RFK JR is on Rogan today if you want to check out his brand of crazy

[naturalbornhawk]

Meanwhile, 2012 called:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022354915317792

Aluminum Adjuvant Dose Guidelines in Vaccine Formulation for Preclinical Evaluations​

"Although the regulatory agencies have clearly stated the acceptable levels of Al salts in vaccines for human use, there are no general indications for preclinical research." Yeah it'd be nice to see how they came to those acceptable levels.

"Flarend et al.15 demonstrated that 0.85 mg of Al3+ in the form of Al oxyhydroxide or Al phosphate injected intramuscularly in rabbits lead neither to a significant Al systemic exposure nor to an acute toxic effect."

"Flarend et al.15" is the your 2nd linked study. From that study: "The distribution profile of aluminium to tissues was the same for both adjuvants (kidney > spleen > liver > heart > lymph node > brain)." And how are we determining that that's okay? This sounds a lot like Gherardi's findings. Too bad we only have limited access to these publications.

"However, no significant toxicity has been observed by several researchers with a scaled down human dose of Al-based vaccine in preclinical species." Where are the citations here? Could that be because it hasn't been well researched, as many papers written about aluminum have stated, including the one that Joe linked earlier, and its citations? If the quoted is indeed the truth, why didn't the CDC and the NIH include either one of these studies as their evidence for the safety of aluminum?

CDC and NIH Unable to Provide a Single Study to Support the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants Despite its Widespread Use in Childhood Vaccines - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

A series of ICAN FOIA's has revealed CDC and NIH do not have a single study to support the safety of aluminum adjuvant in childhood vaccines.

icandecide.org

NIH Concedes it has No Studies Assessing the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

Vaccines given routinely during the first 6 months of life contain over 3500mg of aluminum. ICAN submitted a FOIA request to the NIH requested studies showing the safety of injecting aluminum - their search came back empty.

icandecide.org

The bottom line is if there were studies that truly indicate the safety of aluminum, the CDC and NIH would include those to build their case instead of giving a monumental win for the "antivaxxers" to put on their websites. At the end of the day you both have lost miserably in building your case for aluminum adjuvant safety. Any other studies CDC and NIH reject papers you'd like to add before we're done here?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

"Although the regulatory agencies have clearly stated the acceptable levels of Al salts in vaccines for human use, there are no general indications for preclinical research." Yeah it'd be nice to see how they came to those acceptable levels.

"Flarend et al.15 demonstrated that 0.85 mg of Al3+ in the form of Al oxyhydroxide or Al phosphate injected intramuscularly in rabbits lead neither to a significant Al systemic exposure nor to an acute toxic effect."

"Flarend et al.15" is the your 2nd linked study. From that study: "The distribution profile of aluminium to tissues was the same for both adjuvants (kidney > spleen > liver > heart > lymph node > brain)." And how are we determining that that's okay? This sounds a lot like Gherardi's findings. Too bad we only have limited access to these publications.

"However, no significant toxicity has been observed by several researchers with a scaled down human dose of Al-based vaccine in preclinical species." Where are the citations here? Could that be because it hasn't been well researched, as many papers written about aluminum have stated, including the one that Joe linked earlier, and its citations? If the quoted is indeed the truth, why didn't the CDC and the NIH include either one of these studies as their evidence for the safety of aluminum?

CDC and NIH Unable to Provide a Single Study to Support the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants Despite its Widespread Use in Childhood Vaccines - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

A series of ICAN FOIA's has revealed CDC and NIH do not have a single study to support the safety of aluminum adjuvant in childhood vaccines.

icandecide.org

NIH Concedes it has No Studies Assessing the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

Vaccines given routinely during the first 6 months of life contain over 3500mg of aluminum. ICAN submitted a FOIA request to the NIH requested studies showing the safety of injecting aluminum - their search came back empty.

icandecide.org

The bottom line is if there were studies that truly indicate the safety of aluminum, the CDC and NIH would include those to build their case instead of giving a monumental win for the "antivaxxers" to put on their websites. At the end of the day you both have lost miserably in building your case for aluminum adjuvant safety. Any other studies CDC and NIH reject papers you'd like to add before we're done here?

That’s a whole lot of verbiage when you could have just said “I was fvcking wrong…again.”

Still waiting for an answer to my earlier question but in lieu of that…which vaccines in the infant schedule are you advocating to eliminate?

