Take the Dr. Amy Anti-vax Challenge

image

I don’t know about the rest of the pro-science community, but I’m getting mighty tired of anti-vaxxers swooping in to websites and Facebook pages, defecating all over them with absurd claims about the dangers of vaccines or their components, vomiting random scientific citations they haven’t even read and then declaring they’ve “proved” their claims.

Therefore, I’m offer the Dr. Amy Anti-vax Challenge.

I’m asking for the same standard of proof that any scientists would consider the minimum to support an extraordinary scientific claim.

It’s pretty simple really:

  1. Make a claim
  2. Provide 3 citations from peer review journals to support it
  3. Provide relevant quotes from the papers (not the abstracts)
  4. Situate the studies within the preponderance of the scientific evidence
  5. Explain why your citations take precedence over scientific consensus

Anti-vaxxers are desperate to be taken seriously by the rest of the world. Here’s the perfect opportunity to show that their claims have scientific merit.

If they’re truly “educated” and have done their “research,” it shouldn’t be hard at all.

I can’t wait to see what they’ve got!

1,533 Responses to “Take the Dr. Amy Anti-vax Challenge”

  1. Diet dee
    September 15, 2016 at 7:42 pm #

    I believe that this is the answer to the challenge
    The Aluminum compounds in vaccines are a risk factor
    This presentation bybDr Suzanne humpries makes the case for it
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PWP6e2CYPo8
    It appears that the safe aluminum is based oral adult exposure.
    What about injected aluminum compounds?
    When all is injected the aluminum can be carried by macrophages to the organ were inflammation may occur. This may lead to allergies, auto immune diseases and more.
    Take your time pause video and look up the cited studies.

    • Charybdis
      September 15, 2016 at 9:06 pm #

      Barzini already tried that one. Scroll down and peruse the comments as we aren’t going to repeat for a new posting of the same crap.

    • Nick Sanders
      September 15, 2016 at 9:12 pm #

      I have repeatedly shown you studies on the safety of aluminum vaccines, even in infants. Please don’t post bullshit like “It appears that the safe aluminum is based oral adult exposure.”

      • Diet dee
        September 16, 2016 at 10:02 am #

        I have read some links but some of the detailed information is pay walked
        Such as this
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122
        It dealt with the pharmakenetics of aluminum in infants.
        If a non essential toxic metal is supposedly safe I want the details.

        • Roadstergal
          September 16, 2016 at 12:54 pm #

          So pay for it. Something you consider so critical, and you’ll let a few bucks keep you from the real information? Better yet, go to the local university and find a PK scientist. They’ll be able to pull up the paper under their institutional subscription and walk you through it.

        • swbarnes2
          September 16, 2016 at 1:00 pm #

          Why don’t you prove that you tried to read this paper by quoting the last two sentences of the abstract?

          Then go to a library and READ THE PAPER.

          Do you sincerely think that you know more about toxicology and pharmacokinetics than the authors of this paper?

          For instance, can you give us the high school level explanation of what this equation represents?

          R=29.3e^-0.595t + 11e^0.172t + 6.5e^-000401t

          A bit further down, the paper says “Because this set of differential equations includes a non-constant coefficient, k10(t), the exact solution is non-tractable. Therefore, we utilized numeric Runge–Kutta type methods to solve the set of differential equations numerically”

          So why don’t you start with a description of the Runge-Kutta type methods? Anyone competent to critique this paper shoudl be able to understand the math in it well enough to do that.

          When you fail to respond, we will know that your desire to intelligently address the contents of this paper are a sham.

          • Diet dee
            September 16, 2016 at 1:41 pm #

            I’m not claiming to know more than anyone. The pay walled study was referenced in a study that Nick cited. I believe that this same study was referenced by dr humpries in the YouTube video regarding the safety of aluminum in vaccines. Are you mad because I’m trying to read the proof posted by pro Vaxxers?

          • swbarnes2
            September 16, 2016 at 2:59 pm #

            No, we are made because you are pretending you want to read it, but aren’t actually going to, and wouldn’t believe a word it said if you did.

            The proof is that you can’t quote the abstract, which is freely available. The whole thing is freely available at a library.

          • Diet dee
            September 16, 2016 at 10:16 pm #

            “For the general population of infants, who receive less than the maximal dose, the risk is even lower.” I found it (Googled the title rather than trying to get it via pubmed}
            I must admit that i don’t understand the math presented in the article. The interesting thing is that they didn’t want to bother testing Al on infant monkeys. Also this study was was discussed and rebutted by Dr Humphries in the video i posted start at 53:00 and listen for about 15 minutes.

          • swbarnes2
            September 17, 2016 at 12:01 am #

            So you didn’t read the paper, because that’s NOT the last sentence of the abstract. Everything I said about your dishonesty is now proven. If there had been primate data included, you’d be wondering why there was no rodent data.

            Do you want to show some data on the effects of diphtheria toxin in human infants? Or tetanus toxin?

            No, of course you don’t want to talk about any of that, because you are fundamentally dishonest, and your vanity trumps your concern over things that have been proven to harm children.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 16, 2016 at 2:08 pm #

            “Do you sincerely think that you know more about toxicology and pharmacokinetics than the authors of this paper?”

            Of course she does!

          • Neil.
            September 16, 2016 at 7:08 pm #

            Steady Sonja by bladder is about to go.

          • Ron Roy
            September 17, 2016 at 7:36 am #

            It always does anyway. lol

        • Michael McCarthy
          September 16, 2016 at 2:05 pm #

          “I have read some links but some of the detailed information is pay walked
          Such as this”

          You obviously didn’t try very fracking hard to look for the entire paper, surprise. I found not one, but 2 links, simply by googling the title. Bozo.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 16, 2016 at 2:07 pm #

            Lying liars lie lots! (dee, not you!)

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm #

            Yes, they do

        • Nick Sanders
          September 16, 2016 at 3:27 pm #

          If you don’t feel like paying for access, and I don’t blame you for that, the whole thing happens to have been posted for free here:
          http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/FDA-aluminum-paper.pdf

          Honestly a little surprised that an antivax site would undermine themselves like that, but whatever.

          • Diet dee
            September 16, 2016 at 4:00 pm #

            Thank Nick!! When the antivaxxets rebellion happens you will be spared

          • Ron Roy
            September 17, 2016 at 7:34 am #

            Not by me!

    • September 16, 2016 at 7:45 pm #

      Lolz Humphries.

    • shay simmons
      September 17, 2016 at 12:22 am #

      Why is there nothing in PubMed under Dr Humphries name?

    • September 17, 2016 at 1:01 am #

      At the risk of being redundant:
      americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/11/783-suzanne-humphries.html

      • Ron Roy
        September 17, 2016 at 7:32 am #

        This site is further proof of what I’ve been saying. Any doctor or scientist who dares tell the truth about the harm caused by vaccines risks losing his, license. job, tenure and his reputation. It take a real HERO to go against the MEDICAL MAFIA. Unfortunately there are more sheep than lions in the medical and scientific community as evidenced by those on this blog who support the MEDICAL MAFIA.

    • Wren
      September 17, 2016 at 8:17 am #

      Please at least try posting something new.

  2. Amazed
    September 12, 2016 at 3:09 pm #

    OK, guys, help me out here. Are you seriously answering him , explaining why the aluminium – oh gawd, neurotoxin, neurotoxin! – in vaccines isn’t deadly for newborns? For real? I’d think that for someone so enamoured with anecdoctal evidence, he’d take the anecdotal evidence of all those babies who, you know, LIVED to become toddlers, teenagers and adults seriously.

    Perhaps not anecdotal enough for him, I’ll grant you that, but why are you indulging the troll?

    • Nick Sanders
      September 12, 2016 at 3:12 pm #

      I’m not anymore, I just told him I’m done until he puts up something of major substance.

      • Amazed
        September 12, 2016 at 3:24 pm #

        Good for you. And no, he won’t, but I suspect you already know this.

        • Nick Sanders
          September 12, 2016 at 3:25 pm #

          The amount of swearing involved in my declaration may have hinted at such knowledge, yes.

      • Roadstergal
        September 12, 2016 at 4:39 pm #

        He’s just playing games with this aluminum business. He’s already made it clear that he’s against vaccinations that contain no aluminum adjuvant. So he’s just a contrarian who delights in pretending he knows more than he does.

        I posted the link to a very good study of exposure and distribution of Al in diet and vaccines in infants, and the vast margin between that and toxic levels. He won’t read it – he’ll find something in the abstract to glom onto as a reason to dismiss it.

        • Nick Sanders
          September 12, 2016 at 4:44 pm #

          I’ve posted two studies showing that vaccines containing aluminum are safe, and he’s still asking me to give the explicitly toxic dose. When the answer to “How much is dangerous?” is “Way more than we are using.”, I don’t really understand why the exact quantity matters if there’s no plan to try to push the limit.

    • Azuran
      September 12, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

      Honestly. I’m bored, and since I can call idiots to their faces at work, this is a good enough alternative.

      • Amazed
        September 12, 2016 at 3:24 pm #

        OK, I can understand that. I am a little cranky and in no mood to tolerate anything, in RL or the internet. It’s my fourth day with dental brackets and damn it, it hurts. Clearly, it’ll take time for the inside of my cheeks to get the memo that those new things are here to stay.

    • Roadstergal
      September 12, 2016 at 4:33 pm #

      I dunno, man. He still hasn’t proven to me that the aluminum in breastmilk isn’t deadly for newborns.

    • September 13, 2016 at 10:52 am #

      More ‘using him as a conduit to expose the nonsense for the lurkers’.

    • Linden
      September 14, 2016 at 1:40 am #

      I came to this thread rather late, and have come to the conclusion that Barzini is just a straight up liar and a troll. I don’t think he is a parent: parents at least express some concern for children’s well-being, even if it is the misguided, “too many too soon” flavour of concern. How many adult people in Switzerland have had no vaccines? And the nonsense with the baby and the ld100 of aluminium clinched it. He’s not a parent. Not even Brooke is that level of callous and obtuse. Troll.

      Nevertheless, I’ve learnt a few things on this thread, so thanks for your replies everybody!

      • Nick Sanders
        September 14, 2016 at 2:15 am #

        From what I can tell, he’s not asking for the LD100, but the exact dose at which toxic effects begin. “We start noticing markers at X and we’re at Y, which is under X” is not good enough because “there might be effects we aren’t noticing” and “that doesn’t seem like much of a margin” (don’t ask me why 62% of maximum safe amount is too close, makes me curious if he thinks going 62% of the speed limit is driving too fast). So until he knows the exact number to the nanogram, he can’t be sure it’s safe, evidence be damned.

        • swbarnes2
          September 14, 2016 at 1:05 pm #

          My link provided a figure for the minimum risk level, as set by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Barzini didn’t even look at it. Not even to say “Hey, this is behind a paywall, I can’t read it”. Every

          • Nick Sanders
            September 14, 2016 at 1:17 pm #

            Oh, I mentioned his double standard before. When we want info about his claims, we’re supposed to find it ourselves, without so much as a hint. We he wants info about our claims, we have to explicitly spell it out for him, a citation isn’t good enough.

          • Roadstergal
            September 16, 2016 at 1:32 pm #

            And even when we do explicitly spell it out, he just decides we aren’t right.

        • Roadstergal
          September 16, 2016 at 1:33 pm #

          And he wants one ‘this is the deadly level’ number. LD50 is a stupid number to him, because all organisms have identical responses at a given level.

  3. Wren
    September 12, 2016 at 3:55 am #

    I have learned something new from this whole thing with Barzini. I knew there had once been a suspected link between aluminum and Alzheimer’s but I didn’t realise how long ago and how thoroughly it had been studied and rejected as a potential cause. This potential link has been studied since the 1960s without any evidence of causation being found. That’s a significant amount of time. There may be a few researchers still trying to find evidence of this link, but Alzheimer’s

    • Barzini
      September 12, 2016 at 11:27 am #

      Yeah, and remember, there’s aluminium in breast milk (20000 times less) – so that makes it all OK

      • Roadstergal
        September 12, 2016 at 11:30 am #

        I’m still interested in how Switzerland, with its low uptake of the MMR vaccine, has some of the highest AD rates in Europe.

        OMG, I just figured it out. Barzini is in Switzerland. Switzerland is the headquarters of Roche. Roche makes Tamiflu and has some more anti-flu drugs in the pipeline, all of which are WAY more expensive than a flu shot. Also, they have a few (very expensive) drugs approved for cervical cancer, which you can reduce the risk of with the HPV vaccine. Of course Barzini is anti-vax! He gets that sweet pharma CHF!

      • Heidi
        September 12, 2016 at 11:31 am #

        But you are taking your children to get the MMR, right? No aluminum adjuvant in it. You’ve been told this a week or two ago.

        • Barzini
          September 12, 2016 at 11:37 am #

          No, personally we avoid all vaccinations – I was never vaccinated either

          But I’m not telling other people to do that, or arguing that opposition on this site – purely a personal thing based on anecdotal evidence which I agree shouldn’t be used at sites like this one

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 11:38 am #

            “based on anecdotal evidence which I agree shouldn’t be used”
            Ah, if only you had stopped right there.

            Hey, are you going to send some money to CA to help pay for that expensive outbreak your ‘personal thing’ helped cause?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 11:40 am #

            No – I won’t be doing that

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 11:52 am #

            Well, that’s pretty lame of you, but that’s to be expected.
            Noticed you still haven’t addressed the disconnect between your avoidance of those horrid toxic vaccines, and the fact that you’re not seeing the fruit in the form of elimination of AD. Or even a reduction to the level of the European average.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 12:53 pm #

            I guess we would have to do a study into health outcomes between children who have never been vaccinated and those who have followed the recommended schedule

            Shame such studies don’t exist

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 1:02 pm #

            If you think that making a study comparing ‘health’ between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids is something that is doable and would have valid results, you are an even bigger idiot than I thought.
            There are probably hundreds of different parameters that define health. You can’t make 1 study about ‘health’. There are just too many confounding variable.

            But you are just grasping at straw and asking for the impossible because you have nothing and will simply never accept that vaccine are safe and effective. How about YOU show some actual evidence that vaccination has a negative health impact on society in general?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 1:08 pm #

            I don’t have the money or expertise to do such a study, the government does

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 1:44 pm #

            And they have done many. And came back with the conclusion that vaccines are extremely safe, very effective and saves thousands of life every year.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 1:45 pm #

            I’d love to have the links to these studies

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 1:54 pm #

            Come on, we both know you wouldn’t even read them. You already admitted that you are not vaccinated out of feelings.
            Just go look at basically every single study out there about vaccines. There are thousands of those.
            You could start by the ones people have been linking to you those past 10 days.

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 1:05 pm #

            Studies exist looking at all manner of specific health outcomes between decently matched vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. Vaccinated children consistently come out equal or better.

            What I’m asking you is:
            -You postulate that the MMR vaccine contains toxic components that are a substantial contributor to AD.
            -Given that, Switzerland, with its low MMR uptake that you brag about, should have very low to no AD to make up for the increased measles infections.
            -So why does Switzerland have so much AD, if your postulates are correct?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

            I’ve never postulated anything about the MMR

            You’re just making stuff up now

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 1:19 pm #

            Yes, you did, luv. You kept bringing up your mistaken beliefs in the other thread about how AD is caused by aluminum (even though it isn’t), and that the enlightened Swiss choose not to expose their kids to the aluminum in the MMR (even though there’s none in there).

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 1:26 pm #

            There’s no aluminium in the MMR – I’ve known that for years

            You’re making stuff up

            Most Swiss people choose to vaccinate with the MMR, but coverage is lower than in most (maybe all?) Western countries

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 3:15 pm #

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26453618

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:25 pm #

            nice abstract

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 3:29 pm #

            You said such studies don’t exist. Clearly they do.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:33 pm #

            How do I see the study

            Where the non vaccinated children completely unvaccinated ? Or only unvaccinated for those vaccines?

            Did they look at things like chronic disease, autism etc?

            genuine questions

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:34 pm #

            And round and round we go again, Marco!

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:38 pm #

            he’s given you an abstract – and you’re happy

            You have no idea what the safety level is for injection of aluminum in a new born baby – and you don’t seem to care

            Are you seriously a nurse?

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:49 pm #

            Who says I have “no idea”? Just like that lie you told about me last night, that I compared breast feeding to vaccination, when in point of fact, I’m a little late to that party, I have said NOTHING about the safety level of AL for a newborn.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 3:59 pm #

            Autism? ffs that horse is long dead buddy.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 4:04 pm #

            “How do I see the study”
            have you heard of Google?

