I'm no Dr, are vaccinations that bad?

[PLAYER57832]

Eh, I disagree. I take my food prep very seriously. Proper cooking is most important, but for foods that don't get cooked, I'd prefer to have some antibacterial soap around.

After all, fecal-oral transmission is the main cause of entero-diarrheal infections...

YES, but washing your hands well with any sudsy soap does well. The real secret is to wash them long enough to dislodge the bacteria. We teach kids to sing "happy birthday".

Again, it is not a "double measure"... the ad agencies just want you to think so. In truth, it takes longer to kill the bacteria than allowed. The bacteria are washed off by the soap. Then drying is the next line of defense, since most bacteria require moisture (and our skins tend to be slightly moist, but surfaces often are not). The primary purpose of antibacterial agents in soap is not to increase the effectiveness of the soap on our skin, but to decrease the presence of bacteria in the soap itself. However, if you use a liquid pump soap and change it frequently that is not an issue. (it CAN be an issue for bar soap, but only if you let the bar stay damp. If it dries out, then most bacteria are killed anyway).

Many local pediatricians DO recommend using antibacterial soap, but the Academy of Pediatrics does not. It is a case of lack of decent information and, to some extent laziness.

Many doctors will prescribe antibiotics even when they know the person has a cold, which is completely unaffected by antibiotics ... they are responding to what their patients want rather than taking the time to try and educate their patients. (who, it must be said, often won't listen anyway).

Anyway, my argument is simple... why cause potential harm for no real good? No, there is no definite proof it is directly harmful to humans (but remember, these soaps have only been around a short while as far as long term epidemiological effects go). However, the issue is not so much potential direct harm to humans as just the general introduction of antibiotics into our world. Those soaps get washed down the drain, end up in the lakes, rivers and stream where they potential can add to the harm ... among other issues. Plus, there IS an issue with increased resistance. Since NO antibiotic really kills all the germs, those most resistant survive, reproduce and therefore pass on the resistance. Granted the antibiotics are not necessarily the exact same as those we take internally to fight disease, but who wants more resistant negative bacteria .. period!

I find it ironic that many of the same folks who refuse to vaccinate their kids leap on using antibiotic soaps. Vaccines are clearly beneficial, while the soaps are not and may truly BE harmful.

[Neoteny]

Eh, I disagree. I take my food prep very seriously. Proper cooking is most important, but for foods that don't get cooked, I'd prefer to have some antibacterial soap around.

After all, fecal-oral transmission is the main cause of entero-diarrheal infections...

YES, but washing your hands well with any sudsy soap does well. The real secret is to wash them long enough to dislodge the bacteria. We teach kids to sing "happy birthday".

That's what I learned too. Why not throw in a double measure?

[gdeangel]

Eh, I disagree. I take my food prep very seriously. Proper cooking is most important, but for foods that don't get cooked, I'd prefer to have some antibacterial soap around.

After all, fecal-oral transmission is the main cause of entero-diarrheal infections...

YES, but washing your hands well with any sudsy soap does well. The real secret is to wash them long enough to dislodge the bacteria. We teach kids to sing "happy birthday".

That's what I learned too. Why not throw in a double measure?

That's because there are some bacteria (actually they might be viral spores or fungus... can't remember ATM) which are not broken down by the 'sanitizer' gells. Their existence no more proves that they have immerged through overuse of 'sanitizer' gells than does the existence of autism prove that is was caused by vaccines. However, most pediatritians I know recommend using the hand sanitizer gel. After your kid washes their hands (sing a double verse if you want), take a look under their fingernails. If their clean, I'm impressed.

[PLAYER57832]

.... most pediatritians I know recommend using the hand sanitizer gel. After your kid washes their hands (sing a double verse if you want), take a look under their fingernails. If their clean, I'm impressed.

The gel does not penetrate well. It is better than nothing when water is not available, but plain old soap (without any antibacterial agents) and water work better.

As for the fingernails, absolutely! One reason to clip your kids' nails well AND keep a nail brush (which you sanitize regularly in bleach) handy.

On that note, you should also make sure your toothbrush dries thoroughly between uses and change it every other month or so.

