myth.
(Including a debunking of the likelihood that anti-freeze was a raw material of choice in manufacturing thimerosal - the aforementioned mercury based preservative).
When looking at GSK's site I could find not one MSDS listing such compounds as deliberately added ingredients.
So, at this point I've got to ask, which MSDS do you have that show TBP, Borax, Methanol or Latex to be present in a childhood vaccine? And, at what levels?

 

[muffler dragon]

In what proportions are such materials found in the vaccinations or immunization fluids. Proportion is the key thing here.

I don't know what the percentages are.
I know that amount is the key. I wouldn't say that proportion is.

Very small levels of mercury compounds - to cite one example known or suspected as a problem - can raise the hackles. Particularly among parents whose child suffers a rapid and irreversible change called autism. But, I note that obvious bad actor isn't listed above.

I didn't list mercury, because I don't have a sound knowledge of the health factors of mercury.

So, in light of the compounds you did list I'd suggest that unless the levels employed are high it is once again back to risk assessment, favoring, on balance the use of vaccines or immunizations.

I should ask, what would be your general understanding of the risk assessment of vaccinations.

Well, for the most part the primary carrier ingredient will be H2O. But, let's take some of those ingredients you listed as carriers one by one.

I'll start with formaldehyde -

which we all know from biology class.

The levels of formaldehyde found in a broad range of vaccines can be found here: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Hot Topics: Formaldehyde

What I think is crucial is to put this into context ..

Levels in typical vaccines are max per dose < 0.1mg, sometimes they are at the <0.05 mg / dose level.
More critically, the level of formaldehyde naturally present in the body is 2.5 ug per ml of blood.
Given that the natural blood volume to body mass for an infant is in the 85 ml /kg body weight range this indicates a total blood volume of 1.02 liters for a 2 year old. (Which is an age at which some immunization or vaccination programs begin - thus the blood volume number would lead to the most conservative assessment of risk). Thus there is at least 2.5 mg of Formaldehyde present in the infant's blood already. Basically, in layman's terms, a dose rate of <0.1 mg formaldehyde means that you are not possibly increasing the temporary concentration of blood-borne formaldehyde by less than 4% of it's normal value.
If the immunization is performed at a very early age (2-months old to use CHOP's example) this means the increase in formaldehyde concentration that temporarily results is approximately 9%.
Given that this chemical is normally metabolized, I doubt this provides a significant risk.


Again, an obvious red flag, as we all know not to let our pets take that sweet drink. But that is at 100% concentration - or, if pre-diluted, around 40%.
How much is present then in vaccines?
Well, according to those irrefutable internet sources - none. And, in truth, if such were present it would have to be listed on an MSDS. I looked up several MSDS from Pharma giant GSK - for instance: their Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids, Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine. Ethylene Glycol, absent. At least one pro-vaccine horn-tooter decries Ethylene Glycol in vaccines as a complete and utter myth.
(Including a debunking of the likelihood that anti-freeze was a raw material of choice in manufacturing thimerosal - the aforementioned mercury based preservative).
When looking at GSK's site I could find not one MSDS listing such compounds as deliberately added ingredients.

Good information. I'll try to look further into this and other information at a more opportune time.

So, at this point I've got to ask, which MSDS do you have that show TBP, Borax, Methanol or Latex to be present in a childhood vaccine? And, at what levels?

I don't have MSDS for vaccines. I can access MSDS for the chemicals themselves.

 

[muffler dragon]

I found this article. It is particularly interesting to me that it touches on both sides of the coin and offers up similar insights along with new ones.

FTR, I'm a Noachide when it comes to religion. For those who are unaware, this is essentially the path of the Gentile with regard to Judaism. Hence, the connection to the article. May it be worth the read:

The Ethics of Smallpox Immunization

 

[Mike80]

Not piling on Muff - rat shit is not good for you either, but the government allows a certain amount of it in your snickers bar.

what's a little rat shit between friends???

 

[sandgk]

I don't know what the percentages are.
I know that amount is the key. I wouldn't say that proportion is.

Proportion and amount per dose would be the synonymous in this context.

I didn't list mercury, because I don't have a sound knowledge of the health factors of mercury.