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 4:16 pm #

            He doesn’t even need to do that, he just has to click on the link in the upper right of the page.

            And pony up $40 for 1 day access, but that’s not my problem. I aimed to prove the study existed, not use it to prove health outcomes, at least in this particular instance.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 4:18 pm #

            It’s not like he even bothered to read the study Jonathan linked for him a bit ago. That literally took just clicking the link but was too much bother.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 4:22 pm #

            Well, I suggested Google because that paper is available for free, but I get where you are coming from.
            Unrelated, but I think Dr. Tuteur needs to do the world a favor and show him the door. This thread has become a nightmare because of 1 user.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 4:40 pm #

            It is? Can I ask where, because that would be very useful for me.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 4:51 pm #

            No you can’t ask where! JK.
            http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mcgovern/files/mcgovern_vaccination_0.pdf

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 4:43 pm #

            None of your questions are genuine, Marco. See that’s the problem with all this playing dumb, obtuse, etc. Some of us just don’t believe you any more when you say you’re being sincere.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 4:53 pm #

            I don’t get the Marco thing

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:06 pm #

            It’s ok. you don’t really get much anyway.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 5:08 pm #

            I get that you have no idea what the safe limit for injecting aluminum into a one day baby is

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:22 pm #

            Because it’s not something that we need to determine that something is safe.
            We know vaccines are safe. We don’t need to know how many dozens of vaccines we can give on a newborn. They get 1, and we know that’s safe.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 5:28 pm #

            http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/republican-debate-marco-rubio-obama-knows-what-hes-doing-218877
            ” Marco Rubio went into repetition mode during Saturday night’s debate, going back to the same line over and over again to defend against comparisons to Barack Obama.

            “Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing,” the Florida
            senator said. “He knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s trying to change this country.”

            Rubio would go on to reiterate that argument, nearly word-for-word, several times over the course of a single exchangewith Chris Christie, who said that Rubio’s inexperience mirrored
            Obama’s. “This notion that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing…” Rubio continued again before Christie interjected to accuse Rubio of being overly scripted.

            You repeat over and over, “neruotoxins”, “injecting babies with . . . “, “aluminum”, etc, etc. It didn’t work for Marco, and it’s not working for you.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:34 pm #

            You know, Marco, we have plenty of information on the health outcomes of kids who weren’t vaccinated. We know they DIED of vaccine-preventable diseases at a way higher level than vaccinated kids. We know they have as much autism.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

            What did you expect, he’s a victim blamer.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 11:47 am #

            So, after all this, you come out as being an anti-vaxxer just ‘because’.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm #

            Same as most of them, really.

          • MaineJen
            September 12, 2016 at 12:08 pm #

            Of course you do.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 1:08 pm #

            well yeah

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 2:03 pm #

            purely a personal thing based on anecdotal evidence which I agree shouldn’t be used at sites like this one

            …or even in your own life.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:07 pm #

            Yeah, I’ll think it over once you get back to me with what the safe injection limit for aluminium is in a new born baby on its first day of life

            I presume you know

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 2:10 pm #

            What does that have to do with your own irrationality?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:16 pm #

            I’d like to know the safe limit for injecting aluminum into a new born baby before injecting aluminum into a new born baby – call me crazy, but that’s the way I role

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 2:28 pm #

            Well what I’m saying is that you claim you have anecdotal information which you are allowing to change your actions. That’s kind of the definition of irrational.

            Probably around 400 mcg is acceptable if we are talking about cognitive function.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:40 pm #

            Where’d you get the (probable) 400 mcg limit from?

            This is exactly what I want to know?

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 2:58 pm #

            There was a study[1] done on IV hydration for VLW infants comparing standard solutions (25 mcg/dl) and Al depleted solutions. They compared cognitive outcomes at corrected post-term age of 18 months. Doses of ten days had comparable neurological outcomes, greater than ten days had reduced neurological outcomes.

            In ten days a child would have had VLW child would have had close to 400mcg. Considering that VLW children are a population at risk of having reduced neurological development. It’s reasonable to consider that an upper bound for normal weight children.

            [1]http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:03 pm #

            OMG

            That’s it, seriously

            You are comparing a hydration solution (with only 0.5% of aluminium being absorbed), with injecting a new born baby

            This is insane, this is why you are sure it’s OK to inject 250mcg of aluminium into a new born baby?

            And you call yourself a proponent of science based medicine

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:06 pm #

            You are comparing a hydration solution (with only 0.5% of aluminium being absorbed), with injecting a new born baby

            It’s intravenous hydration. That’s what the IV part means. Same as being injected – well an IM injection probably has slower release. So this is probably “worse” in that you are getting more, more quickly.

            This is insane, this is why you are sure it’s OK to inject 250mcg of aluminium into a new born baby?

            Because at-risk children can take twice as much without risk of lowered neurological outcomes.

            And you call yourself a proponent of science based medicine

            I’m someone who can do the math yes.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:19 pm #

            Missed the IV part…..

            Do you really think this study (involving 10 days of an IV solution) is what should be used to justify injecting 250mcg into a new born baby on its first day of life?

            250mcg is 63% of 400mcg – a limit above which children started showing signs of neurological damage

            I imagine mcg per kg is highly important – well the weight is obviously lowest in the first day

            Are we not cutting things a bit fine here? We are also not exactly comparing apples with apples…

            What surprises me even more is how hard you are having to work to prove this

            Why is there not ample proof at your finger tips? I mean this is pretty damned important and a common question….

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:41 pm #

            Do you really think this study (involving 10 days of an IV solution)

            It would help if you read the study. It didn’t involve 10 days – it looked at all the durations in the sample. Those having ten or less days of exposure showed equivalent neurological outcomes at 18 months to those without any exposure.

            is what should be used

            It’s not what is being used, you asked for a value and I assumed you wanted an evidence based one. I rather suspect that people who formulate vaccines use other modeling techniques.

            250mcg is 63% of 400mcg – a limit above which children started showing signs of neurological damage

            Nope. 400mcg is the value I gave as a limit. It’s not a threshold beyond which children showed signs of neurological damage. Children who are already at a significantly elevated risk of reduced cognitive outcomes showed comparable cognitive outcomes at exposures less than 450mcg to those who had background exposure. If you were to adjust for birth weight the average child would be closer to 850mcg.

            Are we not cutting things a bit fine here?

            Nope. At-risk populations are often used as boundary cases in medical studies.

            And also not exactly comparing apples with apples?

            You asked for an injected dose of aluminum. I gave it to you.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:06 pm #

            The hydration fluid, genius, is often given parenterally.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:07 pm #

            Specifically, in this case is was IV. Pretty comparable to IM.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 3:06 pm #

            “You are comparing a hydration solution (with only 0.5% of aluminium being absorbed), with injecting a new born baby”
            hey fücktard. Why would you presume that only 0.5% of an IV solution Al would be absorbed?

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:07 pm #

            Because he’s stupid. And Marco/Barzini should know better than to argue with Jonathan about math.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm #

            “And Marco/Barzini should know better than to argue with Jonathan about math.”
            should know better. Then again, this is the person that has been arguing for over a week about the “safe dose of Al to be injected into a newborn baby” despite being told that there is no Al and compounds are not elements.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

            Out of curiosity, why do you call him “Marco”?

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:15 pm #

            LOL! I explained this once, but knowing Disqus, you probably didn’t see it. Remember the Republican presidential candidates debate when Marco Rubio kept saying “Barack Obama knows exactly what he’s doing” over and over, and it bombed with the public?

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 3:15 pm #

            Oh! I thought it had to do with the game of Marco Polo he has us playing.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:20 pm #

            That could be another alternative.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:09 pm #

            What would “absorbed” even mean in that context? Absorbed where? It’s in your veins man! 🙂

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm #

            Yeah, I don’t know where he was going with that. I assume he lived under the false pretense that a hydration solution was administered orally.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:14 pm #

            If I had a nickle for every time some nutter didn’t read the study…

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 3:54 pm #

            well, nickels don’t go very far. How about $1? The sad part it he didn’t have to read the study to know it was IV, it’s right there in the title.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 4:07 pm #

            There are enough of them he could probably make a tidy sum just from nickels. Especially if he gets one each time Barzini claims something that clearly is wrong while citing a study he failed to read.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 4:10 pm #

            You’d need 20 nickels just to buy a lotto ticket. (of course, your odds of winning on that ticket are far greater than Barzini grasping any concept which has been presented)

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 4:13 pm #

            Yeah, but Barzini must’ve earned him well over that by now.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

            I don’t know about Barzini, but he’s probably earned a few bucks from Ron Roy and Lowell Hubbs.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:15 pm #

            didn’t realize it was IV, fair enough

            so what’s the safety limit? around 400mcg?

          • corblimeybot
            September 12, 2016 at 3:17 pm #

            “IV’ is in the first line of his comment.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 3:18 pm #

            “didn’t realize it was IV”
            I guess you can’t fucking read. It is in the title of the paper, moron.
            “ALUMINUM NEUROTOXICITY IN PRETERM INFANTS RECEIVING
            INTRAVENOUS-FEEDING SOLUTIONS”

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:22 pm #

            So what’s the safety limit in your opinion ?

            Do you have an opinion now?

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 3:53 pm #

            I’d say read the paper, or read what Jonathan wrote, but as we’ve established you can’t fucking read.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 4:34 pm #

            Maybe someone can read it to him.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 4:51 pm #

            I’m not even sure that would help.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:37 pm #

            So, You give absolutely nothing to your babies unless you know the absolute lethal dose to a newborn?
            You do realize that NO ONE tests lethal doses in newborn right?
            Those are extrapolated from animals, adults, children and accidental overdose.
            We don’t know the exact lethal dose or the upper safe limit of a LOT of medication out there. What is really important is that we know the therapeutic window and know that there is a relative safe zone around it to prevent accidental intoxication. We don’t purposely kill people to figure out exactly what dose is lethal.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

            What are the limits of the window?

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:49 pm #

            Therapeutic window has nothing to do with toxicity BTW. But for aluminum, the window at which it is accepted in any form of medication is 0.125 and 0.85 mg. Vaccines call in the lower interval of this.

          • Who?
            September 13, 2016 at 7:57 am #

            You are crazy.

            I hope when you have responsibility for another human life you are more thoughtful about it than your behaviour here indicates. Since you are so safety conscious I assume the child will never be put into a motor vehicle, which carries with it a clear and immediate risk of death and injury every time you do it. A risk of death and injury far greater than vaccines. I take it The Pregnant One doesn’t travel by car either. Why would you risk it?

            Or are cars just sooo convenient-how else do you show off to your friends and neighbours, and get to the health food shop across town where you can buy the speshul natcheral snowflake food for yourselves, to keep you healthy?

            At least the little one will have half your genes-assuming your partner is playing nicely-so he/she will have some chance of ‘getting’ you and your freeloading ways.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:32 pm #

            Are you a new born baby on it’s first day of life? If not, then there is no problem with you getting your shots.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:38 pm #

            We will hope fully have just such a baby in a little over 5 months time

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:39 pm #

            And you think your little snowflakes is different than the milions of other baby who got the hep B and didn’t suffer any aluminum related reaction?
            What if your baby needs an NICU stay, are you going to refuse all treatment because we don’t know the exact dose at which all his medications are going to be lethal to a newborn?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:44 pm #

            Two completely different things

            The fact that many countries don’t give hep b vaccines to new born babies illustrates that perfectly

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

            The fact that they don’t give it is not a sign that they consider it dangerous. Nor does it prove anything regarding aluminum

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm #

            It’s obviously a sign that they don’t consider it to be that important

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:58 pm #

            Maybe it’s less prevalent in their country. We have already discussed how different country have different population and different diseases to control.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:00 pm #

            cool story bro

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 3:01 pm #

            you are really science illiterate is basically everything arent you.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:17 pm #

            The US does not give BCG. The UK does for certain populations where the risk is higher. Is that because the US isn’t concerned about TB? No! It’s because they consider the risk in the US.

            The UK gives Hep B at birth to babies at higher risk. It just isn’t on the routine schedule because most babies in the UK are not at particularly high risk and the NHS prefers not to spend unnecessarily.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:19 pm #

            I was thinking the exact same thing about BCG. The US and the Netherlands are the only two countries in the world that have never used BCG, even on at-risk groups. It may be used on a very individual basis here in the US.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:41 pm #

            It would have made moving to the UK easier. Instead I had to prove, at Heathrow Airport, that I did not in fact have TB. An x-ray at the airport was a strange thing, especially while my new British husband was waiting for me. Personally, I think it is ridiculous as I had spent most of the previous 2 years in the UK without having to do that, but it was required so I did.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 4:28 pm #

            You wouldn’t want one of those ugly scars! I know a smallpox vaccine scar isn’t considered unattractive here, but those BCG scars get all keloid-y.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:23 pm #

            I totally agree

            My point is that anyone deciding to not give the hep B vaccination to a newborn baby can hardly be accused of being a loon

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:39 pm #

            That depends on the risk of the baby being exposed to Hep B. If the mother is positive, then yes, not giving it would be on the loony side.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:40 pm #

            Yes, but not recommending it in general is fine for many countries

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:58 pm #

            Each country weighs the benefits for its own population, considering endemic diseases, travel patterns bringing in new diseases and costs of treatment and vaccination.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:42 pm #

            By the way, one of the pro vaxer posters here believes any level above 400mcg of aluminum is dangerous and could start to cause neurological problems – and that’s for much older babies and over a period of 10 days

            So this 250mcg number is really starting to scare me

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:47 pm #

            Awww it’s so cute when you’re outed as an idiot. You asked for a limit below which it is safe. I gave you that and the study that supports it.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:57 pm #

            No it isn’t for older babies! It is for premature, very low weight babies.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 3:59 pm #

            “and that’s for much older babies and over a period of 10 days”
            Is lying your second tongue? Since when are “pre-term infants” much older?

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 4:02 pm #

            That depends on why you refuse. If it’s based on aluminum, then yes, you are a loon.
            But then again, you already said that you didn’t give any vaccine, even those without aluminum. Making you a loon anyway.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:04 pm #

            Two completely different things my derriere! What’s in an injection of prednisone, or whatever steroid they use on NBs in teh NICU? How about Lasix? Those are only a couple that I can think of that this kid got.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

            Every country gives some new borns Hep B. It just isn’t on the routine schedule in every country. If the mother is Hep B positive, the vaccine will be given. If another member of the household is Hep B positive, the vaccine will be given.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:26 pm #

            Every country ‘sometimes’ gives the hep B to a new born baby – many countries rarely give it

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:39 pm #

            It is given when the risk is seen as high enough to make it worthwhile. In some countries, that is rare. In some areas of those countries, it may still be common. In the US (where you do not live anyway), the decision was taken to put it on the routine schedule as the risk was felt to be high enough.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm #

            Gosh, yes! My friend has a baby in the NICU. He’s doing better now, about 6 weeks old, but he was getting all kinds of meds at first, including. . steroids!

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:08 pm #

            That’s nice.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 6:23 pm #

            I feel rather sorry for the baby.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 2:45 pm #

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/skepticalob/take_the_dr_amy_anti_vax_challenge/#comment-2888513840

            For specific Ld50’s for vaccine adjuvants, I’m having trouble getting precise numbers. Aluminum hydroxide is a commonly used one, with an LD50 of 1100mg/kg for Intraperitoneal injection and >5000 mg/kg for oral administration, so intramuscular injection would be somewhere between the two. My guess would be around 3000-4000 mg/kg. With an an average birthweight of 3.5 kg, that would be 10.5 to 14 grams to have an LD50 dose. Obviously, you’d want much lower than that, but the amount in vaccine doses is between 0.125 and 0.85 mg. So even the most “aluminum heavy” vaccine is about 1/12353rd the lower limit of the LD50. Which means, even if for safety you wanted only 0.1% of the threshold, it would be less than a tenth of that upper cap.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:53 pm #

            LD50 is the dose at which 50% of people die

            I’m talking about the safe dose – the dose at which a doctor will not go over

            I presume you know but have been keeping it a secret

            Also, only 0.5% of orally consumed aluminium is even absorbed – so divide by 200

          • MaineJen
            September 12, 2016 at 2:53 pm #

            He literally just told you.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:56 pm #

            LD50 is the dose at which 50% of people die

            Are you saying that the safe dose is something a lot less than the LD50?