[Neoteny]

The issue with killing things usually stems from bacterial spores, I believe. I'd imagine that the sanitizing gels are just as efficient at killing, if not more so, as soap, since the "active ingredient" is concentrated ethanol. They just don't have the detergent aspect to wash off the bacteria that don't get killed.

And if you're going to sing a double verse, it's more efficient to wash twice instead of just once.

I'm pretty bad about keeping up with replacing toothbrushes, actually. It's a habit I need to break...

[Juan_Bottom]

For the record I'm super pro-science!

But I have been hearing some evidence that seems legit for questioning the ingredients in the vaccinations. I couldn't find that UN report though.
But seriously, why would vaccinations contain those metals, particularly mercury?
(provided it isn't a "natural" amount)
I read a ton, so I know some mercury is ok, like from fish. Because it has already been "deluded" by the fish's tissue. But why include it in a vaccine?

[PLAYER57832]

The issue with killing things usually stems from bacterial spores, I believe. I'd imagine that the sanitizing gels are just as efficient at killing, if not more so, as soap, since the "active ingredient" is concentrated ethanol. They just don't have the detergent aspect to wash off the bacteria that don't get killed.

Bacteria do not have spores. Molds, etc do.

Some bacteria are resistant and can do somewhat dormant, but almost all are killed by simply being dried out.

No, the issue is not killing the germs, it is really just getting them off your skin. Think about it .. those things that really do kill the germs are not too healthy for your skin. That is why we wash instead of soaking our hands in bleach. BUT we soak (or should) our cutting board, sponges, bathrooms, kitchen in bleach OR very, very hot water.

And yes, washing twice is better than once, but soapy water does just fine .. much better than those alcohol gels. The gels are just a stop-gap for when you don't have soap and water (a great deal, if you think about it).

[PLAYER57832]

For the record I'm super pro-science!

But I have been hearing some evidence that seems legit for questioning the ingredients in the vaccinations. I couldn't find that UN report though.
But seriously, why would vaccinations contain those metals, particularly mercury?
(provided it isn't a "natural" amount)
I read a ton, so I know some mercury is ok, like from fish. Because it has already been "deluded" by the fish's tissue. But why include it in a vaccine?

Mercury was used as a preservative, as have some of the other ingredients now being questions.

That said, the amount of mercury was very little. It was removed because mercury is known to be bad (the level considered safe is being lowered, though the amount from the vaccine was much much less than you would get from some fish ) and there was an alternative, not because the vaccines were actually proven dangerous. It was a case of "even a very small risk is too great when we have an alternative".

Once again, that last sentence sums up the key issue. It is not whether vaccines are 100% safe or not. The real issue is whether vaccines are as safe as possible AND overall, safer than the risk of the disease.

Have there been problems in the past? Yes. BUT, each time, improvements are made. Even with mercury, vaccines were still much safer than putting children at risk for the diseases. Now, the risk is eve less. Doctors are finding out more and more about those few kids who do get serious vaccine reactions and now know which kids should not be vaccinated. Even so, if there were a serious epidemic most of those kids WOULD be vaccinated. And that is probably the other key point. The ONLY reason there IS a debate about this is that so many, many, many people DO vaccinate their kids that these diseases have all but been eliminated in much of the west.

Unfortunately, these anti-vaccination campaigns are beginning to reverse things so that kids in the US are once again dying from measles, whooping cough and other illnesses that can be prevented by proper vaccinations.

And that is the final irony. Because parents of healthy kids are not vaccinating their kids, the diseases are now spreading. This means that many of these kids with real risk factors now much be vaccinated (because, again, the risk of getting the disease is now much greater than the risk of harm from the vaccine, even in many of these kids). THAT means that there are likely to be more negative reactions. BUT , not because the danger of vaccines is greater .... it will be because more kids who really and truly do have greater problems with the vaccines are having to be vaccinated.

Specifically, some kids/families DO have allergies. That is reason to perhaps not vaccinate a particular child, if they have a sibling who died or had another serious reaction from the vaccine, but not reason to eliminate vaccines as a whole any more than the fact that some people die from shellfish is reason to eliminate shellfish from everyone's diet.

Some kids have immune system issues. They may be on chemotherapy, have HIV or have any one of a number of other issues. In some cases, the vaccine itself (which does often cause a small immune reaction, such as fever, etc.) might be too dangerous. Remember, some of these kids can die from a simple cold, too.