Quick summary - mercury - bad in the long term. Organo-mercury compounds like methyl mercury (which thimerosal is not) worse with repeated long term exposure. But, see below.

The role of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines has been - for the most part - eliminated in childhood vaccines, despite no firm evidence to confirm fears expressed by concerned parents, or the confirmation of any link to autism.
Thimerosal does remain in some vaccines given to adults or adolescents, it is used abroad and in some vaccines not on the normal regimen for childhood immunization / vaccination.

I should ask, what would be your general understanding of the risk assessment of vaccinations.

What CDC said, or what NIAID said will do for now. One good case in point. Measles - summarizing the data 1 in a thousand chance of death with the full blown disease. 1 in a million chance of serious or life-threatening complications from the vaccine. Said risks can be constrained by medical examination prior to vaccination.

Good information. I'll try to look further into this and other information at a more opportune time.

Your welcome - I think that if you go looking for what is actually out there, proof positive of what is in the childhood vaccines, then your search will bear fruit. Alternatively, if your search seeks to prove the presence of a particular component earlier listed, then you will run into the classic scientific problem: It is hard to impossible to prove a negative proposition.

I don't have MSDS for vaccines. I can access MSDS for the chemicals themselves.

Backtrack them from CDC's list - the GSK site I earlier linked has plenty of MSDS for their infant vaccines. You may also be able to get lists of the manufacturers and hence the portals to their MSDS by looking up data for licenses and registration with FDA.

The information is actually out there and is rarely hidden. You may have to "regsiter" with one site or another to gain access. I strongly suspect the information gleaned will, once again, not support fear of the trace components you earlier listed (whether due to their absence, or due to the actual low levels of some such components).

 

[buckeyefool]

Furthermore, sustenance is a necessity; vaccinations are not.

Well unless of course not getting the vaccination causes you to get sick and die.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What failure of vaccination causes one to get sick and die, exactly?

If I don't get vaccinated for TB does that mean I'm destined to get TB?

 

[muffler dragon]

Proportion and amount per dose would be the synonymous in this context.

How so? Are you going by 100% by weight?

Quick summary - mercury - bad in the long term. Organo-mercury compounds like methyl mercury (which thimerosal is not) worse with repeated long term exposure. But, see below.

The role of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines has been - for the most part - eliminated in childhood vaccines, despite no firm evidence to confirm fears expressed by concerned parents, or the confirmation of any link to autism.
Thimerosal does remain in some vaccines given to adults or adolescents, it is used abroad and in some vaccines not on the normal regimen for childhood immunization / vaccination.

Understood. I have found myself wondering though if the concoction of multiple vaccinations at a time has a different effect than when a single is used? Just voicing a thought I've had.

What CDC said

, or what NIAID said will do for now. One good case in point. Measles - summarizing the data 1 in a thousand chance of death with the full blown disease. 1 in a million chance of serious or life-threatening complications from the vaccine. Said risks can be constrained by medical examination prior to vaccination.

I do find it interesting that there are so many things set up with the administering of vaccines (such as the Vaccine Injury Table, and the organization that decides the cases).

It's that continuous balancing act that I've attempted to present and have read by others regarding the possibility of getting the disease that the vaccine is supposed to inhibit and the possible side effects to the vaccines. IMO, the latter would be more imminent if it came down to probability.

Your welcome - I think that if you go looking for what is actually out there, proof positive of what is in the childhood vaccines, then your search will bear fruit. Alternatively, if your search seeks to prove the presence of a particular component earlier listed, then you will run into the classic scientific problem: It is hard to impossible to prove a negative proposition.


Backtrack them from CDC's list - the GSK site I earlier linked has plenty of MSDS for their infant vaccines. You may also be able to get lists of the manufacturers and hence the portals to their MSDS by looking up data for licenses and registration with FDA.

The information is actually out there and is rarely hidden. You may have to "regsiter" with one site or another to gain access. I strongly suspect the information gleaned will, once again, not support fear of the trace components you earlier listed (whether due to their absence, or due to the actual low levels of some such components).