            Also, only 0.5% of aluminium is absorbed by the GI tract when consumed orally

            100% is absorbed when injected

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:57 pm #

            still doesn’t matter when the 100% is still lower than the lethal dose.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:05 pm #

            Only 0.5% of orally consumed aluminum is absorbed

            I cannot believe you are using the LD50 rate – it actually beggars belief

          • The Computer Ate My Nym
            September 12, 2016 at 8:50 pm #

            What world do you live in where LD50 testing is performed on people? I don’t think I want to visit it.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 10:43 pm #

            He is still asking for the dose at which aluminum is lethal, despite me pointing out multiple time that finding it would require killing a baby. He doesn’t seem to mind.

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 11:53 pm #

            If you’d read my link, you’d know that was a lie. Al is not instantaneously and completely absorbed when injectetd. It’s a bald-faced lie. You chose to lie because you don’t understand the difference between truth and falsehood. You are fundamentally dishonest, you literally don’t understand the concept of not making things up. Every single post you make without having read my peer-reviewed link with all the answers so your questions proves that you are incurably dishonest.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 2:54 pm #

            Which is why I said that if you wanted to stay at 1/1000th of the number at which 50% of people die, you’d still be less than a 10th of the maximum amount with the most “aluminum heavy” vaccine.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:07 pm #

            Did you divide by 200 to account for the fact that only 0.5% of orally ingested aluminum is absorbed

            You do realize that the death rate and the injury rate of toxic substances are wildly different things?

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm #

            That doesn’t fucking matter, because I estimate the LD50 for intramuscularly injected aluminum, and used that for the calculations.

            Meanwhile, I’m done. Until you actually prove there is some sort of fucking harm from aluminum as it is currently used, you get nothing more. It has been demonstrated over and over that current usage is safe, in several different ways, yet you keep claiming “neurotoxin neurotoxin!”. Lay down some fucking proof, damn you, or shut the hell up. And no, speculative research about a possible Alzheimer’s link is not proof. I want rock fucking solid demonstrated causation of some sort of concrete harm, and nothing fucking less. I’m tired as hell of your shitty fucking runaround, asswipe.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

            I want proof that you know what the safety limit dosage is for injection of aluminum into a new born baby – not some garbage based on the LD50 limit

            I don’t think that’s some crazy demand

            Look’s like you’re right, we should end this now

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 3:14 pm #

            You don’t think that killing baby is crazy?

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:57 pm #

            lethal dose are calculated in LD50 you dumbass.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:58 pm #

            We aren’t talking about the lethal dose

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:59 pm #

            And NO ONE calculates the maximum dose that you can give to someone without risking killing it. It’s not something that is calculated in toxicology.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm #

            LD50 is how the safe dose is determined.

            And if you’re gonna get picky, orally consumed aluminium absorption varies by compound. It can be up to 5%, and potentially higher depending on other contents of the stomach.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 4:52 pm #

            You do not divide by 200. That’s absurd. I listed the oral LD50 dose.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 4:59 pm #

            That’s the dose at which 50% of people die

            We’re interested in the limit at which neurological damage starts to occur in a one day old baby

            These are two wildly different things

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 5:19 pm #

            So? You have yet to provide any evidence such harm is occurring.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 5:31 pm #

            Do you accept that such harm will start occurring at a certain level?

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:34 pm #

            As we said from the start: At some level, yea, EVERYTHING is toxic at some level.
            But as far as aluminum goes, it’s not something that has been seen to happen with the curent dosage. So, not a valid reason to object vaccination.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 5:37 pm #

            There’s quite a big difference between water toxicity and aluminum toxicity

            Sure, everything is lethal at a certain dose, but no one is adding drops of water to neurones in petri dishes to see if damage occurs

            We know for an absolute fact that aluminum can cause neurone damage

            So knowing what the safe limit (or if there even is a safe limit, how do you study if there was a tiny bit of neurone damage?) is for aluminum would be very very nice to have

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:40 pm #

            And lets say you eventually have the number? What do you do with it?
            We already know that the levels in vaccines are safe. So the vaccines would not change, nor would any other medication, because they are all safe.

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 5:40 pm #

            Adding drops of water to neurons in a dish will absolutely kill them in short order.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:41 pm #

            And even IV water can absolutely lead to serious brain damage.

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 5:42 pm #

            Ouch, what sadist would put straight water in an IV?

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:43 pm #

            Probably barzini. After all, he need to know the precice lethal dose of water in order to allow his kids to drink it.

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 5:48 pm #

            Hey, water can cross the blood-brain barrier.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 5:54 pm #

            As far as I know, there’s no research being carried out between a link between water content in vaccines and brain disorders like alzheimers – I think you get what I’m saying even if you disagree

            We know aluminum causes neurological damage – so the question is what is the limit for a one day old baby ?

            Is 250 mcg nothing to worry about

            In another study talked about on this thread, an amount at somewhere over 400mcg caused ‘observable’ damage in premature babies

            Well at least that’s something

            I would like to have a limit for a regular one day old baby

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 6:00 pm #

            It’s not a matter of opinion. The AD/Al connection has been debunked.

            Given that 400micrograms was shown to have no negative effects – ‘nothing to worry about’ – in premature babies, 250 in term babies is hardly on my radar.

            With all this time you spent typing, you could take a moment to read the paper I posted three times over.

            I know that three times probably doesn’t help if you don’t know PK and modeling. But if you won’t trust those who do, go take some classes. You’ll need some more basic biology and chemistry – your bio and chem is demonstrably weak – and then advanced courses in tox and PK.

            Until you have that, go with the experts..

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 6:07 pm #

            At a level somewhere over 400mcg observable neurological damage started to occur in pre-term babies

            Therefore, 250mcg should be fine in a new born baby

            That’s one risk I won’t be taking – but you go ahead

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 6:10 pm #

            There’s a certain level of skull compression that causes severe neurological damage in neonates.

            Until you can prove to me where that limit is, I’m not going to support vaginal births.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 6:11 pm #

            You do what you want

            I’m not injecting a 250mcg dose of aluminum into a new born baby

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 6:13 pm #

            You don’t have to. Trained HCP administer vaccines.

            And you are, of course, in full support of all of the vaccines that don’t have Al adjuvants?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 6:15 pm #

            Nope, but we’re talking about this just now

            Ain’t no trained HCP giving my one day old baby the Hep B vaccine either unless he/she can provide some evidence about what the safety limit is and that no neurological damage will occur

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 6:20 pm #

            So you’re just a blowhard who is being disingenuous and getting his kicks out of arguing on the Internet in the ‘No, _you’re_ toxic!’ toddler model.

            We’re saying it’s safe for you to stand in 1 foot of water when it’s clearly been shown that standing in 2 feet of water won’t drown you. If you’re convinced that 1 foot of water can somehow reach up to your nose when 2 feet didn’t, that’s an interesting reality.

            Especially when 1 foot of water is all it takes to keep the predators away.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 6:26 pm #

            So in this study, aluminum caused neurological damage in pre-term babies
            http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

            The damage occurred at a level of somewhere above 400mcg

            This was observable behavior damage, I’d also be interested in studying if other less obvious damage occured

            Nevertheless, the feeling is that 400mcg should be fine for normal babies

            Is that seriously the logic we are using? And that’s one fine margin of error seeing as the HepB contains 250mcg

            You go ahead and take that chance, I won’t bother

          • Charybdis
            September 12, 2016 at 8:45 pm #

            This is all a moot point for you, since you didn’t vax your kids and aren’t vaxxed yourself. You don’t believe in vaccination and are just moving heaven and earth to try and get someone to listen to your “concerns” about aluminum adjuvants.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 6:42 pm #

            And when my child had a fever I gave paracetamol at a recommended dose even though high doses cause damage and can be fatal.

            Gee, it’s almost like the concentration/amount matters, rather than just what the substance is.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 10:40 pm #

            The ‘risk’ has already been taken by millions of newborn. And they suffered no reaction from aluminum.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 5:55 pm #

            We know for an absolute fact that aluminum can cause neurone damage

            Prove it.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 5:59 pm #

            This study showed ‘observable’ neurological damage in premature babies exposed to a limit of somewhere above 400mcg

            Conclusion: In preterm infants, prolonged intravenous feeding with solutions containing aluminum is associated with impaired neurological development

            http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 5:54 pm #

            Provide evidence that harm is occurring at the present level.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 6:02 pm #

            Do we test for that? No we don’t…..

            I know aluminum is a neurtoxin, but I don’t know at what point is starts causing damage due to a lack of tests

            Here is one study that recorded observable neurological damage caused by aluminum among pre-term babies

            Conclusion: In preterm infants, prolonged intravenous feeding with solutions containing aluminum is associated with impaired neurological development

            http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 6:11 pm #

            Vaccinations are not prolonged intravenous feeding. Provide evidence that the current levels are causing harm.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 6:13 pm #

            I’ve provided evidence that aluminum causes neurological damage in babies

            I would now like to know what the safety limit is a regular one day old baby

            Hardly the request of a crazy person

            I wish we had such tests

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 6:21 pm #

            You haven’t so much as skimmed that link, have you? It utterly refutes your claims in multiple places.

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 6:24 pm #

            This paper shows that babies who got the aluminum depleted fluids were more likely to have neuromotor problems. You would know that if you read it. It’s there in black and white, table 4.

            But you didn’t read it, because you are dishonest.

            And honest person would also note that Tetanus toxin is also a neurotoxin, but you seem to be fine with babies have as much of that as they can stand if they get infected with tetanus.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 6:25 pm #

            Have you finally read the study?

            Doesn’t say what you kept claiming, does it?

            It does, however, say that whether the aluminum (given to premature babies of low birth weights at a relatively high dose over at least 10 days) will cause long term effects on intelligence is unknown. You did read that part, right?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm #

            as long as the damage isn’t long term we should just relax?

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 6:38 pm #

            Nope. But we can certainly relax at levels lower than damage being seen.

            Oh wait, you can’t, can you, because you believe some secret damage is being done and not seen on any tests at the time or 18 months later. In fact, damage has been done for the last 70 plus years that aluminum has been used in vaccines and we just haven’t been able to detect it yet.

            Of course, that is why you cannot vaccinate. And some other bogus reason is why you cannot vaccinate with any vaccine that does not contain aluminum. But you are not an antivaxer. Nope. Not you. You are just joining your buddies Sears and Wakefield in calling for safe vaccines, right?

          • Wren
            September 13, 2016 at 4:16 am #

            So, did you read the study?

            Did you realise you were completely wrong before about what it said?

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:09 pm #

            There is an established safe level. It is well above that of the Hep B vaccine.

            And using “first day of life” is nicely emotional, but you do realise that babies are not all equally developed at birth. Barring a close relative with Hep B (like the mother), micro-premies would not be vaccinated. Those healthy full term babies? Go for it.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:14 pm #

            What is the safety level?

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:16 pm #

            I’ve already shut you down on this one Barzini. Why are you continuing to feign ignorance?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:25 pm #

            Is it 400mcg? in your opinion?

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:54 pm #

            Define “it”?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:31 pm #

            400mcg limit?

            based on a study over 10 days on much older children?

            as opposed to one-off vaccination on a new born baby?

            you aren’t filling me with confidence

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:45 pm #

            based on a study over 10 days

            Nope, read the study.

            on much older children

            Nope. In fact these children were about half the birth weight of your average newborn.

            as opposed to one-off vaccination on a new born baby?

            Which would be a lower risk.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:49 pm #

            Yeah, I need to read the study

            So what’s the safety limit then?

            400mcg? So if a baby accidentally received the Hep B twice it could be bad news?

            Should there not be better studies to base this all on?

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:52 pm #

            Should there not be better studies to base this all on?

            You have a study which shows that a level much higher than the one you are pretending to be afraid of. Shows no difference in neurological outcomes.

            I guess you’re just sore that you were shut down so hard.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 4:00 pm #

            Read the danged study!

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:42 pm #

            How many people need to give you a number?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:44 pm #

            I’ve been given a number once by Jonathan Graham

            He linked to a study which suggested a number of 400mcg – above which neurological problems started

            This was for much older babies over a period of 10 days

            The Hep B vaccine gives 250mcg in one dose to a baby in its first day of life

            I’m actually even more scared of the HEP B vaccine than I was a few hours ago

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 3:50 pm #

            400mcg – above which neurological problems started

            Nope. It was a limit below which there were no indications of a difference between two groups of high risk infants. One with no injected aluminum.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:56 pm #

            No it wasn’t!

            It was for much smaller, premature babies who were born at less than 34 weeks gestation. This meant they were not fully developed and weighed less than half what an average new born baby weighs.

            Please, please try reading the links you are given. That information was literally in the first few sentences.

          • September 12, 2016 at 2:34 pm #

            Enjoy freeloading off the responsible portion of society.We’re the ones keeping you and your special snowflakes safe.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:35 pm #

            You’re also the ones injecting new born babies with 250mcg of aluminium – gee thanks

          • September 12, 2016 at 2:38 pm #

            Does your self-proclaimed lack of expertise include the high school chemistry-level explanation of compounds vs elements?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:44 pm #

            oh look, a huge straw man

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:45 pm #

            Almost as huge as your aluminum lethal dose in newborn

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:51 pm #

            A number which you have admitted to not knowning

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:56 pm #

            Are you ready to kill your baby to find out?
            Because we won’t know until someone dies for the answer

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:05 pm #

            Hep B isn’t given to new born babies in many countries – I guess they are all loons also

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm #

            You didn’t answer the question. If you want to know, you need to kill a baby. are you ready to do so. Or are you going to concede that it is absolutely unacceptable to do so.

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 4:28 pm #

            Perinatal infection is 4% of total infections, but 24% of chronic infections. Birth is the worst time to get HepB, childhood second-worst (4% total, 12% chronic). But this is all just the noise of the teacher from Peanuts, to you. “Aluminum!” “Blood-brain barrier!” Terms you don’t really understand, but clutch like talismans.

          • Charybdis
            September 12, 2016 at 8:35 pm #

            LABORATORY ANIMALS: Chronic Exposure or Carcinogenicity/ Aluminium hydroxide was not carcinogenic after daily ip administration to mice for 4 months at dosages up to about 200 mg aluminium/kg/day.
            [Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; WHO Food Additives Ser 24: Aluminum (1989). Available from, as of June 4, 2004: http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v024je07.htm **PEER REVIEWED**

            LABORATORY ANIMALS: Chronic Exposure or Carcinogenicity/ Aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate have been widely used as vaccine adjuvants with a good safety record for several decades. The recent observation in human deltoid muscle of macrophage aggregates containing aluminium hydroxide spicules and termed Macrophagic Myofasciitis (MMF) has encouraged research on aluminium salts. This study was conducted in order to further investigate the clearance of aluminium at the vaccine injection site and the features of induced histopathological lesions. Two groups of 12 monkeys were immunised in the quadriceps muscle with Diphtheria-Tetanus vaccines, which were adjuvanted with either aluminium hydroxide or aluminium phosphate. Three, six or twelve months after vaccination, four monkeys from each group were sacrificed and histopathological examination and aluminium assays were performed on quadriceps muscle sections. Histopathological lesions, similar to the MMF described in humans, were observed and were still present 3 months after aluminium phosphate and 12 months after aluminium hydroxide adjuvanted vaccine administration. An increase in aluminium concentration, more marked in the area of the lesions, was also observed at the 3- and 6-month time points. These findings were localised at the injection site and no similar changes were observed in the distal or proximal muscle fragments. /Investigators/ conclude from this study that aluminium adjuvanted vaccines administered by the intramuscular route trigger histopathological changes restricted to the area around the injection site which persist for several months but are not associated with abnormal clinical signs.
            [Verdier F et al; Vaccine. 23 (11): 1359-67 (2005)] **PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract
            LD50 Rat ip 1100 mg/kg bw
            [Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; WHO Food Additives Ser 24: Aluminum (1989). Available from, as of June 4, 2004: http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v024je07.htm **PEER REVIEWED**

            LD50 Rat oral >5000 mg/kg bw
            [European Chemicals Bureau; IUCLID Dataset, Aluminum hydroxide (21645-51-2) (2000 CD-ROM edition). Available from, as of June 15, 2004: http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ **PEER REVIEWED**

            Dietary aluminum intake is normally about 3 to 25 mg daily, of which about 15 ug or about 0.1% is absorbed. However, about 0.1 to 0.5 mg of the cation may be absorbed from a standard daily dose of an aluminum-containing antacid. In persons with normal renal function, this leads to about a doubling of the average concentration of aluminum in plasma, which is normally 5 to 20 ug/L ; however, in some persons it may be increased tenfold. Aluminum is eliminated in the urine, and the renal clearance has been estimated to be 5.6 mL in persons with normal renal function. Plasma concentrations rise in renal failure, and values in excess of 300 ug/L have been reported. The accumulation of aluminum may not be simply the result of a decreased glomerular filtration; uremic patients often have hyperparathyroidism, and parathyroid hormone has been shown to increase aluminum absorption in rats. /Aluminum-containing antacids/
            [Gilman, A.G., L.S.Goodman, and A. Gilman. (eds.). Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 7th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1985., p. 982] **PEER REVIEWED**
            The rate of excretion /of aluminum/ in the urine is assumed to be 20-50 ug/day, which equals intestinal absorption. Administration of 2.29 g aluminum hydroxide raised excretion from 16-300 ug/day.
            [Rom, W.N. (ed.). Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1992., p. 466] **PEER REVIEWED**

            Two male volunteers administered a single dose of (26)Al-labeled aluminum citrate (aqueous solution) or aluminum hydroxide (colloidal suspension in water) directly to the stomach using a pediatric feeding tube; there was a 3-week interval between dosing. These forms of aluminum were used because it was suspected that they would be either relatively bioavailable (citrate) or relatively nonbioavailable (hydroxide). Based on analyses of (26)Al in the blood (collected at 1, 4, and 24 hours after dosing) and excreta (urine and feces were collected for 6 days), the absorbed fractions were determined to be 0.5% for aluminum citrate and 0.01% for aluminum hydroxide.
            [DHHS/ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Aluminum (July 1999). Available from, as of May 21, 2004: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22.html **PEER REVIEWED**

          • September 12, 2016 at 2:47 pm #

            Do you understand the use of that term? This is not a strawman. There is no elemental aluminum in vaccines. None.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:48 pm #

            And I never claimed there was – hence the straw man

          • September 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm #

            You are concerned about aluminum safety. Aluminum is an element. There is no elemental aluminum in vaccines. So who’s the one with the strawman?

