One should also keep in perspective the trace amounts of these substances in vaccines. For example, I frequently see anti-vax concerns about formaldehyde toxicity that formaldehyde is so potent and damaging that any formaldehyde is “bad” for you. In reality, formaldehyde is formed naturally in the body by simple processes such as the breakdown of methanol in the liver to produce formaldehyde. Methanol is formed in the human body when one drinks orange juice. Free glutamic acid aka MSG is present in breastmilk and the amount appears to increase as a child gets older. Methyl mercury is ubiquitous in our environment.
Another example: I wear contact lenses and use a daily cleaner/wetting/storage solution. This solution contains boric acid. Boric acid occurs naturally as the mineral sassolite but also can be synthesized in the laboratory. It is a household product when used in laundry detergents, a drug when sold as an antiseptic eyewash, an insecticide when used to kill roaches, an herbicide when applied to kill weeds, and a flame retardant when used to fireproof fabrics. The dose of a substance is what makes it a poison. The substances listed above ARE hazardous to human health....when they are present in hazardous *amounts*. The amount in vaccines is considered trace and negligible.
Further explanation at the Canadian Pediatric Society site here (See answers to questions #17 and 18)
The FDA is responsible for overseeing the vaccine manufacturing process. They have guidelines and regulations to ensure the safest vaccine possible. Cell cultures must be tested for adventitious viral activity and vaccine products must be screened for viable microbial agents prior to release. The speculation regarding HIV/polio vaccine is only speculation and has been addressed by the CDC here .
This is true. There is no evidence to suggest that vaccine ingredients individually *are* carcinogenic, teratogenic, or adversely affect reproduction in the amounts found in vaccines. It doesn't make sense to me to assume they ARE based on the fact that they have not been “tested”. There are a multitude of things that we eat, touch, inhale, and ingest on a daily basis that have not been similarly "tested".
There is abundant evidence that disease incidence has declined dramatically following vaccination:
I have not seen a source that supports this statement. There have been measles outbreaks - especially in Europe where vaccination rates have declined. There have been deaths of children reported here as a result of natural measles disease.
This statement generally reflects a poor understanding of immunology. Unless a person has been previously exposed to a VPD, there are no pre- existing antibodies or “defenses” that a VPD encounters “first”. Injecting a vaccine intramuscularly cannot be equated with vaccine components somehow “invading” the bloodstream. Vaccine antigens injected into muscle is filtered through the lymphatic system where the actual production of antibodies occurs. This information may be found in any standard immunology textbook. The end result of naturally acquired infection vs vaccination is similar...production of appropriate antibodies. What kind of antibodies and the amount of antibodies, of course, varies. I see this “natural route” argument used often on anti-vax sites but when one applies basic immunology principles, it just doesn’t make any sense.
More information from the Canadian Pediatric Society here (see answer #6).
Again, one may consult any immunology textbook. “Fight off disease”....”weaker immune system”? This “theory” does not make immunologic sense. Vaccines stimulate the immune system just as natural infection does, but neither stimulate the entire immune system. In certain instances, natural disease suppresses portions of the immune system.
More information from the CPS is here (see answer #23)
The immune response is the same in an infant vs a toddler vs a child. The immune system does not function dependant on body weight. The very minute quantities of additives also have no concerns based on body weight.
Those who advocate the use of vaccines, obviously, disagree.
Actually, it wasn’t the pharmaceutical companies who created the NVICP although they did pressure the government to create it. It’s also not solely a “tax supported” program. The NVICP derives funds from the sale of vaccines. The government recognizes that vaccines can, and do, cause harm but that the benefits of vaccinating still outweigh the risks. In order to assure that the general population will continue to benefit from vaccines, the government created this program.
I have seen these reasons listed on various vaccination debate boards multiple times and have included my responses to them:
Although some of these substances are used in the manufacture of vaccines, the final vaccine product is produced following repeated heating, filtering and purification steps that inactivate and remove these substances. Some additives may remain in a vaccine product in trace amounts (often expressed as parts per million or parts per billion) and are felt to be in such minute amounts that they are not concerning. Reactions to vaccine additives are felt to be allergy related - not due to toxicity. The reference to “poison” is simply overstated.
Again, true. Although vaccines are not 100% effective, the risks vs benefits of vaccinating is what needs to be weighed. In the case of some vaccines, like the chickenpox vaccine, it prevents severe disease in 95%+ of children.
Contracting 5 different diseases at the same time is not comparable to injecting a child with 5 vaccines. This is also addressed by the CDC here and the Canadian Pediatric Society here (see answer #16).
I think there’s no doubt that improved sanitary conditions and medical care has significantly decreased morbidity and mortality from certain diseases but I also think that there *is* proof that without vaccines, those VPD’s would not be at the current incidence that we have now. The CDC’s explanation here and the CPS explanation here (see answer #2)
“Optimum” health does not guarantee anything. One does NOT have to be immunocompromised to experience disease complications.
Regarding "poisons", see first reply above. For an interesting look at how NON-benevolent Mother Nature really is, look here for an interesting view.