 

[Joes Place]

"Although the regulatory agencies have clearly stated the acceptable levels of Al salts in vaccines for human use, there are no general indications for preclinical research." Yeah it'd be nice to see how they came to those acceptable levels.

Pre-clinical = Animal studies, bro.

 

[Joes Place]

The bottom line is if there were studies that truly indicate the safety of aluminum, the CDC and NIH would include those to build their case

They DID

Antivaxxers either ignore them, or do not understand them.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Pre-clinical = Animal studies, bro.

Where is the data that indicates safety?

They DID

Antivaxxers either ignore them, or do not understand them.

No, they did not. Why did they not bring these up when asked? Could it be because they did not indicate safety? Yes, I think so.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Still waiting for an answer to my earlier question but in lieu of that…which vaccines in the infant schedule are you advocating to eliminate?

I've said many times before if you want to go back to the 80's schedule, I'd be good with that.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Still waiting for an answer to my earlier question but in lieu of that…which vaccines in the infant schedule are you advocating to eliminate?

Truthfully what I'm after is mandates and informed consent though. If people want them, go ahead, but nobody should be mislead, and nobody should be mandated to take a product with a dubious safety profile.

 

[LBoogie28]

Reports are that it's happening. I don't have a number for you, and I don't need one to acknowledge that it appears to be happening.

Was it happening before 2021?

Any updates? Or still can’t answer?

 

[Joes Place]

No, they did not.

Yes. They continually do ignore them.

 

[Joes Place]

Truthfully what I'm after is mandates and informed consent though

Informed consent is part of ANY clinical trial.

You have informed consent for ANY vaccine you get. You simply do not read it. Too many big words and lots of paragraphs of stuff.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Yes. They continually do ignore them.

No, let's not misunderstand here.

They DID

No, they absolutely did not.

CDC and NIH Unable to Provide a Single Study to Support the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants Despite its Widespread Use in Childhood Vaccines - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

A series of ICAN FOIA's has revealed CDC and NIH do not have a single study to support the safety of aluminum adjuvant in childhood vaccines.

icandecide.org

NIH Concedes it has No Studies Assessing the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

Vaccines given routinely during the first 6 months of life contain over 3500mg of aluminum. ICAN submitted a FOIA request to the NIH requested studies showing the safety of injecting aluminum - their search came back empty.

icandecide.org

 

[Joes Place]

No, let's not misunderstand here.


No, they absolutely did not.

CDC and NIH Unable to Provide a Single Study to Support the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants Despite its Widespread Use in Childhood Vaccines - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

A series of ICAN FOIA's has revealed CDC and NIH do not have a single study to support the safety of aluminum adjuvant in childhood vaccines.

icandecide.org

NIH Concedes it has No Studies Assessing the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

Vaccines given routinely during the first 6 months of life contain over 3500mg of aluminum. ICAN submitted a FOIA request to the NIH requested studies showing the safety of injecting aluminum - their search came back empty.

icandecide.org

"icandecide.org" is simply not a credible source of information.

Try Google.

 

[MichaelKeller99]

"Although the regulatory agencies have clearly stated the acceptable levels of Al salts in vaccines for human use, there are no general indications for preclinical research." Yeah it'd be nice to see how they came to those acceptable levels.

"Flarend et al.15 demonstrated that 0.85 mg of Al3+ in the form of Al oxyhydroxide or Al phosphate injected intramuscularly in rabbits lead neither to a significant Al systemic exposure nor to an acute toxic effect."

"Flarend et al.15" is the your 2nd linked study. From that study: "The distribution profile of aluminium to tissues was the same for both adjuvants (kidney > spleen > liver > heart > lymph node > brain)." And how are we determining that that's okay? This sounds a lot like Gherardi's findings. Too bad we only have limited access to these publications.

"However, no significant toxicity has been observed by several researchers with a scaled down human dose of Al-based vaccine in preclinical species." Where are the citations here? Could that be because it hasn't been well researched, as many papers written about aluminum have stated, including the one that Joe linked earlier, and its citations? If the quoted is indeed the truth, why didn't the CDC and the NIH include either one of these studies as their evidence for the safety of aluminum?