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:41 pm #

            You have still to provide the shadow of an evidence that this is harmful to babies in any way.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:43 pm #

            No, I want you to prove that this is a safe amount

            That’s how things work

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:44 pm #

            It has been giving to millions of babies. And 0 of them have died from aluminum poisoning. 0 of them have any kind of side effect related to aluminum.
            I believe that is proof enough that the amount in vaccine is safe.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:06 pm #

            Don’t forget, it has been used for well over 50 years. We have third and fourth generations being vaccinated with vaccines with aluminium adjuvants now. Still no indications of harm.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:04 pm #

            Actually, that isn’t how it works. What you can do is prove it is not harmful. That’s how things work.

          • Charybdis
            September 12, 2016 at 7:52 pm #

            Nope. We have sixty years of evidence that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are safe. YOU are the one claiming all sorts of harm from adjuvants, so YOU are the one who has to provide that evidence.

            Waiting, sweetheart. Waiting.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 2:42 pm #

            “President Obama knows exactly what he’s doing” X 10.
            How’d that work out for you, Marco?

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 2:49 pm #

            Micrograms, 1/1000th of a milligram, which are themselves 1/1000th of a gram. So, 0.00025 grams. Gee, it’s almost like you are picking the unit just to make it sound big.

          • Charybdis
            September 12, 2016 at 7:46 pm #

            And they aren’t dying in droves, nor are they having any neurological issues. What now, Skippy?

      • Wren
        September 12, 2016 at 11:55 am #

        I already knew there was aluminium in pretty much any diet humans can eat. Not shocked.

        And yes, an equivalent amount of breastmilk has less aluminium. Of course, babies take in breast milk way less often than they take in vaccines. If babies were injected 8 times a day or more for even a week I’d be concerned. They aren’t though.

        • Roadstergal
          September 12, 2016 at 12:01 pm #

          Babies take in breast milk way more often than they take in vaccines. (Typo.) 🙂

          But – oral! The gut is MAGIC and prevents aluminum from crossing the blood-brain barrier! …somehow. (But I bet only the guts of EBF kids have that aluminum magic. Just One Drop of formula, and the blood-brain barrier collapses.)

        • Barzini
          September 12, 2016 at 12:52 pm #

          Dr Paul Offit (who has made many millions of dollars from vaccines) reckons it would be perfectly safe to inject children 10,000 times

      • The Bofa on the Sofa
        September 12, 2016 at 11:56 am #

        What are you suggesting? That the dose makes the poison?

        • Barzini
          September 12, 2016 at 12:51 pm #

          I’m saying that ingestion and injection is the same and the fact that there’s aluminium in breast milk means its cool injecting it into babies in radically higher amounts on their first day of life

          It took me a while to come round, I apologise for that, but I’m there now

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 1:04 pm #

            You are still missing the point. It doesn’t matter if the injected dose is ‘radically higher’ than the ingested amount. If both of those amount are below the toxic dose, than they are both perfectly safe.

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 1:06 pm #

            I ate radically more eggs yesterday than I have eaten today.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:12 pm #

            Careful now, does makes the poison remember

            Perhaps you should start handling your eggs with special gloves and dispose of any waste in specially constructed bio containers

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 2:22 pm #

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:25 pm #

            So what does of aluminum makes the poison when injected into new born babies?

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:43 pm #

            Well, if you want to know so much, inject your baby with it, and when it dies, tell us the dose. You are just so obsessed with it. You want to know? Go kill a baby and find out, because that that ONLY way you will ever know.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 2:51 pm #

            That was over the top, Marco.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 2:55 pm #

            He’s been asking for the lethal dose even though I’ve told him multiple time that it would require that we kill people. Yet he stills demands it.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:00 pm #

            I thought I was replying to him. It’s still not cool to talk about killing babies though.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

            More than what’s being injected, so what does the exact number matter? Do you not drive under a bridge if you don’t know the exact clearance, or do you just ask “Is it taller than my vehicle?”

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:51 pm #

            So scientific, is that what science based medicine is come to – bridge comparisons

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 4:31 pm #

            I linked to the PK/exposure paper in the other thread. Read the whole thing, then get back to us.

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 4:49 pm #

            Your snark is actually quite on point – it would be absurd for me to treat something so very commonly consumed as if it were somehow highly hazardous with no evidence at all.

          • guest
            September 13, 2016 at 1:55 pm #

            Those bucks ought to put a stop to those poison-concocting does, then.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 1:07 pm #

            What’s the toxic dose limit for aluminium by injection for a new born baby?

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 12, 2016 at 1:11 pm #

            Very obviously, it is far lower than the doses used in vaccines (although what vaccines are actually given to newborns by injection? The first sets of shots usually comes at 2 mos).

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 1:17 pm #

            HepB. Which I’m sure Barzini didn’t give to his kids, because a virus that can live on surfaces for months and can cause liver cancer just isn’t worth protecting against.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:11 pm #

            Plenty countries don;t give the Hep B vaccination to new born babies

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 2:21 pm #

            They probably should.
            http://i2.wp.com/www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/hep-B-vaccine.gif

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:23 pm #

            So what’s the safe limit for injection of aluminum into new born babies?

            I presume you know

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:11 pm #

            Wait a minute, you mean you don’t know the limit?

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm #

            Hepatitis B is frequently given at birth.

            Oops! I see Roadstergal already said this, but it does bear repeating so I’ll leave it.

          • corblimeybot
            September 13, 2016 at 9:46 am #

            Just keep wailing “newborn baby” over and over; it’s totally not an meaningless appeal to emotion.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 12, 2016 at 1:12 pm #

            This is like the third time I’ve said this in the past week, but why in hell do you morons keep making straw arguments?

            Seriously, that is all you have.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 1:15 pm #

            I’m saying that I’m on board and that I now think it’s a good idea to inject 250mcg of aluminium into a new born baby

            The argument that breast milk also contains aluminium was what really brought it into perspective for me

            Before, when Dr Paul Offit (who made millions of dollars from vaccination) claimed that injecting a child 10,000 times would be perfectly safe, I was somewhat suspicious

            But not anymore, I would now be perfectly willing to inject my own child with 250mcg 10,000 times – I’ m convinced, I’m one of you, I have seen the light

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 2:19 pm #

            You keep bringing up Offit. He invented something that saves tens of thousands of lives a year. It is only fair that he be rewarded for that. Given various estimates for the value of a human life range from $50,000/year to $9.1 million apiece lump sum (http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html and http://www.theglobalist.com/the-cost-of-a-human-life-statistically-speaking/ ), one could actually argue that he was grossly underpaid. I’m not going that far, but I will say I have no problem with him having gotten the payment he did.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:21 pm #

            I’ve no problem with anyone making the money they deserve

            I’ve a problem with someone who makes millions from vaccines working at the CDC

          • Nick Sanders
            September 12, 2016 at 2:21 pm #

            I repeat, did he make the money concurrently with his time at the CDC?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:23 pm #

            Yeah, it’s all kosha

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 2:49 pm #

            Offit doesn’t work at the CDC; he works for the University of Pennsylvania.

          • corblimeybot
            September 12, 2016 at 3:12 pm #

            Yeah, I’m fine if the guy made money off his lifesaving work. I’m glad someone gets compensated for doing something good once in a while.

      • Michael McCarthy
        September 12, 2016 at 2:10 pm #

        “there’s aluminium in breast milk (20000 times less) “
        You, uh, may want to check your figures there.

        • Barzini
          September 12, 2016 at 2:15 pm #

          Breast milk contains an average of 23 mcg of aluminium / litre http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

          An average serving for a new born baby is 0.1 litres http://www.parents.com/baby/fe

          So in one serving, a baby consumes 2.3mcg of aluminium

          But only 0.5% is absorbed – I have taken a figure for drinking water as an approximate
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm

          So we must multiply 2.3 by 0.005 to get 0.012 mcg – an amount which is consumed gradually over 10 minutes
          http://www.parents.com/baby/fe

          On the other hand, the Hep B vaccine (given on first day of life) contains 250mcg of aluminium

          So, 250/0.012 = 20,833 times more aluminium in the vaccine than breast milk, with regard to what is absorbed by the body

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 2:28 pm #

            Like I said, check your math. If 5% is absorbed (not 0.5%), you are off by a factor of 10. The rather deceptive presentation assuming children only receive 0.1L breast milk ever, or that it being gradually consumed makes a hill of beans difference, notwithstanding.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:42 pm #

            It’s 0.5% not 5% – I provided a link

            A typical serving of breast milk for a new born baby is just under 0.1 liters

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 12, 2016 at 2:45 pm #

            #1, you still haven’t learned how to post a working link, you moron. #2 it doesn’t matter what a SINGLE SERVING of breast milk is because they aren’t consuming a single serving.

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

            Umm, no. 0.1 liter is 100 mL. There are 30 mL to the ounce, newborns drink less than an ounce at one feeding.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:48 pm #

            I gave you a link, look it up

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm #

            Your link is broken. Some might think deliberately. I’m sorry, but there are way too many parents here who know perfectly well that very very few newborns drink 3 oz of milk in one sitting. If you meant to say that EVERY
            SINGLE DAY, babies get that much Al, you would have said so.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 2:57 pm #

            And about 8 feedings a day. Though it really is less than 3 oz the first few days or so.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:03 pm #

            Here’s the link I took it from http://www.parents.com/baby/feeding/solid-foods/feeding-portions-menu/

            The less it is, the bigger the difference between breast milk and vaccination

            It’s actually in my interest to accept your number

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:32 pm #

            You did not. You chose to believe breast milk absorption was equal to water absorption. Given the radically different make up of breast milk and water, I would not be so certain of that.

            I also like that you chose breast milk, which has a far lower aluminium content than formula. Almost like you were choosing the lowest possible option.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:35 pm #

            I chose breast milk because I have been repeatedly told that the fact breast milk contains aluminum means fears over aluminum vaccination are misplaced

            The 0.5% number is an estimate – I admitted that

            I’m generating a ball park figure for discussion purposes

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 3:36 pm #

            Formula contains aluminum too, at much higher levels. You can look it up yourself. I’m sick of you, Marco.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:37 pm #

            I agree – soy milk has the highest

            I can do another calculation for soy milk if you want – it will still be a big number, but not as big

            The breast milk comparison has been made many times – it’s also what is recommended to be fed to babies

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:37 pm #

            But you are insisting we all use your ballpark figure.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:39 pm #

            It’s a rough number to show how ridiculous it is when people compare drinking breast milk with vaccination with regard to aluminum absorption

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:59 pm #

            You have 100% failed to provide any information on absorption from vaccination, so really your comparison shows nothing.

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 13, 2016 at 1:53 pm #

            “The 0.5% number is an estimate – I admitted that”
            Keep on lying.
            Barzini Michael McCarthy • a day ago
            It’s 0.5% not 5% – I provided a link
            http://www.skepticalob.com/2016/09/take-the-dr-amy-anti-vax-challenge.html#comment-2889733632

          • MaineJen
            September 12, 2016 at 4:39 pm #

            100 ml? I hope you’re joking.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 4:54 pm #

            Got it from here
            http://www.parents.com/baby/feeding/solid-foods/feeding-portions-menu/

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 2:33 pm #

            Sigh. (emphasis mine)

            http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

            “The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low, according to a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)….Vaccines containing an aluminum adjuvant have a demonstrated safety profile of over six decades of use and have only uncommonly been associated with severe local reactions…Aluminum is found naturally in large quantities in the environment, often consumed through drinking water or ingesting certain foods, such as infant formula. Using the updated parameters, the authors found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum, based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:37 pm #

            What’s the safe dose for injection of this proven neurotoxin into new born babies?

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 2:38 pm #

            The safe dose is lower than the dose that children get in vaccines: (emphasis mine)

            ” There is no evidence for neurotoxic effects in humans who may be exposed to aluminum following single, episodic injections”

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11015799

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:45 pm #

            A other poster here has just told me that the safe dose is ‘probably’ 400 mcg

            Are you saying that there is no limit?

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

            Read the paper I posted. Figures 3 and 4 will answer your question.

          • MaineJen
            September 12, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

            Stop. They are quoting cited sources and you’re being deliberately obtuse.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm #

            No, he just said it;s probably 400 mcg – I have asked for the source and received no reply

            The other guy says there is no limit

            I presume you know the safety limit for injecting aluminium into a new born baby but that you’re keeping it to yourself

          • MaineJen
            September 12, 2016 at 2:51 pm #

            I know the upper limit for my tolerance of your trolling. I just reached it.

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 2:54 pm #

            As long as that limit is higher than the amount that babies get through ALL their environmental sources, the exact number is irrelevant. But the paper I linked to has a chart of the MRLs. An honest person would have looked already and seen it.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:07 pm #

            Can you provide again?, I missed it in all the noise

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 3:17 pm #

            Sigh.

            ” There is no evidence for neurotoxic effects in humans who may be exposed to aluminum following single, episodic injections”

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11015799

            Since you already admitted that you don’t accept vaccines with zero aluminium, what exactly do you think is the point in you reading this paper? You are a vain person who isn’t going to stop believing that you know better than scientists or doctors. Its all about your vanity, the safety of children isn’t really your concern. If it was, you’d be harping on the stats for neurological damage from the infections that vaccines prevent (hint, tetanus toxin is an extremely potent neurotoxin).

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:24 pm #

            I’m in a discussion with another poster on this thread who believes the limit is around 400mcg

            Above this limit he believes neurological damage could be possible – and that’s not in a new born baby

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 3:26 pm #

            So you won’t read my link, the EVIDENCE there, even though I posted it twice at your request, because of what someone else wrote.

            That’s not honest behavior.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 3:29 pm #

            So here’s the study provided by the other poster where children started showing signs of neurological problems after 400 mcg

            So one of you is wrong

            http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

            There was a study[1] done on IV hydration for VLW infants comparing standard solutions (25 mcg/dl) and Al depleted solutions. They compared cognitive outcomes at corrected post-term age of 18 months. Doses of ten days had comparable neurological outcomes, greater than ten days had reduced neurological outcomes.
            In ten days a child would have had VLW child would have had somewhat more than 400mcg. Considering that VLW children are a population at risk of having reduced neurological development. It’s reasonable to consider that an upper bound for normal weight children.
            [1]http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10…

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:51 pm #

            Try reading this link. The children involved were very low weight infants born prematurely, at less than 34 weeks gestation. They are of a much smaller size than your average new born and far less developed.

