Follow Topics

29 November 2012, 2.53pm EST

‘Toxins’ in vaccines: a potentially deadly misunderstanding

Vaccination is one of the most important preventative measures against serious illness, but its very success may be working against it. With parents no longer having the experience of the devastating diseases it prevents, fear of vaccines has crept in, aided and abetted by groups that exaggerate and…

Author

Ian Musgrave

Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

Disclosure Statement

Ian Musgrave receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and has previously been funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Some of this funding was to investigate treatments for neurodegenerative disease. Ian received some pertussis toxin for free from CSL in 1986-1987 to investigate signal transduction. Ian is the current chair of the Toxicology Special Interest Group of the Australasian Society for Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Toxicology.

University of Adelaide does not contribute to the cost of running The Conversation. Find out more.

The Conversation is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, Canberra, CDU, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, JCU, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle. QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, USC, USQ, UTAS, UWS and VU.

Ry2gtkct-1354070347 — The dose makes the poison so fear is stoked by a lack of basic understanding of chemistry and toxicology. Ellen Fitzsimons

Vaccination is one of the most important preventative measures against serious illness, but its very success may be working against it.

With parents no longer having the experience of the devastating diseases it prevents, fear of vaccines has crept in, aided and abetted by groups that exaggerate and distort their possible harms. Vaccination rates are falling, and the scientific and medical communities are alarmed about the growing possibility of devastating epidemics of preventable diseases.

Vaccination effectiveness in combating preventable diseases in Australia. Figure used with permission from 2012 The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers, Australian Academy of Science.

One contributor to the fear of vaccines is the notion that they contain toxins. But “it’s the dose that makes the poison” and it’s distressing that people’s fears are beings stoked by a lack of basic understanding of chemistry and toxicology. So let’s have a close look at some of the “bad boys” the anti-vaxxers love to hate.

Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde has many uses – you may be familiar with its use in biology to preserve tissue. Formaldehyde is used in vaccine preparation to kill viruses or inactivate the proteins used. And traces of it can be found in some vaccines.

Now, while drinking embalming fluid concentrations of formaldehyde is seriously bad for you, the amount present in vaccines never exceed 0.1 milligrams (mg) per dose, and are typically much less than that. To put this in perspective, every time you eat an apple, you are eating between one and six milligram of formaldehyde. Yes, there is formaldehyde in fruit – plants make it as part of their normal metabolism (pears are by far the worst).

Formaldehyde Ian Musgrave, Molecule visualized in RasMol

You also make formaldehyde as part of your normal metabolism. It’s an essential part of the synthesis of amino acids and some of the components of DNA. At any given time, you have something like 2.5 mg of formaldehyde in every litre of your blood. This formaldehyde is being continuously generated as the enzyme formaldehyde dehydrogenase rapidly breaks it down.

A typical two-month-old child has around 1.1 mg of formaldehyde in its body from normal metabolism, ten times more than the maximum possible dose she could get from vaccines. And less than what she would ingest from mashed apples.

Thiomersal

Thiomersal is the preservative ethylmercurithiosalicylate, which breaks down to produce ethyl mercury. Mercury is famously toxic, we only need to remember the disaster at Minamata (methyl mercury) and Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter (mercury vapour) to realise that it’s a potent neurotoxin.

But most of us of a certain age remember Mercurochrome, which was used as an antiseptic on cuts and grazes, turning our knees and elbows red – mercury is also a powerful antibacterial.

Multi-use vials are used during epidemics when there’s a need to produce a lot of vaccine in a hurry and you can’t afford to make it in single-use vials. When this happens, we need some way to prevent bacterial contamination and thiomersal is one such antibacterial.

Thiomersal Ian Musgrave, Visualised in RasMol

Most Australian vaccines don’t contain thiomersal because we don’t use multi-use vials as much as other countries. The mumps, measles and rubella vaccine never contained thiomersal, the diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus acelluar vaccine in use since 1997 also doesn’t contain thiomersal. Neither do Australian influenza vaccines.