CDC and NIH Unable to Provide a Single Study to Support the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants Despite its Widespread Use in Childhood Vaccines - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

A series of ICAN FOIA's has revealed CDC and NIH do not have a single study to support the safety of aluminum adjuvant in childhood vaccines.

icandecide.org

NIH Concedes it has No Studies Assessing the Safety of Injecting Aluminum Adjuvants - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

Vaccines given routinely during the first 6 months of life contain over 3500mg of aluminum. ICAN submitted a FOIA request to the NIH requested studies showing the safety of injecting aluminum - their search came back empty.

icandecide.org

The bottom line is if there were studies that truly indicate the safety of aluminum, the CDC and NIH would include those to build their case instead of giving a monumental win for the "antivaxxers" to put on their websites. At the end of the day you both have lost miserably in building your case for aluminum adjuvant safety. Any other studies CDC and NIH reject papers you'd like to add before we're done here?

You gotta love the credentials of the scientists on the study he posted showing how safe injected aluminum is:

Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Informed consent is part of ANY clinical trial.

You have informed consent for ANY vaccine you get. You simply do not read it. Too many big words and lots of paragraphs of stuff.

Safe and effective. That's what you get. Effective? I'm not arguing efficacy at this time. Safe? It's much more complicated that just assuring people that they're "safe", especially when they've never been proven to be. So they're lying. So no, there is not true informed consent.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

"icandecide.org" is simply not a credible source of information.

Try Google.

No. CDC and NIH were formally asked several times through FOIA and given plenty of time to provide the evidence of safety and they could not.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

You gotta love the credentials of the scientists on the study he posted showing how safe injected aluminum is:

Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️

Yep, It's all about conflicts of interest. Follow the money!

 

[Joes Place]

You gotta love the credentials of the scientists on the study he posted showing how safe injected aluminum is:

Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️
Novartis ✔️

Which, again, is "info" coming from a biased site.

Go look up the wealth of actual science, and you'll find plenty of other sources.

 

[Joes Place]

No. CDC and NIH were formally asked several times through FOIA

And they DO NOT control public records of data from journals, Cletus.
THAT is where much of the information already exists - IT IS ALREADY PUBLIC AND THUS THEY HAVE NO FOIA RECORDS TO DISCLOSE.

 

[Joes Place]

Safe and effective. That's what you get.

Yep.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Which, again, is "info" coming from a biased site.

Go look up the wealth of actual science, and you'll find plenty of other sources.

There is no "wealth of actual science" Joe. That's the problem.

 

[Joes Place]

There is no "wealth of actual science" Joe

Weird (actually, unsurprising) that your nutball site didn't pick THIS article out:

Vaccine Adjuvants: from 1920 to 2015 and Beyond - PMC

The concept of stimulating the body’s immune response is the basis underlying vaccination. Vaccines act by initiating the innate immune response and activating antigen presenting cells (APCs), thereby inducing a protective adaptive immune response ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Vaccine Adjuvants: from 1920 to 2015 and Beyond​

Alberta Di Pasquale,1,* Scott Preiss,1 Fernanda Tavares Da Silva,1 and Nathalie Garçon2
Diane M. Harper, Academic Editor

 

[naturalbornhawk]

And they DO NOT control public records of data from journals, Cletus.
THAT is where much of the information already exists - IT IS ALREADY PUBLIC AND THUS THEY HAVE NO FOIA RECORDS TO DISCLOSE.

Why did the CDC include studies (20 of them) that were public access for the CDC's landmark autism FOIA failure then?

Stipulated Order Proving CDC Has No Studies To Support Claim That Vaccines Given in First 6 Months of Life Do Not Cause Autism - ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network

The CDC conceded, in court, to ICAN's requests and suits, that that it has no studies to support that any of these vaccines do not cause autism.

icandecide.org

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Weird (actually, unsurprising) that your nutball site didn't pick THIS article out:

Vaccine Adjuvants: from 1920 to 2015 and Beyond - PMC

The concept of stimulating the body’s immune response is the basis underlying vaccination. Vaccines act by initiating the innate immune response and activating antigen presenting cells (APCs), thereby inducing a protective adaptive immune response ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Vaccine Adjuvants: from 1920 to 2015 and Beyond​

Alberta Di Pasquale,1,* Scott Preiss,1 Fernanda Tavares Da Silva,1 and Nathalie Garçon2
Diane M. Harper, Academic Editor

Um....the CDC and NIH is "my nutball site"?

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Um....the CDC and NIH is "my nutball site"?

Yes. Next question...🤣

Also, the other study he posted demonstrates that Glaxo Smith Klein employees are less financially conflicted than Novartis employees when it comes to doing unbiased 'research' and compiling 'data'. Lmao.