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 4:31 pm #

            Sigh. This really embarrassing for you. Sometimes, two different studies will say slightly different things. (especially if, as in this case, they are studying two different populations!). This is not a horrible problem, and it doesn’t mean that you throw up your hands, declare that facts are meaningless, and that it’s okay for you to leave your children vulnerable to deadly diseases for no good reason. Honest people don’t think like that.

            Honest people who scream over and over again how injection is SO much different than ingestion should not simply slide over the difference between a one time injection and days and days of IV administration either.

            My link cites the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, so that’s a better figure to go by then mangling math in a paper that’s not directly answering the question.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 4:55 pm #

            The other study shows babies having neurological damage as a result of aluminium – are you saying they made a mistake ?

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 5:02 pm #

            It is futile to talk to someone who is not honest. Until you deal with the paper I presented, you are not honest. As long as you stand firm on not vaccinating with vaccines that have NO aluminum, you are not honest in continuing this conversation.

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

            He doesn’t vaccinate with vaccines that contain no aluminum at all. He’s a disingenuous contrarian.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 5:12 pm #

            I don’t have time to read it right now – but I promise I will – and thanks for the link

            What do you think about the other paper that shows neurological damage in babies in levels some where above 400mcg?

            What do you think about the FDA limit of 5mcg/kg/day?

          • MaineJen
            September 12, 2016 at 9:36 pm #

            Take it…to the limit

          • Charybdis
            September 13, 2016 at 9:50 am #

            One more time!

          • Who?
            September 13, 2016 at 7:42 am #

            So you have hours and hours to post, but no time to read?

            Could you understand it if you did make the time to read it in between feverishly beating the keyboard?

          • Nick Sanders
            September 13, 2016 at 1:08 pm #

            I think that’s for long term IV exposure, which works differently because a constant intake is harder for the body to clear than a quick spike.

            Also:
            http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 13, 2016 at 10:45 am #

            No, we’re saying you’re making a mistake.

            The other study showed no difference in cognitive outcomes at 18 months in highly vulnerable populations. This dose is much greater than the Heb B shot. Ergo the Heb B shot is safe for normal weight children.

            The problem with your interpretation of the > 10 day group as having decreased cognitive function due to aluminum is that:

            i) Like any test there are false positives and like a lot of tests they are geared to be more specific than sensitive. That is they are better at ruling things IN more than ruling things OUT.

            ii) The differences are significant but aren’t necessarily large. The means of both groups qualify as normal.

            iii) They are all VLW infants who are on IV hydration. Which means the > 10 day group is more ill than the 10 day or less group. So this would likely create a biasing effect toward lower scoring outcomes.

            (Again if you had decided to read the study you would know all this)

            So while this study shuts down your idea about Hep B. It doesn’t really say much about normal weight children on higher doses.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 13, 2016 at 11:18 am #

            Good job at interpreting the study, Jon, but I doubt it will penetrate his thick skull.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 13, 2016 at 11:27 am #

            I think it’s pretty clear that he’s being deliberately ignorant.

          • Wren
            September 13, 2016 at 11:48 am #

            I’m not sure he is.

            I mean, he is deliberately misinterpreting things, sure. But does he have the knowledge to be deliberately ignorant here or is he just actually that ignorant? He seems incapable of reading a study and figuring out what it says and clearly lacks both basic biology and chemistry.

          • Roadstergal
            September 13, 2016 at 11:51 am #

            At some point, though, he has to go back to where he said he’d read the cited papers, and either try to read them and not understand a word (we can see very well from his attempt to read the preemie paper that he doesn’t know how to read papers), or know that would be the outcome and deliberately avoid them. So on some level, he’s being quite deliberately ignorant. Stupid, as well, but the ignorance is the deliberate part.

          • Wren
            September 13, 2016 at 11:52 am #

            I think he has probably tried to read them, failed to understand them but not even realised that.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 13, 2016 at 3:04 pm #

            Well the thing that is a red flag for me is that he sets up a standard of evidence: “injected isn’t the same as consumed” and then when it is met all of a sudden the standard changes. That said I’m hardly an expert in the psychology of trolls…

          • Nick Sanders
            September 13, 2016 at 3:26 pm #

            And he keeps trying to use his “0.5%” in cases where it is either already factored in by default, such as oral toxicity data, or where it’s completely inapplicable, such as injection reaction analysis. Case in point:
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/skepticalob/take_the_dr_amy_anti_vax_challenge/#comment-2889777434

          • Sonja Henie
            September 13, 2016 at 12:24 pm #

            There’s the remote possibility that he is really that ignorant, but it’s doubtful. He’s a Swiss who writes English well, so there’s that.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 13, 2016 at 3:06 pm #

            Sure anything is possible. Understanding trolls isn’t exactly a hard science.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 5:57 pm #

            It’s reasonable to consider dosages lower than 400mcg safe in normal weight children. The other study says:

            There is no evidence for neurotoxic effects in humans who may be exposed to aluminum following single, episodic injections

            There is no contradiction.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 6:09 pm #

            Cool, give your one day old baby the 250mcg of aluminum

            Based on what you have posted here today, I am actually even more wary of the vaccination for one day old babies now

            If we do establish the safety limit I would be very interested in seeing what it is and how it was arrived at

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 6:30 pm #

            Cool, give your one day old baby the 250mcg of aluminum

            You mean give them the Hep B vaccine. I would have if it was available. I gave both my kids the hep A/B combo instead.

          • Charybdis
            September 12, 2016 at 7:01 pm #

            You don’t give a damn about the safety and safety limit. You don’t vax your kids and, if I remember correctly, you aren’t vaxxed yourself. So this is just theoretical, a thought experiment for you. Even if there was a study/studies done, you wouldn’t read them. Just like you haven’t read a single thing any of us have posted.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 3:47 pm #

            He won’t read the other link either. He claims it involves “much older children” when in fact it involves premature babies born prior to 34 weeks gestation.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 4:05 pm #

            He’s not saying the limit is around 400. He’s saying that they showed 400 is safe for premature baby. Which says nothing about the actual limit on normal newborns, it might be 450, it might be 800.
            You really understand nothing.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 4:57 pm #

            450 isn’t much above the 250 in a hep B vaccine – I hope it isn’t 450

            Gee, maybe we should work out what it is

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 5:00 pm #

            It is, actually. It’s a lot above. It’s a lot above an amount shown to be safe in fragile premature babies.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:05 pm #

            By killing a baby?

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 5:07 pm #

            We have rather good modeling, actually, that means we don’t have to. But The Amazing Barzini won’t read the paper.

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:14 pm #

            Probably because it’s modeling. that’s not good enough to him.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm #

            No, the lethal dose is far above the dose at which neurological harm starts to occur (far far above)

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:14 pm #

            So…..we should inject babies until they start having neurological signs?

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 5:29 pm #

            Ah, so you admit that they will start to have signs of neurological damage – a breakthrough at last

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 5:31 pm #

            Are you having an imaginary argument in your head? Because you clearly are making things up that I haven’t said.
            I’m the one who said that dose makes the poison, and that everything has a toxic dose. So of course, if you hook babies to IV aluminum, eventually they are going to get intoxicated by it.
            My point it that
            -We know the dose we use are safe
            -It’s useless to know exactly at what dose they start having signs
            And doing such a thing to babies is freaking maniac!!!

          • Charybdis
            September 12, 2016 at 6:56 pm #

            Reading comprehension fail!

          • corblimeybot
            September 13, 2016 at 10:44 am #

            Explain why you won’t use vaccines without aluminum. You’ve dodged that question about ten times, unless Disqus is hiding the one time you tried to explain that nonsense.

          • Roadstergal
            September 13, 2016 at 11:43 am #

            “We’re talking about aluminum at the moment” was basically his response. In other words, his reasons for not vaccinating with all of the non-Al-containing vaccines must be even stupider than the reason he’s giving for skipping the HepB vaccine.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 5:51 pm #

            So let me get this straight, you’re concerned about a dosage very much lower than a known safe (for a particular outcome) dosage? On a group of people who are really, really vulnerable to that outcome?

            So your thinking is what? If the dose is too much lower than a known safe dosage it could cause harm?

            I think you better lay off the cough syrup there Barzini.

          • Barzini
            September 12, 2016 at 6:04 pm #

            That doesn’t sound like a big enough factor of safety for me

            The study you linked to was for observable damage

            There’s every chance that damage occurred at a lower level that wasn’t detected

            Anyway, my point is that we shouldn’t be trying to work this out, the information should be there

            And by the way, many pre-term babies are given the Hep B vaccine

          • Roadstergal
            September 12, 2016 at 6:12 pm #

            “That doesn’t sound like a big enough safety factor for me.”

            Based on what? Your extensive study and experience in biostats, immunology, PK, or tox? Or your Mommy Instinct?

            You could try reading more than one paper, you know. That’s just one data point among many. We’ve supplied you with more.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 12, 2016 at 6:28 pm #

            The study you linked to was for observable damage

            Absolutely not. If you ever decided to read the study you would know that. There is only evidence of reduced markers.

            There’s every chance that damage occurred at a lower level that wasn’t detected

            Nope. There is a statistically bounded chance that either there’s a change in Bailey score that is not detectable (which means it has to be super small) or a chance that some kind of cognitive outcome is not detectable by Bailey. Go ahead and let me know about that. The group that didn’t get the aluminum had a wider CI than the group that did. Which also tells us that it’s unlikely that we are looking at an accident of statistics. In fact even the change in score between the > 10 day group is small.

            Anyway, my point is that we shouldn’t be trying to work this out, the information should be there

            Sorry but that’s not your point. Your point was what is safe? I told you, supplied evidence. You can’t seem to deal with the rather well supported fact that hep b is safe.

          • Charybdis
            September 12, 2016 at 6:54 pm #

            Moved on to Hep B now, has s/he?

            The desperation is just sad. 🙁

          • Roadstergal
            September 13, 2016 at 11:41 am #

            Yeah, he didn’t know to start with that there isn’t aluminum adjuvant in the MMR, so he had to jump to the (most excellent) HepB shot. There’s a vaccine that prevents certain types of _cancer_ in the population most likely to get the chronic, cancer-associated form of HepB, and noooo don’t do it!

            BTW, multiple studies in multiple countries have independently identified acupuncture as a risk factor for HepB (which, of course, makes sense). It’s just funny notfunny to me that the Venn diagram of the strain of woo that wouldn’t vaccinate with the strain of woo that is onboard with acupuncture is probably highly overlapping.

          • Charybdis
            September 13, 2016 at 11:55 am #

            But they soak the acupuncture needles in breastmilk before using them, don’t they? No reason at all to worry about potentially catching Hep B from acupuncture. Or some moxibustion will sterilize everything, right?

            I wonder if Barzini is aware that there is aluminum in tattoo ink. And that has a permanent residence UNDER YOUR SKIN!! Where there is eternal exposure to teh aloominums!!

          • Roadstergal
            September 13, 2016 at 12:00 pm #

            He’d probably smugly state that he doesn’t tattoo his newborn, either.

            (I have so many tattoos. And have had all of the vaccinations I’m eligible for, including the HepB series… it’s a wonder I haven’t caught all of Teh Alzheimer’s already!)

          • Charybdis
            September 13, 2016 at 12:16 pm #

            True, you don’t tattoo your newborn, but if s/he has tattoos, has family members with tattoos or allows his kids to get tattoos, then Barzini should raise holy hell with them and get his/hers removed posthaste.

            Because you now have aluminum-containing inks injected with a needle under your skin where they will stay, an innocuous pictorial tribute silently leaching aluminum into your system forever!

            Or piercings. What about the piercings and HepB?

          • Roadstergal
            September 13, 2016 at 12:22 pm #

            Oh, The Amazing Barzini doesn’t care about other people. In fact, other people doing things he disapproves of are a great way to smugly look down on them. He’d be all “Oh, if _you_ want to expose your kids to toxic aluminum in tattoos, go right ahead…” But the fact that his beloved Swiss low vaccination rate caused a painful and expensive outbreak in CA? Nah, fuck y’all.

            Yeah, I have a lot of piercings, too. I make sure the sites I go to have an autoclave with a current inspection certificate, and remove the needles from the autoclave bag with the indicator changed where I can see it, but I still am much more at ease knowing my immune system is prepared to shut that M-F down the moment it sees it.

          • corblimeybot
            September 12, 2016 at 7:35 pm #

            Every chance? There is every single chance that secret, hidden, undetectable damage was done?

            So what you really mean is “Oh shit, I look wrong, time to blither. If the damage was undetectable, that just means people weren’t looking hard enough. YEAH, that sounds good!”

          • Azuran
            September 12, 2016 at 10:49 pm #

            so….now we should also kill the babies to analyses their brain for damage?

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 13, 2016 at 1:38 pm #

            wouldn’t it be easier (and a lot more satisfying) to kill Barzini and look for brain damage?

          • Roadstergal
            September 13, 2016 at 2:05 pm #

            You don’t have to look hard.

          • Wren
            September 12, 2016 at 6:34 pm #

            How do you propose that is done? You clearly know so much more than the men and women who have studied, trained and now work in research in this area. What is you undoubtedly ethical and practical method to find the exact top end of safe aluminum administration?

            Or is this just an attempt to claim that since that exact point isn’t known, no aluminum is the only safe option?

            What exactly is the maximum safe dose of paracetamol for a newborn? Remember, this baby is just born, on his or her first
            day of life. You cannot simply go by a safe, therapeutic dose. You must know the exact maximum safe dose or you cannot give paracetamol at all. The same applies to any other medication, of course.

          • swbarnes2
            September 12, 2016 at 6:44 pm #

            Barzini, some amount of photonic radiation is lethal, so unless you know what that amount is off the top of your head RIGHT NOW, shut off all the EM radiation in your area. Just get away fro ALL of it until you know how much is safe. Unless you know the maximum safe amount of oxygen that you can breathe, you need to stop breathing RIGHT NOW.

          • corblimeybot
            September 13, 2016 at 10:46 am #

            Have you addressed why you’re terrified of aluminum (which has had no demonstrable effect in millions of vaccinated children), but chill about tetanus?

          • Roadstergal
            September 13, 2016 at 11:37 am #

            He’s shown he’s 100% cool with hepatitis B and measles, also.

          • Charybdis
            September 12, 2016 at 6:14 pm #

            Dude, I posted that info last week for you and it kicked off your “injection is not ingestion” bout of repetitive verbal vomit.

            http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/video/there-difference-between-aluminum-injected-vs-ingested#.V9ccCfkrLIU
            …there’s logarithmically so much more aluminum that you ingest that you actually have far more aluminum in your circulation because of what you eat and drink than you would ever get from vaccines.