I went to the GSK site last night, and the MSDS were as I would expect except that 99% of the infant vaccines were labeled solely as non-hazardous ingredients. Now, in my line of work (and I have a rudimentary knowledge of how our MSDS are set up) an ingredient can be left off of an MSDS at >/= 0.5% by weight or >/= 1.0% by weight depending upon what type of material it is. All the MSDS at GSK outlined were the actual disease parts; not the list of non-hazardous materials. Given the time, I'm going to try to go to Merck, Wyeth and the other manufacturers to see if their MSDS are any more explicit.

I agree with your sentiments on investigation. Oftentimes, one can find what one wants to IF there is no regard for the entire picture.

On a side note, I was watching Chelsey Lately last night with my wife, and Jenny McCarthy was on there. I didn't realize that she was an advocate for an organization that I had not been aware of: Operation Rescue. My wife filled me in on the back story, and apparently, she is convinced (as many other testimonials will attest) that her child changed drastically after his/her immunizations. Apparently, he/she now has autism. I don't make the claim of the link as it's not a part of the Vaccine Injury Table, but the number of testimonials is rather staggering.
They also spoke of an alternative immunization schedule that I had not heard of, so I may try to check that out as well.

 

[muffler dragon]

Well unless of course not getting the vaccination causes you to get sick and die.

What failure of vaccination causes one to get sick and die, exactly?

If I don't get vaccinated for TB does that mean I'm destined to get TB?

As would be my response, BKB. Unfortunately, given the history of said poster in this thread, I'm not expecting much of an answer.

 

[MaxBuck]

Failure to be vaccinated increases one's likelihood of contracting the disease, but it certainly doesn't guarantee one will contract it. It's all a matter of probabilities, as I suspect just about everyone here knows.

Also probabilistically, failure of a substantial number of persons to be vaccinated decreases the likelihood that a disease can be eliminated from a population (polio being a primary example). The World Health Organization says it best:

Immunization against diseases of public health importance

The benefits of immunization

Vaccines - which protect against disease by inducing immunity - are widely and routinely administered around the world based on the common-sense principle that it is better to keep people from falling ill than to treat them once they are ill. Suffering, disability, and death are avoided. Immunization averted about two million deaths in 2002. In addition, contagion is reduced, strain on health-care systems is eased, and money is frequently saved that can be used for other health services.
Immunization is a proven tool for controlling and even eradicating disease. An immunization campaign carried out by the World Health Organization (WHO) from 1967 to 1977 eradicated the natural occurrence of smallpox. When the programme began, the disease still threatened 60% of the world's population and killed every fourth victim. Eradication of poliomyelitis is within reach. Since the launch by WHO and its partners of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in 1988, infections have fallen by 99%, and some five million people have escaped paralysis. Between 1999 and 2003, measles deaths dropped worldwide by almost 40%, and some regions have set a target of eliminating the disease. Maternal and neonatal tetanus will soon be eliminated in 14 of 57 high-risk countries.

The tremendous public-health success that vaccination has achieved only goes to underscore what a bad idea refusing such vaccination is. It also is very costly from a societal perspective, since remedial care is much more expensive than preventive care.

 

[Thump]

Muffler,

You're also hindering your childrens choices of occupation by not getting them vaccinated.

I'm almost positive that all military men and women, educators, medical professionals are required to be immunized.

 

[sandgk]

On proportion and mass per dose:

How so? Are you going by 100% by weight?

I'm going by the simple defintion of both terms.


On thimerosal?

Understood. I have found myself wondering though if the concoction of multiple vaccinations at a time has a different effect than when a single is used? Just voicing a thought I've had.

Not sure what relevance that unrelated question has to do with the absence of the on true red flag preservative (thimerosal) in US based childhood regimen vaccines.

I do find it interesting that there are so many things set up with the administering of vaccines (such as the [URL="http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/table.htm"]Vaccine Injury Table, and the organization that decides the cases).

Nobody is saying that bad things cannot occur. It is the incidence count of such bad eventualities that is important to risk assessment - not the fact that there is a remote chance of such happening, compared to a much less remote chance of infection among a non-vaccinated pool.

It's that continuous balancing act that I've attempted to present and have read by others regarding the possibility of getting the disease that the vaccine is supposed to inhibit and the possible side effects to the vaccines. IMO, the latter would be more imminent if it came down to probability.