ETC. I cannot list, don't even know all the risk factors. BUT, the point is that those are unusual and specific cases. A child on chemotherapy might not be able to go to a normal birthday party. A child with a serious allergy might not be able to eat in a restaurant. All things that we and our children do every day. Taking these exceptional cases and claiming they lay evidence for why average children should not be vaccinated is very, very dangerous.

As for the immunological problems presented by gdeangel, among others, there is a HUGE difference between debates that go on amongst scientists about theories and possibilities and things that might be researched and changes we should make in our day-to-day lives.

Further, the real problems are not about vaccines. The problems have to do more with passage of disease resistance (and no, none of the debates above have really gotten into that intelligently and fully), retroviruses and even some eugenics. All of those are extremely touchy and very difficult issues that form the edges of science.

[Neoteny]

The issue with killing things usually stems from bacterial spores, I believe. I'd imagine that the sanitizing gels are just as efficient at killing, if not more so, as soap, since the "active ingredient" is concentrated ethanol. They just don't have the detergent aspect to wash off the bacteria that don't get killed.

Bacteria do not have spores. Molds, etc do.

Some bacteria are resistant and can do somewhat dormant, but almost all are killed by simply being dried out.

No, the issue is not killing the germs, it is really just getting them off your skin. Think about it .. those things that really do kill the germs are not too healthy for your skin. That is why we wash instead of soaking our hands in bleach. BUT we soak (or should) our cutting board, sponges, bathrooms, kitchen in bleach OR very, very hot water.

And yes, washing twice is better than once, but soapy water does just fine .. much better than those alcohol gels. The gels are just a stop-gap for when you don't have soap and water (a great deal, if you think about it).

I was actually referring to endospores, for things like Anthrax and Clostridium. Pardon my lack of terminology. Those are the ones you need to wash off since they tend to survive ridiculous amounts of stress.

[Neoteny]

For the record I'm super pro-science!

But I have been hearing some evidence that seems legit for questioning the ingredients in the vaccinations. I couldn't find that UN report though.
But seriously, why would vaccinations contain those metals, particularly mercury?
(provided it isn't a "natural" amount)
I read a ton, so I know some mercury is ok, like from fish. Because it has already been "deluded" by the fish's tissue. But why include it in a vaccine?

"Diluted," Juan. "Diluted." And the problem with mercury in fish is that it doesn't get diluted. The mercury accumulates (creatively called bioaccumulation) and will be of higher concentration in the fish than it will be in the water. Then when we eat it, our detox systems add a methyl group to it (methyl mercury) which, unfortunately, makes it even more poisonous. Ecotox is fun, huh?

[Juan_Bottom]

"Diluted," Juan. "Diluted." And the problem with mercury in fish is that it doesn't get diluted. The mercury accumulates (creatively called bioaccumulation) and will be of higher concentration in the fish than it will be in the water. Then when we eat it, our detox systems add a methyl group to it (methyl mercury) which, unfortunately, makes it even more poisonous. Ecotox is fun, huh?

What, what?
There was a Dr. on that morning explaining the differences in where Mercury may come from, and what makes it more/less dangerous.... He was the one who said this.....
And he works for a Chinese company that sells vaccines to the US...

Geeze, now I'm friggin' terrified....

[PLAYER57832]

What, what?
There was a Dr. on that morning explaining the differences in where Mercury may come from, and what makes it more/less dangerous.... He was the one who said this.....
And he works for a Chinese company that sells vaccines to the US...

Geeze, now I'm friggin' terrified....

NO MERCURY is allowed in US vaccines ... and that is true for most of Europe, I believe. If it is there, it is an illegal contaminant. BUT, again, the risk from that small amount of mercury, EVEN WHEN THERE (with the possible exception of some highly intentional poisoning -- a whole other issue entirely!!!) , is STILL far less than the risk of small pox, polio, measles, etc.

"Diluted," Juan. "Diluted." And the problem with mercury in fish is that it doesn't get diluted. The mercury accumulates (creatively called bioaccumulation) and will be of higher concentration in the fish than it will be in the water. Then when we eat it, our detox systems add a methyl group to it (methyl mercury) which, unfortunately, makes it even more poisonous. Ecotox is fun, huh?

Again, not quite.