            Aluminum is incorporated into some vaccines as an adjuvant. The purpose of formulating vaccines with adjuvants is to increase the immune response to the antigen (the component of the vaccine that stimulates the immune system to make antibodies). When FDA evaluates a vaccine for safety and effectiveness, an adjuvant such as aluminum, is considered to be a part of the vaccine, rather than a component that is licensed separately.
            Federal Regulations for biological products (including vaccines) limit the amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of biological products, including vaccines, to not more than 0.85-1.25 mg. For example, the amount of aluminum in the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth is 0.25 mg. Aluminum is found naturally in large quantities in the environment, often consumed through drinking water or ingesting certain foods, such as infant formula. Using the updated parameters, the authors found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum, based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
            Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination.”
            Vaccine 29 (2011) 9538-9543
            doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.09.124

            During the first 6 months of life, infants could receive about
            4 milligrams of aluminum from vaccines. That’s not very much: a
            milligram is one-thousandth of a gram and a gram is the weight of
            one-fifth of a teaspoon of water. During the same period, babies will
            also receive about 10 milligrams of aluminum in breast milk, about
            40 milligrams in infant formula, or about 120 milligrams in soybased
            formula.
            . Most of the aluminum that enters the body is eliminated
            quickly. Though all of the aluminum present in vaccines enters the
            bloodstream, less than 1 percent of aluminum present in food is
            absorbed through the intestines into the blood.
            However, once aluminum is in the bloodstream, it is processed
            similarly regardless of the source. Approximately 90 percent is
            processed by binding to a protein called transferrin, and about
            10 percent is bound by citrate. Once bound, the majority of
            aluminum will be eliminated through the kidneys, a small amount
            through bile, and a small amount is retained in tissues of the body.
            About half of the aluminum in the bloodstream is eliminated in less
            than 24 hours and more than three-quarters is eliminated within
            two weeks. The ability of the body to rapidly eliminate aluminum
            accounts for its excellent record of safety. . The small quantity of aluminum retained in the body
            accumulates over time. Most of the aluminum that accumulates
            (50 to 60 percent) settles in the bones, some in the lungs (about 25
            percent) and some in the brain (about 1 percent). The remaining
            quantities are distributed in serum, skin, gastrointestinal tract, lymph
            nodes and glands. In fact, low quantities of aluminum can be found in most organs.
            By the time children
            become adults, they will
            have accumulated between
            50 and 100 milligrams
            of aluminum. Almost
            all of that accumulated
            aluminum comes from
            food. For aluminum to be harmful, two criteria must be met: People must
            have kidneys that don’t work well or don’t work at all, and they must
            receive large quantities of aluminum for months or years. In these
            situations, a lot of aluminum enters the body and not enough leaves the body. The quantity of aluminum in vaccines is tiny compared with
            the quantity required to cause harm. Here’s another way to think
            about this: All babies are either breast-fed or bottlefed. Because
            both breast milk and infant formula contain aluminum, all babies
            have small quantities of aluminum in their bloodstreams all the
            time. The amount is very small: about 5 nanograms (billionths of a
            gram) per milliliter of blood (about one-fifth of a teaspoon). Indeed,
            the quantity of aluminum in vaccines is so small that even after an
            injection of vaccines, the amount of aluminum in a baby’s blood does
            not detectably change. In contrast, the amount of aluminum in the
            bloodstreams of people who suffer health problems from aluminum
            is at least 100
            times greater
            than the amount
            found in the
            bloodstreams of
            healthy people. Delaying vaccines increases the time during which children
            are susceptible to catching vaccine-preventable diseases. Certain
            diseases, such as whooping cough and pneumococcus, still occur
            commonly in the United States. Given that aluminum is common in
            food and water, delaying vaccines will not significantly lessen a child’s
            exposure to aluminum; it will only increase the child’s chance of
            suffering a severe and potentially fatal infection.

            Influenza is the 7th most deadly disease in the United States, right behind diabetes. Every year, 55,000 adults and children die from the flu and pulmonary complications derived by the flu, while severe adverse reactions to the flu shot are 0.00000001%, so why not vaccinate? Also, remember the concept of herd immunity discussed above. Not vaccinating against the flu means exposing more people to the virus for a prolonged period of time, including immune compromised individuals. An immunized person that comes in contact with the influenza virus clears the infection in 24 hours. A non-vaccinated person is infected and contagious for almost a week, often asymptomatically at first, which dramatically increases spreading of the disease. It is also important that the flu vaccine is taken yearly.

            There.

          • Ron Roy
            September 13, 2016 at 5:14 pm #

            Only .05% of any ingested aluminum gets into the bloodstream as opposed to 100% in vaccines. Plus the blood brain barrier is not fully developed in newborns.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 13, 2016 at 5:36 pm #

            Prove it.

            Edit: I just noticed, that number shrunk again. First it was 5%, then it was 0.5%, now it’s 0.05%.

          • Charybdis
            September 13, 2016 at 6:20 pm #

            Citation for that claim; that the blood/brain barrier is not fully developed in newborns?

            Most of the aluminum that enters the body is eliminated
            quickly. Though all of the aluminum present in vaccines enters the
            bloodstream, less than 1 percent of aluminum present in food is
            absorbed through the intestines into the blood.
            However, once aluminum is in the bloodstream, it is processed
            similarly regardless of the source. Approximately 90 percent is
            processed by binding to a protein called transferrin, and about
            10 percent is bound by citrate. Once bound, the majority of
            aluminum will be eliminated through the kidneys, a small amount
            through bile, and a small amount is retained in tissues of the body.
            About half of the aluminum in the bloodstream is eliminated in less
            than 24 hours and more than three-quarters is eliminated within
            two weeks. The ability of the body to rapidly eliminate aluminum
            accounts for its excellent record of safety. . The small quantity of aluminum retained in the body
            accumulates over time. Most of the aluminum that accumulates
            (50 to 60 percent) settles in the bones, some in the lungs (about 25
            percent) and some in the brain (about 1 percent). The remaining
            quantities are distributed in serum, skin, gastrointestinal tract, lymph
            nodes and glands. In fact, low quantities of aluminum can be found in most organs.
            By the time children
            become adults, they will
            have accumulated between
            50 and 100 milligrams
            of aluminum.

            If you are having trouble reading the above information, you might get someone to help you sound out the big words. Or read it to you so you can concentrate on absorbing the meaning of the passage.

          • Ron Roy
            September 14, 2016 at 8:52 am #

            And these studies were conducted by the same people ( the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA ) who approved of these 35 drugs that were later banned because of serious side effects and deaths:http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528 I think I’ll believe my sources over yours.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 14, 2016 at 9:05 am #

            the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA

            Out of curiosity Ron. How many people do you think work for all the labs and universities that do work for pharmaceutical companies and the FDA? Five? Ten?

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 14, 2016 at 5:56 pm #

            So you think there are what twenty people in total who work for those groups? Maybe thirty?

          • Ron Roy
            September 15, 2016 at 7:56 am #

            I thought I told you to do the math? Ok I’ll help let’s say ( just ) 30 and let’s say those 30 were department heads. How many people under their control would dare go against their commands or wishes? So 30 could turn into hundreds if not thousands.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 15, 2016 at 8:48 am #

            I thought I told you to do the math?

            What I’m asking is what you think. Not what actually exists.

            So 30 could turn into hundreds if not thousands.

            So thousands? The 1.3 million papers published each year are initiate, managed and completed entirely using a few thousand? That’s your position. Right?

          • Ron Roy
            September 15, 2016 at 9:22 am #

            No but the approval of drugs and vaccines are approved by a handful of people.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 15, 2016 at 9:26 am #

            You weren’t talking about approval. You were talking about the studies that were conducted. See it’s right here:

            And these studies were conducted by the same people

            So again. How many Ron? 50 people? Thousands? How many to produce the 1.3 million papers published each year?

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 1:51 am #

            Papers ah yes you mean the papers written by ghost writers that are then attributed to scientist that are paid for the use of their names.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 7:20 am #

            Again, how many people do you think are creating these 1.3 million published papers. Anytime you want to answer that question I can continue tearing you a new one.

          • Charybdis
            September 15, 2016 at 9:36 am #

            Really? You are claiming that department heads “control” people and are such martinets and egomaniacs that those working for them will have no choice but to bow to their wishes and demands? Even if they have a favorite “pet” theory/belief, they generally don’t insist that EVERYBODY bow to their quirks. Stringent lab rules, testing procedures and protocols, sterilization standards, universal precautions, use of vent hoods, incubators, storage of flammables and other hazardous materials, clean room policies, etc, THESE are the things where there is no leeway and noncompliance with these things is not tolerated.

            My Organic Chemistry professor in college was obsessed with nitrites and nitrosamines and would occasionally go off on a tangent about them. However, *his* thoughts and feelings about them were not part of the curriculum. He covered them in class appropriately and THAT material was on the test. He did not test us on *his* beliefs/concerns/obsession about nitrates and nitrosamines. Nor did he inspect lunches or expect his TA’s and lab assistants to shun those compounds.

            My Biochemistry professor wore latex gloves when lecturing and writing on the chalkboard because he hated the feeling of chalk on his hands. He did not claim that chalk was poisonous or otherwise harmful in the classroom situation. He just didn’t like the feeling of chalk and chalk dust on his hands and claimed that it dried them out. He did not insist that students wear gloves if they used the chalk, nor did he insist that his TA’s wear gloves if they were covering the lecture that day.

            Science really doesn’t work the way you think it does. New discoveries are NOT automatically dismissed, nor are they rushed out in publications for the general public, they are tested over and over for repeatability, reproducibility and reliability so that a consensus can be reached about the findings.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 12:37 am #

            There’s a revolving door in between the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies. FDA employees either tow the line or get fired.

          • Who?
            September 16, 2016 at 4:56 am #

            ‘…toe the line’

            I think you’re a little febrile. You would of course be delighted to be febrile, being a fan of serious illness (admittedly though, mostly in others, usually in children).

            Let’s see if you can manage to humbly acknowledge a simple error this time, or whether you again start diverting attention and blaming others.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 8:45 am #

            Ooooo I made a grammatical mistake you on the other hand have made a mistake far greater in supporting the harming of our children through vaccines. I’ll live with my mistake they won’t through yours.

          • Who?
            September 16, 2016 at 9:00 am #

            So now you’ve acknowledged your error, not with humility, but hang around, you might continue to grow.

            Still can’t resist the swipe though, can you.

            I don’t support the harming of children through vaccines, I support vaccination as a powerful tool in public health, for adults and children. Many people are alive and well today thanks to vaccines, who would otherwise be dead or permanently injured.

            You see things differently. In that, you are wrong.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 1:56 am #

            What did you say? Oh sorry I started reading but you put me to sleep.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 16, 2016 at 1:58 am #

            If you can’t stay awake through 4 short paragraphs, you really aren’t mentally equipped to read studies, much less analyze them.

          • September 15, 2016 at 10:23 am #

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/47c29f769b1ab0c4d296892f82d1daafcb6eceec275bb6b2f0af965360a00baf.jpg

            I dunno the exact number but I do know that if you add up the Big Seven competing pharma companies’ employees alone…you get to….I dunno the number…but I do recall it being a group of people roughly the same size as the population of Detroit.

            So this conspiracy is equivalent to the entire population of Detroit hiding a secret from the rest of America. May I just remind readers that there was one particular president who couldn’t hide an affair from the public eye and there were only two people in that room.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 1:48 am #

            9 up votes from three people quite a trick. Makes you look good though.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 7:19 am #

            I rarely look at my upvotes. Are you trying to claim that some of them are sockpuppets?

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 8:07 am #

            Yes.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 8:40 am #

            Am I supposed to be controlling that somehow? Shoo sockpuppets! Shoo!

            Happy?

          • Michael McCarthy
            September 16, 2016 at 12:04 pm #

            “9 up votes from three people”
            What is the distribution set? 3-3-3, 4-4-1, 4-3-2, 5-3-1, 5-2-2, 6-2-1, 7-1-1?

          • Charybdis
            September 14, 2016 at 12:12 pm #

            That is certainly your perogative. However, you DO realize that your tinfoil hat is made of aluminum, right?

            And that Alcoa is in bed with both the Illuminati AND Big Brother in a huge mind-controlling, subversive and altogether BAD menage a trois?

          • Ron Roy
            September 14, 2016 at 4:53 pm #

            Tin foil hat? What the… Oh darn you’re looking in the mirror again! I wanting for you to comment on all those SAFE drugs that were taken off the market. You know the ones that were as rigorously tested as vaccines. But but vaccine are perfectly safe. NOT!

          • Charybdis
            September 14, 2016 at 7:53 pm #

            Vaccines have a 60+ year history of safety. Very few people have a legitimate, serious reaction to vaccines and these are the people who have a valid reason for vaccine exemptions. Things like redness at the site of the injection, mild swelling at the site of injection, low grade fever, feeling achy/ under the weather for a day or two and tenderness )at the site of injection are NOT vaccine injuries. Those are known effects of receiving a vaccination, and fairly common.

            And drugs are not the same as vaccines. To borrow one of the anti-vaxxer’s favorite ploys: we aren’t discussing drug safety/efficacy. Drugs are given over a time period (3x/day antibiotics for 10 days, Lortab every 4-6 hours as needed for pain after surgery, etc) or chronically as maintenance medication (beta blockers, diuretics, insulin, depression and anxiety meds, etc). Drugs are in your system much more regularly and for a longer period of time than a vaccine, so dosages are different and exposure to the compound is over a longer period of time.

            Vaccines are used to prime the immune system against specific disease-causing viruses and bacteria. They are tiny doses, exquisitely formulated to trigger the needed immune response with a minimum of exposure. They have been researched and continually improved over time so they are very safe. The safety record is there, but it is not 100%. Nothing is 100% guaranteed, so it is up to you to weigh the risks for you and yours.

            But nice try with the red herring. Drugs are not the same as vaccines in makeup, use and length of exposure.

          • Ron Roy
            September 15, 2016 at 7:46 am #

            The moral character of those making of those making drugs doesn’t change when they make vaccines. If their able to put unsafe drugs on the market they will and do put unsafe vaccines on the market. Drug companies are able to absorb the lawsuits from bad reactions to drugs but could not from vaccines so they bribed our politicians into having the Federal government accept the liability.

          • Charybdis
            September 15, 2016 at 9:13 am #

            How about a citation for that? “Ron Roy’s personal beliefs and willful ignorance about science” is not an acceptable citation for your claims.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 12:41 am #

            VICP

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 1:58 am #

            Let me correct you. The 60 year history of vaccines could be made into a horror movie.

          • MaineJen
            September 16, 2016 at 3:14 am #

            A horror movie in which scores of healthy people fail to contract measles, polio or tetanus! OH MY GOD 😮

            In which every child can reasonably be expected to live to adulthood. THE HORROR

          • Who?
            September 16, 2016 at 4:45 am #

            Oh MaineJen you’re looking at it all wrong. What’s a few dead people when all rr’s feelings and freedoms are at stake?

            Surely a few dead people are a small price to pay for rr to feel good about himself?

          • Nick Sanders
            September 16, 2016 at 4:02 pm #

            An unrelenting scourge has already wiped out a once thriving race, another hovers on the brink of extinction, and now they’re coming for YOU!

            From the makers of Sanitation and Antibiotics, comes VACCINE! “No germ is safe.”

          • September 16, 2016 at 6:00 pm #

            Once-thriving = smallpox.

            Hovering = polio.

            Coming for you = measles.

            ?

          • Nick Sanders
            September 16, 2016 at 11:40 pm #

            The third was non-specific, because movie advertisements are trying to attract as many viewers as possible. The first two you got right, though.

          • Charybdis
            September 13, 2016 at 6:35 pm #

            Here you go:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267212/

            Careful examination of relevant literature shows that many of the most cherished concepts of the blood-brain barrier are incorrect. These include an almost mythological belief in its immaturity that is unfortunately often equated with absence or at least leakiness in the embryo and fetus. The original concept of a blood-brain barrier is often attributed to Ehrlich; however, he did not accept that permeability of cerebral vessels was different from other organs. Goldmann is often credited with the first experiments showing dye (trypan blue) exclusion from the brain when injected systemically, but not when injected directly into it. Rarely cited are earlier experiments of Bouffard and of Franke who showed methylene blue and trypan red stained all tissues except the brain. The term “blood-brain barrier” “Blut-Hirnschranke” is often attributed to Lewandowsky, but it does not appear in his papers. The first person to use this term seems to be Stern in the early 1920s. Studies in embryos by Stern and colleagues, Weed and Wislocki showed results similar to those in adult animals. These were well-conducted experiments made a century ago, thus the persistence of a belief in barrier immaturity is puzzling. As discussed in this review, evidence for this belief, is of poor experimental quality, often misinterpreted and often not properly cited. The functional state of blood-brain barrier mechanisms in the fetus is an important biological phenomenon with implications for normal brain development. It is also important for clinicians to have proper evidence on which to advise pregnant women who may need to take medications for serious medical conditions. Beliefs in immaturity of the blood-brain barrier have held the field back for decades. Their history illustrates the importance of taking account of all the evidence and assessing its quality, rather than selecting papers that supports a preconceived notion or intuitive belief. This review attempts to right the wrongs. Based on careful translation of original papers, some published a century ago, as well as providing discussion of studies claiming to show barrier immaturity, we hope that readers will have evidence on which to base their own conclusions.

            Keywords: blood-brain barrier, blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier, embryo, fetus, newborn, permeability, tight junctions, transporters
            Go to:
            Introduction
            The very first studies of barrier properties in embryos clearly demonstrated the intactness of the interfaces between the blood, brain and cerebrospinal fluid1. Thus Wislocki (1920) injected a guinea pig embryo with trypan blue (Figure ​(Figure1A),1A), the same dye, which was first used by Goldmann (1909; 2013 see below). Wislocki (1920) observed that in the embryo, as in adult animals, the dye stained almost all of the tissues of the body, with the notable exception of much of the brain.

