Are Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants Safe?

[mhatrw]

http://www.gardasilhpv.com/2010/04/gardasil-and-aluminum-vaccine-adjuvants.html

So when I read a study showing that an aluminum adjuvant, used in various vaccines including Gardasil, DTaP, Tdap, hepatitis A and B, and anthrax, had caused serious neurological problems in lab mice, I relaxed. I confidently assumed that I’d find studies and comments utterly refuting the work. Probably the FDA or CDC would have something reassuring to say about it. Nothing. OK, then. I contacted one of the study’s authors, Dr Chris Shaw, a research scientist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He and his colleagues had, after all, set out to look at Gulf War Syndrome and the more than doubled rate of ALS in serving military personnel, not debunk vaccines. Had he disproved his own study? Not at all. In fact, a second study had confirmed the first.

“We did do a second study with more animals that largely confirmed the first, including findings of altered memory functions,” he wrote back. “Additional histology from the first study also clearly showed the presence of aluminum in motor neurons in the spinal cord along with the expression of a protein associated with Alzheimer's disease. There is little doubt in the scientific literature that aluminum is toxic to cells, including human cells of all types (check the recent Keele conference on aluminum for more details). What the industry and most doctors argue is that the amount/shot is small. This is true, but what is not accounted for is the total body burden that kids today receive over their formative years. I'm close to your age and had maybe 10 shots before I was 20. The recommended number now is something over 40 before age 16."

“The second argument that aluminum is harmless is that as a common element we all eat milligrams of it daily. This is also true, but you should check out the papers of Dr. J. Walton of Australia who has clearly demonstrated Alzheimer's-like cognitive decline in older rats given aluminum in their water. In addition, vaccines present the aluminum in a very different way from the digestive system in that the injected aluminum goes into both the circulatory and lymphatic systems.”

When the first study was published, Shaw was quoted as saying he was “creeped out” by the unexpected results. Is he still creeped out? Yes—“mostly by the lack of interest in most of the medical community….As for the various regulatory agencies: none commented on the results of our study. DOD declined to comment when asked.”

[DCKit]

1. 'Cause everyone knows that eating one form of aluminum is just the same as having another...

injected into your veins.

[trotsky]

2. And everyone also knows...

that a chemical compound containing an element has the exact same properties as the element itself.

This is why table salt, a combination of a highly reactive metal and a poisonous gas, is both highly reactive and poisonous. Duh!

[mhatrw]

3. Exactly. Because table salt is safe, all plutonium salts must be safe!

Learn basic chemistry!

[trotsky]

5. Good luck to you.

I can thankfully see that the population of DU has appropriately unrecced your misinformation. Better luck with your next windmill.

[HuckleB]

4. Toxic myths about vaccines

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9

[mhatrw]

6. Could you be so kind to point out to us where the above link addresses Chris Shaw's studies?...nt

[HuckleB]

7. Would you be so kind as to stop pushing anti-vax bs?

You're just pushing the same old nonsense, and Shaw has been discredited over and over again. His science is poor, which is why other scientists ignore him. And then there's the reality that he is an anti-vax crusader, with a clear agenda.

Sorry to bring reality to the picture.

[mhatrw]

8. If Shaw's work has been discredited over and over, it should be easy to

provide several links to other peer reviewed scientific journal articles in which his peer reviewed scientific journal articles have been discredited.

So let's see them, please.

[HuckleB]

9. It's clear you have no idea how science works.

Your copy and paste anti-vax routine is humorous, but also dangerous.

Until you understand why no one follows up on his studies, and no wastes time and money "proving" his studies to be off base, perhaps you should refrain from posting anti-vax bs.

[mhatrw]

10. So science "works" by ignoring all supposedly flawed peer reviewed, published journal articles?

Seriously, that's your argument? That science advances by ignoring published peer reviewed scientific journal articles that spread misinformation?

Is that really how you think empiricism "works" or are you just saying anything you can think of to "win" the argument?

What's so ironic is that you have so far linked over a dozen articles written by people who make it their personal hobby to debunk anything they characterize as "bad science" in the last few days alone.

The difference here is that Shaw's papers are not easy to dismiss. They were published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Nobody is questioning the science because the science is sound and cannot be questioned. These studies cry out for further studies to either confirm or disconfirm them. Science can only work when controversial study results are addressed to either confirm or disconfirm them. That's why Shaw performed a second experiment, which confirmed the results of his first. If any of your "skeptic" buddies could easily disprove Shaw's studies, they would have already done so. If you actually had a rational critique of Shaw's studies yourself, you would have already shared it.