Indeed, the only thiomersal containing vaccines in Australia are for Japanese encephalitis and Q-fever. The amount of mercury you would get from one of these vaccines is less than what you would get from eating a can of tuna (around 85 micrograms of mercury for a standard serve). And the can of tuna would have the mercury in the form of methyl mercury, which is expelled from our bodies much more slowly (half-life of about 50 days) than the ethyl mercury from thiomersal (half-life of about seven days).

Aluminium

Most vaccines contain materials to enhance the immune response to them and aluminium salts are one such material. Aluminium is the third most common element in the earth’s crust, and it can be toxic. People on dialysis who have been exposed to higher than normal aluminium levels in their dialysis fluid over a long period of time show a range of adverse effects, including damage to the brain and nervous system.

But these levels (and how long people are exposed to them) are considerably larger than the levels we’re exposed to in vaccines. Indeed, the amount of aluminium we are exposed to in our food and drink normally is much larger than any vaccine dose.

The mercury from tinned tuna takes longer to expel from your body than any mercury in vaccines. Keith McDuffee

You may be surprised to know that human breast milk has 40 micrograms of aluminium per litre, and infant formulas contain around 225 micrograms of aluminium per litre. Aluminium is also rapidly excreted – half of any dose of aluminium will be expelled from the body within 24 hours.

Guidelines for aluminium exposure (with a 30-fold safety factor built in) are for aluminium exposure to be less than two milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. That means someone who weighs 80 kilograms could ingest 100 milligrams of aluminium in a day and remain safe.

All vaccines have less than one milligram of aluminium per dose, and most are below half of that. So exposure to aluminium through vaccines is negligible, and well below the already low risk threshold.

Antibiotics

Many vaccines are produced in tissue culture, which requires antibiotics to keep them sterile. The purification process used to produce the final vaccine can’t remove 100% of all the antibiotics, so there’s a residue.

There’s quite a lot of hyperventilating about antibiotics in vaccines. Some antibiotics (such as penicillin) can produce hypersensitivity reactions, but such antibiotics are not used in vaccine production. Those typically used include neomycin, streptomycin and polymyxin B. Of these, only neomycin is present in detectable quantities, typically less than 0.025 mg per dose.

If you weigh 80 kilograms, you could ingest 100 milligrams of aluminium in a day and still remain safe. davidd/Flickr

Neomycin can cause adverse events at doses of three grams per day or more. This is over 2,000 times the amount in a typical vaccine dose, which is clearly well below the threshold for adverse events in humans. Antibiotic resistance also worries some people, but for bacteria to become resistant to an antibiotic, the antibiotic has to kill off some bacteria and let some resistant bacteria survive. The dose of neomycin in a standard shot is also well below that required to produce resistance, and we are generally not giving these vaccines to people with bacterial infections in the first place.

Don’t panic

This is not an exhaustive list but it covers most of the toxins that anti-vaxxers are most concerned about. The remainder of the so-called toxins in vaccines bring up exactly the same issues as highlighted here. The presence of low levels of one of the most common amino acids in our body is apparently now a worry, and I will pass lightly over claims that sodium chloride (common salt) is a toxin in vaccines. There’s really no reason that these compounds should keep people from getting vaccinated.

Vaccination has been enormously successful in reducing or banishing diseases that used to plague us and our children. It would be sad if these diseases came back because people didn’t understand the role of dose in the adverse effects of chemicals.

[The author has made a PDF version of this article available for download]

Articles also by This Author

12 April 2013 Glossary: ‘sports science’ drugs

25 March 2013 Does aluminium cause Alzheimer’s and breast cancer?

28 May 2012 Should the latest research about plastics exposure worry us?

30 April 2012 Don’t panic: what statins tell us about understanding risk statistics

21 February 2012 What CAM courses at universities should look like

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

71 Comments sorted by

Sue Ieraci

Public hospital clinician

Great article, thanks Ian.

