Posted on 11/04/2011 4:28:40 AM PDT by surroundedbyblue
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — Chris Barnes, 11, is getting his latest round of vaccinations for measles and tetanus.
“It doesn’t really scare me as much as other people, it’s just a shot,” he said.
Without regular immunizations, Chris would be turned away at his pediatrician’s office.
Dr. Wayne Yankus refuses to see patients unless they follow the government recommended immunization schedule.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburgh.cbslocal.com ...
see #201.
Uh, you missed the date of this study:
J Hyg (Lond). 1975 April; 74(2): 251–259.
Oooops.
From the abstract:
A comparison was made of the antibody response and subjective reactions to zonally-purified influenza vaccine in aqueous suspension and in peanut oil adjuvant 65-4.
Heh. A study of an influenza vaccine in the early 70s. Thanks for proving my previous post correct.
I already posted where you said it. In #177. “It is, as it turns out, not true.”
When I was in 4th or 5th grade, one of the local boys I knew well suddenly wasn't on the school bus anymore because he'd come down with sleeping sickness. He almost died and, as best as I can remember, was sick for at least six months. I clearly remember that he looked like death when I finally got to see him many months later. He was never the same and I wonder whatever happened to him. We all knew it was the raw milk but the family never admitted it.
Years later, as a grad student in food science, we were tasked with testing the milk produced by the Aggie's before and after pasteurization for a microbiology class on food borne pathogens. Documenting the types and the quantities of the pathogens in each batch was a sobering experience. Given these two experiences, I've never understood the attraction to raw milk.
Neither, but thank you so much for playing.
Which of your posts are you referring to? In #177, you said claims that peanut oil was in vaccines is not true. The study says it happened.
When did Adjuvant 65 stop being used?
You are quite the cherry picker, aren't you?
Here is the WHOLE quote:
There is NOTHING in that Abstract that states peanut oil is in vaccines. It is, as it turns out, not true.
I was obviously referring to the (undisputed, on your part) fact that there is nothing in the JAMA study or abstract that states peanut oil is in vaccines.
Why are you being so dishonest?
In 1961, my brother at age 12 nearly died from complications of the mumps, both meningitis and encephalitis. He spent nearly two months in the hospital after being in a coma for 3 days. It was a miracle he recovered at all as the doctor’s best prognosis was that he would be a vegetable or severely brain damaged.
You can be sure my parents made sure I got all my vaccinations.
As far as "aborted fetuses" goes…
Thank you for clarifying that. Unfortunately there will be those who will not believe it.
I think this thread has proven that beyond a doubt.
That is not what that paragraph communicates to me. But, accepting your word for your intended meaning, does this mean that you agree peanut oil has been used in vaccines? When did that stop? Or has it?
This article seems to say it is still being used:
I take by the fact that you have abandoned the journal articles that you are implicitly admitting that they do not say you said they did?
You have refused to agree with what I have posted, so what’s the point. You are not an honest debater. When did they stop using peanut oil in vaccines, or have they stopped? Why are you not answering that question?
Very classy but I admit to having a good laugh. BTW, any time I hear bon bons I think drive in movie theatre. Thanks for the memory. :-}
In case you have forgotten, you made a definitive statement that "Google will lead you to research in JAMA and other prestigious publications about peanut oil in vaccines". I then asked for the specific JAMA article that made that statement. You posted an article. No, you took an entire post from a different website without attribution and passed it off as your own (honest, you dare use that term?!), but it did not even mention vaccines at all. In trying to find out what the deal was, we have been led on this journey through your furious Googling, searching for some study to get you out of the hole you dug.
Talk about honesty!
Look, just admit there are no references in "prestigious" journals that discuss peanut oil in vaccines and move on
You just refuse to connect the dots, Tom. There are some articles in those journals having to do with the problems related to pertussis vaccine. Merck manufactures pertussis vaccine with peanut oil in it. When did Merck stop doing that, or have they?
No, I'm not here to play "connect the dots".
YOU made an unequivocal statement, I asked for proof, you "gave" it to me (i.e. took it from an anti-vax website without bothering to properly read it), and it turns out that is doesn't say what you thought and said it did.
End of story.
And please, when you've been caught red-handed plagiarizing another website, don't accuse me of not being honest.
Also, the studies in some of the journals having to do with the mice experiments concerned vaccine containing peanut oil.
“We compared the oral and nasal routes of peanut sensitization for the development of a mouse model of allergy. Mice were sensitized by administration of peanut proteins in the presence of cholera toxin as adjuvant. Antibody and cytokine responses were characterized, as well as airway reactivity to nasal challenge with peanut or unrelated antigens. Oral sensitization promoted higher levels of IgE, but lower IgG responses, than nasal sensitization. Both orally and nasally sensitized mice experienced airway hyperreactivity on nasal peanut challenge.” http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/167/6/1621
Did they also want to find drugs to actually help people? Damn right they did. I got to personally know several of the PhD. scientists working on innovative brain cancer therapies for a particularly nasty and deadly form of brain cancer and they were highly ethical folks very dedicated to helping people and fighting a horrible disease.
Did the sales department want to make their commission goals and were they interested in marketing our products and increasing our sales? Sure they were (what company selling any product doesn't do the same?). Did the finance department look at the bottom line? Yep. Were the research scientists’ principals and ethics compromised by working for a company that wanted to make a profit? Simply, NO! In fact we had a medical ethics board comprised of people from both within and from outside of the company with no material interests in our company that reviewed our research and financial goals to ensure that there was no compromise of medical and research ethics.
Working in the finance area, I saw firsthand how much money is required to take a new drug; from the spark of an idea and the first initial research in the lab¸ through more strenuous research in the lab, through animal trials (cue the PETA folks), more research, more animal trials, FDA applications, more research and trials and if and only if all those have proved both promising as being effective and safe, finally to small scale human clinical trials with meticulous data collection and review, then FDA reviews, more trials, more FDA reviews. I'm talking millions and millions of dollars; and some people wonder why some drugs are so expensive - why can't my drugs be free?
I should also mention that the clinical trials were never directly run and conducted by the pharma itself and the data collection submitted to the FDA was done by an impartial outside firm.
For every dollar a pharma spends in research and development, only a very small fraction of that results in an approved and marketable drug or vaccine. A lot of new drugs never make it out of the lab and those few that do, it takes a very long time and a lot of hard work and research and $$$ before any human receives it.
I find it instructive that the anti-vax folks knowingly or unwittingly align themselves with every wacky new age, anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-science group out there.
I wonder if many of the anti-vax folks here would feel rather at home with the OWS, AGW and PETA folks in this regard as they quote and believe in the very same sources of anti-science, anti-progress, anti-business and outright misinformation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.