minx Posted June 24, 2009 Author Posted June 24, 2009 well bosterson, yes we can get to discussing those problems but kimmo is going to have to chime in. i can discuss the problems in short v. long whips but beyond that i'm done for the day. have a nice evening. Quote
Kimmo Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 aluminum toxicity? the amount of adjuvant in vaccines is relatively minute to compared to the amount that your child is going to get from aluminum cans and other packaging by age 5. if you are uncomfortable with the amount of vaccines given concurrently, please feel free to space them out and take as many trips to the physician as you'd like. unnecessary vaccines are certaily a matter of opinion. some i would not question your decision on. for others the consequences are grave. chicken pox v. polio. herd mentality ...clever. whatever. herd immunity is valid concept. you're dismissal with the clever use of language does not make it any less relevant to community health. hey we're getting somewhere! common ground! a flavor of agreement, not too bitter i hope! yes the level of aluminum as adjuvant PER SINGLE DOSE is within the "safe" levels established by the FDA(?) in i think all vaccinations, but combine these levels into single occurence events and what do you have? a cause for concern, imo. also keep in mind that oral and iv are very different pathways for aluminum to enter the body. so, then space them out, as you said. good idea. and something that i think everyone should do. don't dose your kid up with a bazillion shots in one sitting. and then which shots to get? here is obviously some room for disagreement, and honestly, we personally haven't made up our minds yet. chicken pox certainly not. i think this can be a disservice in the long run. hep b as infant? ridiculous. hep a? hmmm. and then it gets tougher. and herd immunity? of course a valid concept. more than that, a "scientifically proven" reality, if using the "scientific method". i feel better now, since we seem to be getting along so swimmingly! Quote
Bosterson Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Kimmo, if I erred by referring to you as "he" (ie, you are a "she"), I apologize. Seriously, you should trot out some of these arguments against the (airquote) scientific method (unairquote). I am oh-so-curious. Quote
Kimmo Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 alright...before i go. let me also add, that many vaccines no longer use aluminum adjuvants. hmmm not what i found. supposedly it's needed for the efficacy of the vaccine. Quote
Kimmo Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Seriously, you should trot out some of these arguments against the (airquote) scientific method (unairquote). I am oh-so-curious. why, are you a scientist? Quote
minx Posted June 25, 2009 Author Posted June 25, 2009 does it matter if he's a scientist and i apologize, i shouldn't have used the word many but there asome vaccines w/o alum adjuvants. further, one of the benefits of the multivalent vaccines is the reduction in overall alum content for the vaccination process. now why on earth would you not vaccinate a child for a hepatitis? they are some of the biggest hand to mouth transmitters of all sorts of things. kids are not clean. Quote
j_b Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 now why on earth would you not vaccinate a child for a hepatitis? they are some of the biggest hand to mouth transmitters of all sorts of things. kids are not clean. Kimmo questioned hep b vaccines for infants, which is reasonable doubt given that only infants from infected mothers are really at risk. Hep b is mostly a STD or through intravenous drug use. Quote
Doug Smith Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains a small amount of an agent that resembles a microorganism. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters. Quote
Doug Smith Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Vaccines do not guarantee complete protection from a disease. Sometimes this is because the host's immune system simply doesn't respond adequately or at all. This may be due to a lowered immunity in general (diabetes, steroid use, HIV infection) or because the host's immune system does not have a B cell capable of generating antibodies to that antigen. Quote
Kimmo Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 does it matter if he's a scientist i have no idea; let's just start out with the facts, and then ascertain their relevance. and i apologize, i shouldn't have used the word many but there asome vaccines w/o alum adjuvants. hib? i couldn't find any. now why on earth would you not vaccinate a child for a hepatitis? they are some of the biggest hand to mouth transmitters of all sorts of things. kids are not clean. as you probably noticed, my comment regarding the hep a vaccine was "hmmmm...."; that's hardly a strong opinion, yes? with chicken pox and hep b i did not equivocate. Quote
minx Posted June 25, 2009 Author Posted June 25, 2009 adjuvant MF59: APPROVAL OF THE FIRST NON-ALUM ADJUVANT FOR A VACCINE. M Hora1 , J Fang2 , S Tuck3 , V Levi4 1Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, CA, 2Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, CA, 3Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, CA, 4Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, CA, Enhancement of immune response of vaccine antigens by combining them with an adjuvant has been an active area of research for the vaccinologist for many decades. Alum is the only adjuvant which is present in approximately one dozen out of the nearly fifty vaccines currently approved for the US market. The modern, well-defined antigens based on subunit and envelope proteins are safer than the older whole cell or bacterial vaccines but may generate a weak or incomplete immune response. So, there is an even greater need for adjuvants for use with the newer antigens