            Figure 1
            Figure 1
            Early demonstration of blood-brain barrier phenomenon in developing brain. (A) Mid gestation guinea pig embryo injected with trypan blue (Wislocki, 1920). Note lack of staining of brain and spinal cord as previously described in adult animals injected …
            Even earlier than this Weed (1917a,b) injected an approximately isotonic solution of potassium ferrocyanide, a small molecule about the same size as sucrose, into the neural tube of E19 and older pig embryos. Weed’s results showed that in an E19 pig embryo the potassium ferrocyanide (demonstrated by the Prussian blue reaction) remained entirely within the fluid filling the neural tube (Figure ​(Figure1B).1B). This suggests that even this early in development, shortly after neural tube closure, the central nervous system (CNS) is separate from the rest of the embryo.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 14, 2016 at 9:36 am #

            …and as demonstrated (as opposed to Ron Roy’s sources which are just flaky unsupported claims) here[1]. IV aluminum in much, much, much more vulnerable infants. Shows no evidence of cognitive problems at doses much higher than those in vaccines. Since as you have already admitted Ron. The poison is in the dose. You can consider yourself corrected. Welcome to the world where people think instead of just google for things that agree with them.

            [1]http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

          • Ron Roy
            September 15, 2016 at 9:23 am #

            Why does your god Paul Offit refuse to debate Boyd Haley PhD on the topic of aluminum toxicity in vaccines?

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 15, 2016 at 9:30 am #

            Sadly I am not any kind of authority on Paul Offit. However again your point that your that aluminum as given in vaccines has neurotoxic effects is refuted[1]. As you say the poison is in the dose. So you now know that whatever level of aluminum is neurotoxic your concerns about vaccines are misapprehensions. I look forward to you never making this claim again. 🙂

            [1]http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

          • September 15, 2016 at 9:33 am #

            Hahaha! Good luck with that request. He will continue to resist all facts, changing only when his hoard of scientific illiterates moves on from aluminum to squalene, formaldehyde, aborted baby parts, SV40, monkey puss, etc. Just like they did with “mercury.”

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 15, 2016 at 9:42 am #

            He can resist all he wants. However that paper effectively destroys the “Oh if you inject this is completely different” argument. Ron wouldn’t dare read a study so I guess he’ll have to wait for someone to post a critique to whale-to. 🙂

          • September 15, 2016 at 9:52 am #

            It’s only a matter of time. But as long as Shaw and Tomljenovic continue to get funding, this trope will continue.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 15, 2016 at 10:05 am #

            Could be. Shaw’s research is crappy and if he wanted to do serious work on aluminum toxicity I’m pretty sure he’s burned all his bridges by now. The irony there is that makes him a slave to people who are willing to fund research with his predetermined set of outcomes.

          • September 15, 2016 at 10:30 am #

            That is ironic. But somehow, this bias is ignored, while a respected MD like Offit is vilified for just the misguided perception of impropriety.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 8:16 am #

            Why is it whenever a reputable scientist PROVES ANYTHING that shows vaccines do cause harm ” the research is crappy “? Many scientist have said that aluminum in vaccines is harmful. If we were to rely on credentials ( something you and your cohorts use against me ) your credentials are no better than mine when compared to Shaw’s or other trained scientists.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 8:50 am #

            Why is it whenever a reputable scientist PROVES

            Well that’s the problem Shaw didn’t prove anything in any useful sense of the word.

            ‘ the research is crappy “?

            Because it is. I can give you a long list of the problems with any of Shaw’s papers I’ve read.

            Many scientist have said that aluminum in vaccines is harmful

            Many scientists believe that the earth is less than 12,000 years old. So you need to weigh the scientific evidence. Not just find a piece you agree with. That’s the different between you and me Ron. You have zero clue how to weigh evidence.

            your credentials are no better than mine when compared to Shaw’s or other trained scientists.

            Sorry Ron whatever Shaw is I’m still miles above you in terms of being able to weigh statistical data. Which is a large part of modern medical science.

            It is well understood that the amount of variability in terms of statistical knowledge in the scientific community is wide. Shaw is probably on the shallow end of that pool. In fact it’s interesting how people who suck at math – Thompson, Shaw, Hooker and are scientists. Tend to support the ideas that there’s some problem with vaccines.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 8:59 am #

            Johnny I’d rather suck at math than suck at having a conscience and I’m light years ahead of you on that.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 9:12 am #

            I’d rather suck at math

            You do.

            than suck at having a conscience

            Ron, you sit here and pontificate every day based on evidence that you either know is wrong or evidence that you should know that you don’t understand.

            It’s kind of hard for you to lecture on having a conscience because it’s pretty unconscionable to deceive people the way you are doing.

            Not only that but you go (or claim to) and convince other people – like your daughter. You may not realize this but I can easily change my mind on vaccines – or just some vaccines. If the right evidence comes along. However you can’t. You’ve deceived all these people and now you’re stuck. What would you do if you were shown undeniable evidence of you being wrong…go apologize to your daughter “Oh remember when I blamed you for you child’s problems. When apparently I was stupid, ignorant, blowhard”. Nope, you’re going to try your darnedest to keep believing what you already believe. Because that’s pretty much the only choice you have.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 9:16 am #

            Johnny you will never change your mind concerning vaccines. Your arrogant pride will never allow you to do so no matter how much proof is shown to you.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 9:24 am #

            Johnny you will never change your mind concerning vaccines.

            Demonstrably false. I originally thought that pandemrix was unassociated with narcolepsy but now I consider that to be a position reasonably supported by evidence.

            Your arrogant pride

            The only one displaying that here is you. For example painting a journal article that you haven’t read as biased. Is pretty arrogant. 🙂

            no matter how much proof is shown

            Demonstrably false. I’ve already set out for Lowell a clear set of criteria for convincing me of anything. Although you could start by showing me evidence that isn’t exceptionally low-quality.

          • corblimeybot
            September 16, 2016 at 10:22 am #

            I don’t know, Ron Roy. Jonathan really doesn’t come off as an arrogant jerk in his comments here. He comes off as confident, that’s true. He also speaks with a fluency that even outsiders to the subject matter can recognize. You don’t exude fluency, though.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 16, 2016 at 3:51 pm #

            A conscience really should tell you not to throw baseless insults around so often…

          • Wren
            September 16, 2016 at 4:18 pm #

            A conscience should stop you from promoting suffering and potential death for children who could easily avoid it.

            You may have one, but I’m doubtful it is fully functioning.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 5:25 pm #

            Gee I was just thinking the same about you.

          • Wren
            September 17, 2016 at 7:07 am #

            Hmm…VPDs killing many, many people and many more suffering through them vs a few shots in childhood with at worst far fewer deaths and long term complications. Yep, clearly mine is the worse position.

          • corblimeybot
            September 16, 2016 at 4:45 pm #

            I’m undereducated in math, to the point you could say I suck at it. But a lot of what Jonathan is saying can be basically understood just by employing a bit ‘o’ logic.

          • Wren
            September 16, 2016 at 4:20 pm #

            “Many scientists have said” is meaningful to you but “the scientific consensus is” is not? So a number greater than 3 or 4 is big, but 90% of all the scientists in the field is small?

          • corblimeybot
            September 16, 2016 at 4:46 pm #

            This is what Ron Roy means by sucking at math, I guess.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 5:24 pm #

            “the scientific consensus is” Science in this day and age is bought and paid for. Scientific results can no longer be trusted as being the truth. Whoever calls the tune ( the MEDICAL MAFIA ) pays the fiddler. Very few doctors or scientists will have the courage to go against the MM because if they do it would be professional suicide.

          • demodocus
            September 16, 2016 at 5:58 pm #

            Considering only the independently wealthy can afford to have no one pay them, your point’s moot.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 17, 2016 at 12:04 am #

            As you have agreed several times Ron. Scientific Journals – even major ones – have no problems publishing science that is critical of vaccines or pharmaceuticals.

            You admitted this ages ago. So it’s pretty unethical to keep pretending you didn’t.

          • Wren
            September 17, 2016 at 7:08 am #

            It is much easier to dismiss scientific evidence by creating conspiracy theory to deny it.

          • Ron Roy
            September 17, 2016 at 8:24 am #

            Scientific evidence is a scam. Drug companies manipulate experiments in order to enrich themselves. Today’s scientist( for the most part ) have sold their souls to the highest bidder.

          • Wren
            September 17, 2016 at 8:27 am #

            As I said, multinational conspiracy theory.

          • Sonja Henie
            September 17, 2016 at 10:04 am #

            Great post, Wren, I may remember that one. A bit of free advice, Ron Roy isn’t worth arguing with.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 8:24 am #

            ”Just like they did with “mercury.” And those questioning the safety of injecting mercury were proven right.So yes let’s move on to, I choose, aluminum.

          • September 16, 2016 at 10:31 am #

            Proven right???
            *Citation needed
            *Ageofautism, mercola, whale are not acceptable sources.

          • Roadstergal
            September 16, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

            Yes, proven. When thimerosal was taken out of vaccines in the US and everything that they blamed on thimerosal… continued to happen at the same or an increased rate.

          • September 16, 2016 at 7:13 pm #

            Therefore: aluminum.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 6:31 pm #

            Yes they are. Just because they don’t fit into your idea of the truth doesn’t mean they are not credible sources.

          • September 16, 2016 at 7:00 pm #

            Ummm, no. They are considered non-credible sources because…wait for it…they’re not credible.

          • shay simmons
            September 15, 2016 at 10:31 am #

            Your optimism is a shining example to us all.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 1:45 am #

            Aluminum in vaccine is toxic. Sorry to disappoint you.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 7:17 am #

            …but as you’ve admitted it’s not neurotoxic in the doses delivered in vaccines. Right?

            http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 8:08 am #

            Wrong! nejm great BIASED source. Try again.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 8:41 am #

            As I’ve stated it’s pretty close to impossible for that article to be biased. If you read it, you would realize. However you didn’t…so you don’t.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 16, 2016 at 9:14 am #

            Let’s make something clear:

            You agree that the scientific literature, including that published in the nejm, shows that aluminum is not toxic in the doses delivered in vaccines, right? You just contend that the literature is corrupted by Big Pharma.

            Is that a correct assessment of your position?

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 8:22 am #

            The poison is in the dose ( you conveniently for got this ) AND how it enters the body. I used snake venom as an example. Drink it nothing happens inject that SAME amount your dead. If, according to you, there is no difference in between ingested and injected why aren’t all vaccines given orally?

          • Who?
            September 16, 2016 at 8:39 am #

            Well venom isn’t poison, for a start.

            But why let the facts get in the way of your little fantasy?

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 9:14 am #

            ”Well venom isn’t poison, for a start.” I doubt that the scientific definition of venom would matter to anyone who was just bitten by a venomous snake. But why let a little common sense get in the way of your fantasy?

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 9:35 am #

            I’ll just point out that about 0.1% of snakebite victims in the US die. So while few would deliberately get bitten it’s not as deadly as you were making it out to be – more TV show education I guess.

            It’s particularly entertaining how some of you Americans taser each other when bitten.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 10:32 am #

            Ok Johnny if it will make you happy lets use the venom from the Inland Taipan inject it your dead swollen it NOTHING will happen. The same goes for almost any substance.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 10:45 am #

            inject it your dead swollen it NOTHING will happen.

            Ron, that is barely an English sentence. So I don’t know if you are just too worked up or what here but just for reference here’s what I said:

            I’ll just point out that about 0.1% of snakebite victims in the US die. So while few would deliberately get bitten it’s not as deadly as you were making it out to be – more TV show education I guess.

            As there are probably few inland Taipei’s in the US. Perhaps you can phrase your response in a way that actually has something to do with my post.

            As I mentioned earlier injection/ingestion primarily changes the body dose. 0.3mcg/dl is going to be pretty much the same regardless of the entry.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 6:29 pm #

            I corrected my grammar thanks for pointing it out. It was fair of you to do so because I’m constantly pointing out your mistakes in science. How does the entry change the dose? If I swallow an ounce of venom vs injecting it an ounce is still an ounce.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 11:22 pm #

            I’m constantly pointing out your mistakes in science.

            Ron, I doubt you could point out one non-trivial thing you even KNOW about science.

            How does the entry change the dose?

            It changes the dose of toxin that reaches your bloodstream. The change depends on the composition of the toxins. Some are destroyed by your gastrointestinal system, some are simply attenuated. For example a tetrodotoxin is attenuated by a factor of four.

          • Who?
            September 16, 2016 at 8:51 pm #

            But it would matter to someone who swallowed an ounce of snake venom. Unless they had holes in their teeth, or broken skin on the way down, or maybe a gut bug of some sort, it wouldn’t get to where it would act.

            Which is why, here in Oz, it has been recommended for decades to not suck out the venom. Not only is it ineffective-the better path being to firmly bind the wound and get to hospital asap-but it’s dangerous for the person who does it if they don’t have perfectly intact teeth and inside of the mouth. I understand the protocol was to spit it out.

            ‘Common sense’ hey-so patronising. The sum of all your prejudices.

            I saw you managed to humbly acknowledge and correct a sentence structure error pointed out to you. Well done!!!!

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 8:57 am #

            The poison is in the dose ( you conveniently for got this )

            I just said that…are you forgetting things again?

            AND how it enters the body.

            That just changes the dose. So again you agree that the level of aluminum in vaccines is highly unlikely to be neurotoxic.[1] Right?

            [1]http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 9:05 am #

            WRONG! Again I reiterate the nejm is EXTREMELY biased. Pharmaceutical companies,medical journals,the FDA, NIH ,CDC the AMA ,oh and we can’t forget the paid agents of these organizations like you, are all part of the…… ready? …… The MEDICAL MAFIA.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 9:14 am #

            WRONG!

            ROFL. Did you read the study? Nope. So therefore this opinion has no basis. There’s a pretty good reason I’m saying this can’t have pharmaceutical bias. You should probably read it.

          • corblimeybot
            September 16, 2016 at 10:20 am #

            Snake venoms (which can be quite different than one another, although you don’t seem to realize this) are made of compounds that are labile under certain circumstances.

            Unlike you, I won’t pretend to have chemistry education that I don’t actually have. But I kind of suspect that the average snake venom is more labile than the aluminum or mercury compounds used in vaccines. So comparing them seems kind of bullshitty on its face.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 16, 2016 at 3:43 pm #

            I’m gonna go out on a limb, and say that vary few infants are drinking their intravenous-feeding solutions.

          • September 16, 2016 at 6:01 pm #

            Indeed, it goes “directly into the bloodstream.” It’s right there.

          • Charybdis
            September 16, 2016 at 7:58 pm #

            Apparently you don’t know how digestion works either.

          • Ron Roy
            September 17, 2016 at 8:47 am #

            You’re the one who doesn’t. Prove to me that swallowing snake venom is deadly. Citations please.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 15, 2016 at 11:20 am #

            Why should he?

          • Ron Roy
            September 15, 2016 at 5:02 pm #

            To back up his mouth.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 15, 2016 at 10:08 pm #

            Why would a debate with Boyd Haley “back up his mouth”?

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 12:43 am #

            Are you really that ignorant or are you pretending? Offit says vaccines are safe Haley says they’re not.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 16, 2016 at 9:12 am #

            Yeah, and so does Jenny McCarthy. I don’t think Paul Offit debating Jenny McCarthy serves any purpose, either.

            Boyd Haley, as a “credentialed scientist,” knows damn well that the way science progresses is through the publication of studies. The only ones who think “debates” do anything are loons.

            Haley should attend toxicology conferences where discussions about vaccines are taking place, and he can debate the issue all over. But he won’t do that, because he will get laughed out of the room. Because he’s a loon.

          • JGC
            September 16, 2016 at 11:53 am #

            That wouldn’t be the same Boyd Haley who is entry #737 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons, would it? The one who refers to autism as “mad child disease”, and who was injecting autistic children with an industrial chelator until the FDA forced him to stop illegally marketing the chelator as a medical treatment?
            That Boyd Halely?

          • Nick Sanders
            September 16, 2016 at 3:41 pm #

            “Mad child disease”? I want to wring his neck…

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 6:20 pm #

            Ah yes the Encyclopedia of American Loons. The place where many honest doctors and scientists are relegated to because they dare buck the MEDICAL MAFIA. Not a very credible site.

          • Charybdis
            September 16, 2016 at 7:52 pm #

            That’s the one! Ron Roy’s hero and pin-up boy!

          • Sonja Henie
            September 12, 2016 at 2:57 pm #

            You know, maybe we’ve been wrong all along. Maybe it’s not deliberate. Maybe Marco/Barzini is really that dense.

          • Mike Stevens
            September 16, 2016 at 7:38 pm #

            You want to propose a toxicology study on human infants giving escalating doses of compounds until they establish the threshold for toxicity?
            Good luck with your ethics submission on that one, Barzini.