Which is why I think we will remain on opposite sides of the argument. (Which is OK). Basically as I see it, you believe, all evidence presented to the contrary notwithstanding, that the risks from vaccines to your children are too great to bear. Even when the risk of death or long-term health impacts from said diseases in the young are greater per capita than the risks associated with the vaccine themselves. And, I think myself fair in this, providing side-by-side numbers, such as the 1 in 1,000 rates for Measles versus 1 in 1 million for the vaccine that back up my assertion. Can you make the same numerical comparison in a countervailing argument?

I went to the GSK site last night, and the MSDS were as I would expect except that 99% of the infant vaccines were labeled solely as non-hazardous ingredients.

It is worth mentioning for those viewing the thread what, at minimum, they should expect when reading an MSDS - specific chemical data for ingredients considered hazardous (flammable etc.) at >1%, and for specific ingredients at greater than >0.1% for carcinogens.
Manufacturers can disclose more, but not less than this information.
MSDS will list how to handle issues with hazards associated with the listed chemicals - but an MSDS is not a COA. It does not have to tell you what is present down to the ppm or ppb level.

Now, in my line of work (and I have a rudimentary knowledge of how our MSDS are set up) an ingredient can be left off of an MSDS at >/= 0.5% by weight or >/= 1.0% by weight depending upon what type of material it is.

See above, 0.1% for suspect or known carcinogens, 1% for known or identifiable hazardous ingredients (such as say ethyl alcohol). Those are also the rules in Oregon.

All the MSDS at GSK outlined were the actual disease parts; not the list of non-hazardous materials.

Bingo - no hazardous ingredients listed, in accordance with OSHA regulations. Now, what trace contaminants resulting from manufacture, or other intentionally added ingredients are present, and in what amounts?

Earlier you had listed five or more such suspected ingredients. Of those Formaldehyde is defused as well below levels that are considered toxic and an trace material that is readily metabolized. Ethylene Glycol has been busted as a myth.

Do you have substantial data from an independent (non-advocate) source that illustrates the levels, frequency and occurence of your other candidate chemicals of concern, TBP, Phenoxy-ethanol, Methanol, Borax or Latex as components in vaccines? An expanded version of this table, from the FDA, if you will.

Given the time, I'm going to try to go to Merck, Wyeth and the other manufacturers to see if their MSDS are any more explicit.

They are unlikely to be any more forthcoming - though there is no legal prohibition from manufacturers listing ingredients present below the 1% / 0.1% thresholds - and some do just that. What we can certainly say is that none of those ingredients (mostly preservatives - though I question the methanol and Latex assertions) are present above 1% b/w.

I agree with your sentiments on investigation. Oftentimes, one can find what one wants to IF there is no regard for the entire picture.

Happy hunting.

 

[buckeyes_rock]

Muffler has really peaked my interest. There are so many sites out there on the dangers of vaccines. Not as easy to find sites about the safety of them. Anyway, I found this article on MSNBC about the thimerosal issue. It says that it hasn't been used (other than the flu vaccine) in vaccines since 2001. And yet cases of autism continue to rise.

I've read other sites that think that thimerosal is still being used. I'm confused!

Study refutes autism, vaccine link - Mental health - MSNBC.com

 

[muffler dragon]

Muffler,

You're also hindering your childrens choices of occupation by not getting them vaccinated.

I'm almost positive that all military men and women, educators, medical professionals are required to be immunized.

Actually, no, I'm not. Since my children will be able to decide for themselves once they become 18, my present-day decision will have no impact.

 

[buckeyefool]

Which is why I think we will remain on opposite sides of the argument. (Which is OK). Basically as I see it, you believe, all evidence presented to the contrary notwithstanding, that the risks from vaccines to your children are too great to bear. Even when the risk of death or long-term health impacts from said diseases in the young are greater per capita than the risks associated with the vaccine themselves. And, I think myself fair in this, providing side-by-side numbers, such as the 1 in 1,000 rates for Measles versus 1 in 1 million for the vaccine that back up my assertion. Can you make the same numerical comparison in a countervailing argument?

Exactly my point in my last post. Not saying that the person will get it, and die, but there is a higher chance than those who have gotten the vaccinne.