 

[Joes Place]

Why did the CDC include studies (20 of them) that were public access

Because they DIDN'T HAVE MUCH ELSE.

And the whole "autism" nonsense was debunked YEARS AGO

We now KNOW that it is early childhood infections that are linked to autism risks. That is now very clear.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

I think you're losing it Joe. Stay with me. You said:

And they DO NOT control public records of data from journals, Cletus.
THAT is where much of the information already exists - IT IS ALREADY PUBLIC AND THUS THEY HAVE NO FOIA RECORDS TO DISCLOSE.

Which doesn't make sense when you consider:

Why did the CDC include studies (20 of them) that were public access for the CDC's landmark autism FOIA failure then?

Then you answer with:

Because they DIDN'T HAVE MUCH ELSE.

Which doesn't make sense. They can either use public record in their FOIA response or they can't. The 2nd case, the CDC did indeed cite public record in their reply. So, you either are 1) lying, or 2) have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[ironside1]

JW? He wouldn't know a vaccine injury if it bit him in the ass. All that guy does is throw out insults and make you hope you never have to step into a medical establishment ever again. Also, since MDs have a half-day vaccine coverage in their schooling, I'd say some of them might not be the best people to ask, JW being a prime example.

But yeah, since you brought it up, I'd love to have the other MDs chime in on this thread.

Yes you know more than a doctor.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

And the whole "autism" nonsense was debunked YEARS AGO

We now KNOW that it is early childhood infections that are linked to autism risks. That is now very clear.

No, it wasn't debunked. Ask Stanley Plotkin, or Katheryn Edwards. Or look at the CDC's response to the FOIA, or maybe the NIH's summary of DTaP in their 2011 vaccine report. or just look at the overall science.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Yes you know more than a doctor.

Apparently doctors have a half day coverage of vaccines in all their schooling.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I've said many times before if you want to go back to the 80's schedule, I'd be good with that.

So those vaccines didn’t have aluminum salts? Interesting. And you would advocate for eliminating every vaccine added to the schedule since then?

 

[ironside1]

Apparently doctors have a half day coverage of vaccines in all their schooling.

What schooling did you have?

 

[naturalbornhawk]

So those vaccines didn’t have aluminum salts? Interesting. And you would advocate for eliminating every vaccine added to the schedule since then?

I believe the problems mostly started with the doggy pile of vaccines in the 90's. That's why. I don't care if you eliminate them or not. True informed consent, and no mandates.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

What schooling did you have?

I've been very transparent with this in several threads. I have a bachelor's in bio w/ environmental emphasis.

 

[ironside1]

I've been very transparent with this in several threads. I have a bachelor's in bio w/ environmental emphasis.

Sorry, I’ve never read that. Show how much of your schooling involved vaccine studies?

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Sorry, I’ve never read that. Show how much of your schooling involved vaccine studies?

A small amount in micro. I was fully on board with vaccines until my daughter was about to be born, when I was tipped off by a few friends - a Public Health Nurse, a Chemist, and a Chiropractor all around that same time. After I started reading, I started seeing what they saw.

 

[ironside1]

A small amount in micro. I was fully on board with vaccines until my daughter was about to be born, when I was tipped off by a few friends - a Public Health Nurse, a Chemist, and a Chiropractor all around that same time. After I started reading, I started seeing what they saw.

A Chiropractor and nurse? Between them they took one class on vaccines and it wasn’t the Chiropractor.

I can read online about the Holocaust being made up. Doesn’t mean I should believe it.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

I can read online about the Holocaust being made up. Doesn’t mean I should believe it.

Ironside, we have to be honest about this, and part of being honest means making honest comparisons.

 

[ironside1]

Ironside, we have to be honest about this, and part of being honest means making honest comparisons.

I’m sorry, I think it is a fair comparison. 99% of the people in the US believe in vaccines and that the Holocaust occurred.

 

[Joes Place]

I think you're losing it Joe. Stay with me. You said:

Which doesn't make sense

It makes sense, when it is something they have in their possession.

Did they NEED to release those publicly available, documents? Nope. Already in the public record.
But your FOIA buddies harass them over and over on irrelevant crap.

 

[Joes Place]

A small amount in micro. I was fully on board with vaccines until my daughter was about to be born, when I was tipped off by a few friends - a Public Health Nurse, a Chemist, and a Chiropractor all around that same time. After I started reading, I started seeing what they saw.

NOT studies
NOT info from doctors
NOT science

Random people with ZERO medical experience in vaccines.