The REASON it accumulates is because (in short version) algae take mercury in along with the water they need to survive. Then bigger organisms take in those algae. When they digest the algae, the metals are absorbed into their bodies like most minerals. They absorb a small amount from the water itself, but not much. These organisms, now little mercury "capsules", are then eaten by small fish who absorb much of the mercury they eat. They are, in turn, eaten by bigger fish who now have lots of mercury in their systems. Each time, the fish bodies absorb much of the mercury (and other pollutants) into their bodies just like beneficial minerals. THAT is why they accumulate. (bioaccumulate). The chain/web (food chain/food web) varies depending on the species. HOWEVER, the larger fish such as salmon are natural predators, apex species and therefore have more mercury in their flesh (because they eat other fish that have eaten more other organisms that have more mercury ...).

But, as for the "killing bacteria" bit, there is a lot more to worry about than just bacteria. Molds, fungus, viruses, etc ... ALL cause diseases. You were talking specifically about bacteria, but they are not really the only or even the worst worry. Viruses are actually the biggest threat. Most viruses do not respond to antibiotics at all (though a few do).

That is actually a bigger problem even than resistance in bacteria. Many of the bacteria we kill off when using these heavy chemicals and antibiotics are actually protective or just innocuous (not harmful). We kill them off and suddenly leave a free and open field for the fungii, molds and viruses to flourish without the competition from those bacteria.

Overall, the best bet? WASH thoroughly -- scrub with warm soapy water (the warmth helps the soap and dirt dissolve better, it does not sterilize). Use a CLEAN, FRESH, DRY towel to dry your hands. Let hard surfaces thoroughly dry. Use a freshly cleaned towel or sponge (bleach is effective if you let them soak for 10 minutes) to clean ... do not reuse them! Use either steam or a disinfectant such as bleach to kill germs.

When you are sick, either wash dishes in a HOT (sterilize function) dish washer OR soak your utensils in a bleach solution for at least 10 minutes OR bake them at 500 degrees (not possible for most things) OR boil them (especially baby stuff).

[Neoteny]

"Diluted," Juan. "Diluted." And the problem with mercury in fish is that it doesn't get diluted. The mercury accumulates (creatively called bioaccumulation) and will be of higher concentration in the fish than it will be in the water. Then when we eat it, our detox systems add a methyl group to it (methyl mercury) which, unfortunately, makes it even more poisonous. Ecotox is fun, huh?

Again, not quite.

The REASON it accumulates is because (in short version) algae take mercury in along with the water they need to survive. Then bigger organisms take in those algae. When they digest the algae, the metals are absorbed into their bodies like most minerals. They absorb a small amount from the water itself, but not much. These organisms, now little mercury "capsules", are then eaten by small fish who absorb much of the mercury they eat. They are, in turn, eaten by bigger fish who now have lots of mercury in their systems. Each time, the fish bodies absorb much of the mercury (and other pollutants) into their bodies just like beneficial minerals. THAT is why they accumulate. (bioaccumulate). The chain/web (food chain/food web) varies depending on the species. HOWEVER, the larger fish such as salmon are natural predators, apex species and therefore have more mercury in their flesh (because they eat other fish that have eaten more other organisms that have more mercury ...).

But, as for the "killing bacteria" bit, there is a lot more to worry about than just bacteria. Molds, fungus, viruses, etc ... ALL cause diseases. You were talking specifically about bacteria, but they are not really the only or even the worst worry. Viruses are actually the biggest threat. Most viruses do not respond to antibiotics at all (though a few do).

That is actually a bigger problem even than resistance in bacteria. Many of the bacteria we kill off when using these heavy chemicals and antibiotics are actually protective or just innocuous (not harmful). We kill them off and suddenly leave a free and open field for the fungii, molds and viruses to flourish without the competition from those bacteria.

Overall, the best bet? WASH thoroughly -- scrub with warm soapy water (the warmth helps the soap and dirt dissolve better, it does not sterilize). Use a CLEAN, FRESH, DRY towel to dry your hands. Let hard surfaces thoroughly dry. Use a freshly cleaned towel or sponge (bleach is effective if you let them soak for 10 minutes) to clean ... do not reuse them! Use either steam or a disinfectant such as bleach to kill germs.