for eliciting an optimum immune response. Adjuvants based on particulate or cellular materials have been evaluated for many decades. However, none of them have resulted in successful development of a product thus far. To be commercially viable, an adjuvant must have the appropriate pharmaceutical properties (consistent product profile, acceptable shelf life and reproducible manufacturing process) in addition to the desired immunological attributes. We have developed an emulsion adjuvant using squalene, which is a metabolizable oil, having a well defined, submicron particle size distribution and predictable characteristics. This adjuvant, identified as MF59 (or MF59C.1), has been tested extensively in clinical studies with many antigens and can be produced at a commercial scale. Development of an emulsion with a particle size similar to the pore size of the membrane, through which it must be filtered for obtaining a sterile product, posed many challenges to the process scientist. In addition, the formulator and analyst had to stabilize MF59 against degradation of key components to ensure that the adjuvant had a commercially meaningful shelf life. An MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccine (FluAdÔ) has been fully developed as a commercial product and is on the market in Italy since 1997. Development of a commercial formulation and manufacturing process for MF59 will be discussed in the presentation. In conclusion, MF59 is a well-characterized, safe and powerful adjuvant that can be produced at a commercial scale in a consistent and reproducible manner for administration with traditional and recombinant antigens. Quote
Kimmo Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 DTP (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine) DTaP (diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine) Some but not all Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b) conjugate vaccines Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Hepatitis B vaccines All combination DTaP, Tdap, Hib, or Hepatitis B vaccines Hepatitis A vaccines Human Papillomavirus vaccine Anthrax vaccine Rabies vaccine these contain aluminum salts. some above are obviously not commonly administered. Polio Virus (IPV) vaccine, MMR vaccine, and varicella vaccine do not contain aluminum salts. my apologies for the lack of research on my part; my memory falters (is there a vaccine for this yet? preferably one that doesn't cause autism?). Quote
jon Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 What is with you and the aluminum? I can think of a handful of things with a much greater cytotoxicity then aluminum that you ingest every day. Quote
minx Posted June 25, 2009 Author Posted June 25, 2009 Seriously, you should trot out some of these arguments against the (airquote) scientific method (unairquote). I am oh-so-curious. why, are you a scientist? you are the one who brought it up... so a) why does it matter if he's a scientist. don't want to debate someone who might be educated on the subject? b)why not answer the question? Quote
Bosterson Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Seriously, you should trot out some of these arguments against the (airquote) scientific method (unairquote). I am oh-so-curious. why, are you a scientist? Why, are you stalling? Quote
Kimmo Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 a) why does it matter if he's a scientist. don't want to debate someone who might be educated on the subject? b)why not answer the question? i have no idea if it matters or not! i was just curious, since he was so curious. sheesh. can't a person ask a question around here? and if he was "educated on the subject", he would probably know already, right? and not be asking me. plus, i think to varying degrees, we are all "scientists" inherently: hypothesize, see results, accept or reject. at the infant stage we don't conceptualize our hypothesis in formal terms, but that doesn't matter; it's still happening. so to answer my own question: yes basterson is a scientist, even if he doesn't act like one. Quote
minx Posted June 25, 2009 Author Posted June 25, 2009 alas...you have still avoided answering about your own reluctance to accept the scientific method. i'm bored now. y ou win Quote
Bosterson Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 i think to varying degrees, we are all "scientists" inherently: hypothesize, see results, accept or reject. at the infant stage we don't conceptualize our hypothesis in formal terms, but that doesn't matter; it's still happening. so to answer my own question: yes basterson is a scientist, even if he doesn't act like one. You are awesome. That is expert-level equivocation. Have you thought about going into politics? Also: should I change my username to Basterson? It has a certain ring to it... Quote
minx Posted June 25, 2009 Author Posted June 25, 2009 let me, know i can handle that name change for you Quote
Bosterson Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 let me, know i can handle that name change for you It sounds sort of like "B@stard Son," right? (Sorry for the self-censorship - I'm at work, and they keylog, and I have no idea what words they watch for. Why do people have jobs? Ugh...) Say it fast, with an Irish-inflected accent. Maybe it's the name of an IRA heavy metal band. Quote
Kimmo Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 alas...you have still avoided answering about your own reluctance to accept the scientific method. i'm bored now. y ou win i'm bored too. but to answer your question: i have never rejected the SM outright; that's just silly. my acceptance of it is simply conditional. it doesn't have the capacity to reach beyond itself, so to speak. i'm not saying it's inherently flawed, like nietzsche perhaps did, just that it's limited to time and place; specifically, rhyme and space. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.