            We know the vaccine doses are safe because at that dose they are demonstrably safe and without toxicity, and higher doses were not shown to be toxic. We wouldn’t want to do studies giving higher and higher doses, all for nothing.

          • Ron Roy
            September 13, 2016 at 5:09 pm #

            Yeah great source the FDA the enforcement arm of the pharmaceutical companies.

          • Daleth
            September 13, 2016 at 4:53 am #

            Barzini, you seem to have omitted some key facts! How surprising! For instance, how much of the aluminum adjuvant in the HepB shot is “absorbed” vs. cleared from the body? And given that newborns typically eat at least 10-12 times a day, isn’t it a little disingenuous to compare the amount of aluminum in ONE SERVING of breastmilk to the amount in a shot?

          • Ron Roy
            September 13, 2016 at 7:20 am #

            Aluminum from vaccines 100% absorption rate and 28 days later there is still some in the body. How much of that aluminum goes to the brain.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 13, 2016 at 8:59 am #

            Ron your idea that aluminum has any neurotoxic effect as delivered in vaccines has been blown away so many times it’s not funny. Including yesterday.[1]

            400 mcg of aluminum fed to a very low birthweight infant. No difference in cognitive outcomes. Perhaps you need to get back to shilling for the homeopaths?

            [1]http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

          • Ron Roy
            September 13, 2016 at 5:08 pm #

            You like all your cohorts have been miseducated it’s time for you to upgrade you’re education: http://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccinations-dilemma-unsafe-at-any-dose/5523299

          • Who?
            September 13, 2016 at 5:47 pm #

            Upgrade your (not you’re) own education.

            Idiot.

            Thanks for the laugh though.

          • Ron Roy
            September 14, 2016 at 4:32 pm #

            I’ve corrected one of ( your ) shill’s Jenny Higgs on spelling / grammar before ( let’s see what name does she go by now?emmmmmmm..oh …(.No marbles ) so does that make her an idiot?

          • Charybdis
            September 14, 2016 at 4:33 pm #

            Is it that you CAN’T learn or you WON’T learn?

          • Ron Roy
            September 15, 2016 at 7:49 am #

            Gee I was going to ask you that. With all the evidence that vaccines are not safe or effective you still defend them. Why is that? Don’t bother answering I know $$$$$$$$$.

          • Charybdis
            September 15, 2016 at 9:03 am #

            I wish that I got paid the big bucks for believing vaccines work and are safe. Tell me, do you believe water is wet and the sky is blue?

            I guess yours is a case of willful ignorance. Good luck with that.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 1:57 am #

            Some days the sky is wet and the water is blue.

          • Roadstergal
            September 16, 2016 at 1:20 pm #

            As I keep noting, I get monetary compensation for disseminating neither the facts around the safety and efficacy of vaccines, nor those around the safety and efficacy of washing one’s hands after answering Nature’s call.

            What are the relative risks of vaccination vs hand washing? I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter comes out worse – the summary statistics around bathroom injuries always make me go “Really??”

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 1:59 am #

            I can and do lean. It’s you that refuses to learn.

          • Who?
            September 15, 2016 at 4:07 am #

            You lot are so predictable. I do wish an interesting, thoughtful, intelligent antivaxxer would come along to play. This is honestly like shooting fish in a barrel.

            When caught out in a clear and obvious error, which is a simple enough one to make, you don’t ignore the challenge, which is what a smart person recognising a little trap would do, or say ‘oh, my bad’ which is what a normal person would do.

            No. You rant and rave about someone else’s (supposed) exact same error, and then impugn that poster’s values.

            Divert, divert, divert.

            It’s a nice model for how you respond to challenges, and a useful standard from which to judge the values behind what you’re doing. Which aren’t much.

            You’re once an idiot for whinging about someone else’s lack of education while writing sloppily, and twice an idiot for not being able to ignore the bait.

            Gonna go for three times?

          • Ron Roy
            September 15, 2016 at 7:47 am #

            Terrible comeback! C- on that one.

          • Who?
            September 16, 2016 at 3:12 am #

            I win.

            Bored w you now.

          • J.B.
            September 16, 2016 at 1:05 pm #

            I was just thinking of the current outrage machine I’ve been seeing against 1/1,000,000 increased cancer risk and that’s so minimal, etc…I should set them on this lot and let them argue their extremes!

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 13, 2016 at 9:01 pm #

            Ron, I provided you a study that actually tested the claim you presented in that web page and found it to be incorrect.

            Believing baseless claims is actually a downgrade. Too bad you can’t tell the difference.

          • MaineJen
            September 13, 2016 at 9:26 am #

            ALuminum is always present in our blood small amounts. It’s in the food you eat. The usual daily dietary intake of aluminum is 5-10 mg, most of which is filtered out by your kidneys and then excreted, but a small amount will remain in your blood at non-toxic levels (up to 6ng/mL) unless you are a dialysis patient, in which case the level will be higher.*** Having aluminum “present in the body” means absolutely nothing. Come at me when you have evidence that aluminum is present at actual toxic levels.

            ***Source: Mayo Medical Lab http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/test-catalog/Clinical+and+Interpretive/8373

            Fun fact: nephrologists recommend that their patients waiting for kidney transplant are fully vaccinated, including the hep B series. Even in dialysis patients who cannot fully clear dietary aluminum from their bodies, immunization is recommended. Your argument is invalid.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 13, 2016 at 1:02 pm #

            I think you should list the amount of dietary aluminum in mcg, since Barzini insists on doing that to inflate the appearance. So, don’t say 5-10 mg, say 5000-10000 mcg. It makes the contrast to his “250 mcg” clearer.

          • Ron Roy
            September 13, 2016 at 4:59 pm #

            Wrongggggggg :http://www.globalresearch.ca/aluminum-and-the-neurotoxicity-of-vaccines/5446101

          • MaineJen
            September 14, 2016 at 8:56 am #

            LOL, yeah, that looks totally legit:

            “Articles by:
            Dr. Gary G. Kohls
            Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.”

            Do you have anything with any actual data, from someone who’s not a loon?

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 14, 2016 at 9:37 am #

            Yawn, already refuted Ron. Thanks for playing.

            http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199705293362203

          • Ron Roy
            September 14, 2016 at 4:25 pm #

            nemj another journal owned by big pharm.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 14, 2016 at 4:37 pm #

            As usual you haven’t read anything, and wouldn’t have an answer if you did.

            However if you HAD read the article it would be pretty close to impossible to claim that this is somehow biased toward pharmaceutical companies. Do you need a hint?

          • Charybdis
            September 16, 2016 at 6:28 pm #

            He would like to buy a vowel.

            Or a modicum of rational thought.

          • September 16, 2016 at 1:07 pm #

            You’re a joke. Now you’re questioning the credibility of the NEJM? I think you’re missing the “mo” from the beginning of your name.

          • Mike Stevens
            September 16, 2016 at 7:32 pm #

            Brill!

          • Mike Stevens
            September 16, 2016 at 7:32 pm #

            Which pharma company owns the NEJM?

          • shay simmons
            September 14, 2016 at 1:59 pm #

            “Globalresearch is an anti-“Western” website that can’t distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It’s basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.
            While some of GlobalResearch’s articles discuss legitimate humanitarian concerns, its view of science, economics, and geopolitics is conspiracist — if something goes wrong, the Jews West didit! The site has long been a crank magnet: If you disagree with “Western” sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by the “mainstream” media, then GlobalResearch is guaranteed to have a page you will love.” Rationalwiki.

          • Ron Roy
            September 14, 2016 at 4:24 pm #

            Says Irrationalwiki.

          • Ron Roy
            September 15, 2016 at 9:08 am #

            Debate with Boyd Haley, on the toxicity of aluminum in vaccines, your mentor Doctor Paul Offit has refuse to many times:http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/02/dachel-media-update-dr-boyd-haley-refutes-dr-paul-offits-vaccine-science.html

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 15, 2016 at 9:55 am #

            With good reason.

            It does no good to debate with loons. The problem that scientists have when they debate with cranks is that scientists are honest, and stick to facts. Cranks have no qualms about rattling off an endless string of complete made-up bullshit. People who actually know the truth are pretty much left speechless at the extent of total bullshit, and to counter it all would take far longer than anyone has time for. Moreover, in a debate setting, spending time countering it just comes off as defensive.

            BTW, lest you think I’m projecting, I’m not. This approach is so well known that it has a name: the Gish Gallop. Creationist Duane Gish was an expert at it. And it is the same approach that every crankaloon wants to use. That’s why they call for these bullshit “debates.”

            They want to debate? Easy, show up at a scientific conference. Do some research and make a presentation. That’s where plenty of debates take place. Let Haley do that.

          • Charybdis
            September 15, 2016 at 10:26 am #

            False Equivalency doesn’t help either. The crazies are given equal time with the scientists/researchers/people who know the truth and people think that the crazy side is somehow equal, but opposite to the science side. Which is SO not the case, but in the “interests of being fair and balanced” they put an opposing side/viewpoint right alongside the science. This leads people to believe that both sides have equal studies, data, etc, when it is JUST NOT TRUE.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 8:56 am #

            Why is it when well credentialed scientist disagree with the safety of vaccines all of a sudden they’re called loons etc.? I’ll answer that for you: it’s the power of the pharmaceutical companies at work. They will try and destroy anyone who tries to expose their vaccines and drugs for what they really are.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 16, 2016 at 9:08 am #

            Why is it when well credentialed scientist

            Boyd Haley is not a toxicologist, he is a PhD chemist.

            Which makes him no more credentialed to disagree with the safety of vaccines than I am.

            I am also a PhD chemist, and I say Boyd Haley is a loon.

            Do you accept that, or do you dismess the opinion of a “credentialed scientist’?

            And I have no connections with pharmaceutical companies.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 10:22 am #

            Dr Boyd Haley is also a biochemist and biochemists are routinely hired as toxicologists. So yes he is more credentialed and qualified than you to disagree on the safety of vaccines. Boyd Haley, Ph.D. received a doctorate in Chemistry/Biochemistry at
            Washington State University. He was an NIH Postdoctoral Scholar in the
            Department of Physiology, Yale University Medical School from 1971 to
            1974.He has been a professor and Chairman of the Department of
            Chemistry at the University of Kentucky since 1996. In the past 17
            years, Dr. Haley has emphasized studies on the biochemistry of
            Alzheimer’s disease. His research in the biochemical aberrancies
            in Alzheimer’s disease also led to his identifying mercury toxicity as
            a major factor, perhaps even a causal factor for this disease. He was
            one of the first to propose that the organic-mercury preservative
            Thimerosal in vaccines was the most likely toxic agent involved in Gulf
            War Syndrome and autism related disorders. In the past few years, Dr.
            Haley has testified before numerous government agencies on the effects
            of mercury toxicity from dental amalgams and vaccines.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 12:51 pm #

            Dr Boyd Haley is also a biochemist

            ..who, if you look at his publication history has not one paper about toxicology unless you count his hate-on about mercury. His thesis wasn’t on toxicology either.

            Boris Derjaguin is one of the most renown (in the actual sense not in the way the people who are vaccine critical often pile on adjectives in order to make people sound more impressive) Russian physical chemists. He was fooled by the polywater experiments. Boyd isn’t a tenth of the chemist Derjaguin was. So it seems reasonable that Boyd has at least Boris Derjaguin’s capacity to be fooled.

          • shay simmons
            September 16, 2016 at 2:19 pm #

            Boyd Haley also has a direct financial interest in keeping the mercury-poisoning myth alive, but hey, that’s inconsequential.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 16, 2016 at 2:36 pm #

            OSR#1 is hard to find now. I should ask my local chelation quack if it’s still around.

          • Nick Sanders
            September 16, 2016 at 3:40 pm #

            Man, polywater… That was an impressive lesson in basic cleanliness protocol.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 16, 2016 at 1:09 pm #

            Dr Boyd Haley is also a biochemist and biochemists are routinely hired as toxicologists

            Organic chemists are also routinely hired by the polymer industry, but although I am an organic chemist, I don’t know squat about polymers. Being an organic chemist does not make me an expert on polymers, and being a biochemist does not make Boyd Haley an expert on toxicology.

            You don’t understand how expertise works, do you? Biochemists CAN BE experts in toxicologist (I know toxicologists who are biochemists), but being a biochemist is not sufficient. To be an expert in toxicology, you actually have to study toxicology.

            And as far as I know, his claims about mercury and Alzheimers are not at all accepted by the vast majority of toxicologists OR biochemists. You know, real, credentialed toxicologists.

          • Roadstergal
            September 16, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

            Oh, that 1997 paper where they made rats breathe mercury and found it affected their tubulin? Revolutionized the field, that did.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 5:53 pm #

            ”And as far as I know,” You know very little. But that aside if Haley doesn’t know what he’s talking about why doesn’t Offit debate him publicly and show the world that he’s wrong?

          • Charybdis
            September 16, 2016 at 6:26 pm #

            Perhaps because it would create a false equivalency by portraying the two sides as equals. Which they aren’t. And to be clear, Offit is the right one and offering a “toxins, toxins everywhere” anti-vax shill and conspiracy theorist crank as some sort of “equal” who is able to effectively debate a topic is giving the general public the wrong message.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 17, 2016 at 12:00 am #

            but that aside if Haley doesn’t know what he’s talking about why doesn’t Offit debate him publicly and show the world that he’s wrong?

            A lot of reasons…
            i) Haley is less than a nobody – Offit debating him would raise Haley’s profile even if Haley lost.
            ii) Debate and science are two orthogonal skills. Someone can be a skilled debater, know almost nothing about what they are talking about and still convince people.
            iii) Offit probably has better things to do with his time.

          • Ron Roy
            September 17, 2016 at 8:18 am #

            Haley is less than a nobody? Johnny if that’s the case I cant even think of a word that could properly describe how low you fit in the scheme of things. Haley’s credentials exceed those of Offit’s by a mile:http://herballure.com/Authors/BoydHaley/index.html

          • Roadstergal
            September 16, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

            “Dr Boyd Haley is also a biochemist and biochemists are routinely hired as toxicologists”

            If they have the requisite training and experience. “Tom has two feet, and people with two feet are routinely hired as bus drivers.” Erm, helpful but not sufficient.

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 5:49 pm #

            He does have the requisite training and experience and if he doesn’t ( he does ) why won’t Paul Offit debate him. Seems to me if Haley doesn’t know what he’s taking about it would be a way to silence him forever.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 17, 2016 at 12:02 am #

            He does have the requisite training and experience

            There is simply no evidence that he has ANY toxicology training or history of working in the field. Again you would know this if you read his publishing history. Instead you make things up. 🙂

          • Ron Roy
            September 17, 2016 at 7:58 am #

            Citations please.

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 17, 2016 at 8:13 am #

            How do you do citations for “no evidence”? That’sounds stupid.

          • Jonathan Graham
            September 17, 2016 at 9:29 am #

            Read his publication history. It’s not hard to find.

          • Wren
            September 17, 2016 at 9:49 am #

            I’m guessing that all of his toxicology publications have been supressed by the evil pharma corporations who have still allowed him to publish BS all over the place except in scientific journals.

          • kfunk937
            September 17, 2016 at 10:15 am #

            Indeed. Including ones like this, wherein they conclude that lower mercury levels in autistic childrens’ hair (first haircut) means that the test is invalid, rather than their hypothesis.

          • shay simmons
            September 16, 2016 at 2:33 pm #

            You left out “Dr Haley markets a kit for testing children’s hair for levels of mercury, and used to sell a home chelator until the FDA made him stop.”

          • The Bofa on the Sofa
            September 16, 2016 at 2:41 pm #

            But such impeccable credentials!

          • Ron Roy
            September 17, 2016 at 7:57 am #

            If honesty is a credential I’m guilty!

          • Nick Sanders
            September 16, 2016 at 3:35 pm #

            It’s only a conflict of interest when people who disagree with Ron do it!

          • Ron Roy
            September 16, 2016 at 5:42 pm #

            And doctor Gallo the discoverer of the HIV virus invented the HIV blood test which made him very wealthy. So your point is? The FDA stopped him not because his home chelator didn’t work they stopped him because drug companies don’t want any competition. All your comments concerning Haley has nothing to do with the fact that he made Offit look bad, concerning his stance on aluminum in vaccines, and Offit refused to debate Haley publicly. Hale is far more qualified than Offit concerning the toxicity of aluminum in vaccines.

          • shay simmons
            September 16, 2016 at 6:27 pm #