When you are sick, either wash dishes in a HOT (sterilize function) dish washer OR soak your utensils in a bleach solution for at least 10 minutes OR bake them at 500 degrees (not possible for most things) OR boil them (especially baby stuff).

You keep saying "not quite" like I'm wrong, when I'm only leaving out the less necessary information. The fact is, the mercury accumulates in the fish so that it is in higher concentration than the rest of the environment.

My ego is overpowering.

Also, I have an autoclave [I wish].

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/vaccines/index.htm
Xtra asked me to share this.

[PLAYER57832]

Also, I have an autoclave [I wish].

Heard of an oven???? : )

Actually, you don't have to get it to 500 for most things. That's why it is OK to use slightly old eggs in baking when you might not want to eat them straight ...at least unless you cook them to rubber. : )

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/vaccines/index.htm
Xtra asked me to share this.

Sadly full of completely false and misleading information.

The law is that you must vaccinate your children to enroll them in public schools unless you have a religious exclusion. Most private schools and many organizations (camps, etc.) have similar requirements. HOWEVER, those laws vary by state. ALSO. some vaccinations can be mandated in times of emergency. But, technically, most states don't require parents to vaccinate their kids if they are not attending a public school.

Mercury IS NOT LEGALLY used in vaccines in the US. Does it happen? Do vaccines or anything else get contaminated? Perhaps, but vaccines are among the safest things on the market.

As for the "evidence" linking vaccines to ANY problem, not just autism ... they don't exist in well conducted unbiased studies. HOWEVER, because there is so much public concern, the government is now conducting thorough studies to see, once and for all (though sensationalists will probably consider any results not matching their beliefs to be "biased"), if there IS any link.

The EXCEPTIONS are four-fold. First, as alluded to earlier, there IS a genetic abnormality that is initially dormant and then exhibits itself around age 3. Often a fever is the trigger. This abnormality then results in autistic-like symptoms. This is, however, a coincidental link, not a CAUSAL link. ANY fever would trigger the symptoms, any of a number of things.

Further, other forms of autism itself (remember, not one disease, but a collection of symptoms with various causes) can appear around age 2-3, when autism is often diagnosed. Until then, many parents either are not aware of the issues or the issues are hidden, not so obvious. More than one mother has been told that it is "just too soon" to expect their child to smile, etc. only to find out that was an early sign of autism. (thankfully, pediatricians are becoming more aware). Since children often get vaccines at 18 months, 2 years, sometimes later ... parents may see a "link". BUT that does not mean one really exists. If there is one, the new study (not yet completed) will find it.

Secondly, there ARE children who have allergies to various components in vaccines. Again, children have allergies to all sorts of things, even strawberries. AND, finally, there are children with very weakened immune systems or other issues that could potentially be harmed by vaccines -- that are so weak, basically, that any introduction of a foreign substance could be harmful.

[Backglass]

Further, other forms of autism itself (remember, not one disease, but a collection of symptoms with various causes) can appear around age 2-3, when autism is often diagnosed. Until then, many parents either are not aware of the issues or the issues are hidden, not so obvious. More than one mother has been told that it is "just too soon" to expect their child to smile, etc. only to find out that was an early sign of autism. (thankfully, pediatricians are becoming more aware). Since children often get vaccines at 18 months, 2 years, sometimes later ... parents may see a "link". BUT that does not mean one really exists. If there is one, the new study (not yet completed) will find it.

QFT.

Children also learn to ride tricycles around this time. Some children, just cannot grasp the coordination. Why? THE VACCINES!!!! PLANTED BY THE SCHWINN/CANNONDALE LOBBYISTS!

[PLAYER57832]

My measles record was wrong. Just over 120 kids have gotten measles this year. That is around 3 times as many as in any previous year (according to recent NPR reports)... and this year is not yet over.

In some areas, pediatricians are reccomending that children in some ""borderline" risk groups be vaccinated because so many parents of kids who ought to be vaccinated are not doing so and therefore endangering the rest of the population.


I feel for any parent who has a child injured for ANY reason. But skipping vaccinations is just not the answer, not when you really know ALL the facts ... ALL the sides instead of just the vaccine risk factors. Can vaccines cause harm? Yes, in a very, very few cases. BUT the diseases cause far, far more harm ... and are now returning because people are not vaccinating their kids.