Show us the scientific experiments that were originally used to determine the dosages of alum that are safe to inject in mice, rats and humans. Show us the animal toxicity studies for alum. Let's see the actual science, not simply the pontifications of the high priest "experts."

[HuckleB]

11. No, that's not what I'm saying.

You can spend your whole night putting words in my mouth, and pretending that you care about science.

However:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=75819&mesg_id=75819

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=75842&mesg_id=75950

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=221402&mesg_id=221402

Your prior history makes it clear that science is not a high priority for you in regard to vaccines. Your anti-vax credentials have been earned.

[mhatrw]

12. So what WERE you saying then?

"Until you understand why no one follows up on his studies ... perhaps you should refrain from posting anti-vax bs." HuckleB

So help me understand how science "works" by ignoring all supposedly flawed studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Then tell me why you claimed that Shaw's studies "has been discredited over and over again", yet cannot produce a single document that discredits them. Where were Shaw's studies "discredited over and over again"? Exactly who "discredited" Shaw's studies "over and over again"?

Could it be that you were talking out of your posterior "over and over again"?

[HuckleB]

13. I asked you to figure it out, but it's clear that figuring it out is not something you care about.

Your consistent red herrings, distractions, changed goal posts, and putting in the mouths of others makes that abundantly clear.

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/hot-topics/aluminum.html

http://www.preemieprimer.com/the-truth-about-vaccines-and-toxins-less-aluminum-than-breast-milk/

Are you still going to pretend that your not playing by the classic anti-vax playbook?

PS: A little more anti-vax history: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=164655&mesg_id=164655

AND some more anti-vax history: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=20712&mesg_id=20712

And more: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=76214&mesg_id=76214

[mhatrw]

14. You are hilarious. You not only failed to link any scientific articles, you

also failed to link anything at all that even mentions, much less addresses the supposed deficiencies in, Shaw's studies.

So help me understand how science "works" by ignoring all supposedly flawed studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Then tell me why you claimed that Shaw's studies have "been discredited over and over again", yet you cannot produce a single document that even discusses, much less discredits them. Where were Shaw's studies "discredited over and over again"? Exactly who "discredited" Shaw's studies "over and over again"?

Could it be that you are talking out of your posterior "over and over again"? The evidence is mounting....

[HuckleB]

15. Actually, I've linked to far more scientific evidence than your anti-vax spin ever could.

Further, your questions are nothing but the usual anti-vax routine of placing everything into a phony box, so you can ignore the vast majority of scientific evidence. You are pushing an old line of baloney. You and I both know it, and anyone who cares to look at your posting history at DU will know it too.

I've also pointed out the reality of your spin. It's all baloney. Your anti-vax credentials leave everything you've offered pointless.

Some might realize that the evidence of their forgery is too much. For some reason, you keep trying to play the same game.

I don't play games.

I'm done, for now.

[mhatrw]

16. Do you know of ANYONE who has ever even ATTEMPTED to specifically dubunk

Shaw's studies? The answer is unequivocally no.

You and I both know it, and anyone who cares to look at your posting history on this thread knows it too.

[HuckleB]

17. No one needs to debunk a flawed pilot study, that they've looked at to see if it's worth pursuing.

It's clear that you don't know the first thing about research.

You and I both know that!

[mhatrw]

18. Shaw has two studies now, both published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

What are the supposed flaws of these studies in your considered opinion?

[HuckleB]

19. And yet another switch of bait.

As if you haven't been provided with the links on that matter already.

Keep trying to push your bs. Fewer and fewer are buying. It's already been debunked over and over again.

For some reason, you keep pretending otherwise. Well, keep pretending.

Hasta.

[mhatrw]

20. Quit the sophistry. You've produced no critique of Shaw's experiments whatsoever.

Instead you've claimed that science "works" by ignoring published, peer reviewed journal articles that are flawed.

How about doing your own thinking for once? Read the most recent http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/">scientific article for yourself.

Then explain to us all why you think the paper is flawed.

[HuckleB]

21. I'm sorry, but sophistry is exactly what you've spammed the boards with...

... several times over the years.

I actually do think . I don't parrot. If you actually believe you think for yourself, that's quite humorous.

[mhatrw]

22. Can you say something intelligent and critical about Shaw's studies?

Why is that too much to ask?