It's important to understand the difference between an element and a compound as well as the difference that concentration makes.

Water contains both hydrogen and oxygen, but it is neither hydrogen not oxygen. Similarly, ethylmercury is not the same as elemental mercury. Even the form matters - mercury in a thermometer is not absorbed - it passes through the gut.

In terms of concentration, we know that potassium is essential to life, and has a higher concentration inside cells than in the serum. A very high potassium level, however, is toxic. Should we say that bananas are toxic because they contain potassium?

There is no conspiracy to poison children. Paediatricians, early childhood nurses and neonatal ICU clinicians promote vaccination - why would they be motivated to cause harm to the very children they dedicate their lives to helping?

6 months ago report
1. Joel Rudd
  
  HR Consultant
  
  In reply to Sue Ieraci
  
  Agree about the article Sue, well written by Ian.
  
  If I can answer your last sentence, it would be predict that the likely response would involve the big pharma throw away lines, etc. Preferably the alternatives should contain words such as natural, organic, holistic or even quantum. It is nonetheless a good question to ask because whilst it won't change entrenched views, genuine, but poorly informed but people are not likely to go down conspiracy routes after any kind of thoughtful consideration.
  
  Also, if the doses of these concerning ingredients are so low as to be imperceptible, surely Homeopaths will be falling over themselves to point out how powerful their effects must be...? Clearly I have poisoned my own daughter by taking her along to our local vaccination dates!
  
  6 months ago report
Sean Lamb

Science Denier

I am sure Dr Musgrave is correct, but aluminum is added for a specific reason, to stimulate the immune system, so at very least is must produce significant local elevations of aluminum levels, otherwise the immune system would not be stimulated. I immunised a rabbit once and because the protein wouldn't fold properly the post-doc I was working with just told me to cut out a band from a polyacrylamide gel - don't worry about the polyacrylamide, he said, it will act as a good adjuvant! Poor bunny.

As anyone looked specifically for any long-term effects on immune system function through such adjuvants in repeated immunisations?

6 months ago report
1. Craig Morton
  
  Biomedical Research Scientist
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Yes Sean they have - there is even evidence that a very small population of individuals with a particular MHC complex genotype (HLA-DRB1*01) are susceptible to an aluminium adjuvant-triggered immune reaction called Macrophagic myofaciitis.
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20882368
  
  For the vast majority of us, however, aluminium-based adjuvants are so well established as cheap, safe and effective that getting new adjuvants approved is very, very difficult. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21506649 for example.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  The real advantage of the use of a tiny quantity of aluminium is that it minimises the amount of bacterial or viral antigen that is required, thereby minimising the inflammatory reaction. Aluminium adjuvants have been used for almost ninety years, and have been refined over time.
  
  Of course, the vaccine already has a much smaller dose of the antigen than having an actual infection from that micro-organism.
  
  Here is a paper that outlines the role and safety of aluminium adjuvants:
  http://www…
  Read more
  
  The real advantage of the use of a tiny quantity of aluminium is that it minimises the amount of bacterial or viral antigen that is required, thereby minimising the inflammatory reaction. Aluminium adjuvants have been used for almost ninety years, and have been refined over time.
  
  Of course, the vaccine already has a much smaller dose of the antigen than having an actual infection from that micro-organism.
  
  Here is a paper that outlines the role and safety of aluminium adjuvants:
  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074761310003626
  
  In general, the only published references questioning the safety of aluminium adjuvants are by the authors Tomljenovic and Shaw - who are non-clinical lab scientists from the University of British Columbia Dept of Ophthalmology - they are not immunologists, either clinician or laboratory. They tend of publish theoretical opinion pieces, not patient-based or outcome-based studies. You are likely to see these two names quoted again and again in the anti-vax literature, but there are many reputable studies of the role and safety of aluminium adjuvants that are easily accessible.
  
  6 months ago report
3. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Err, the effect of aluminium is complex, and related to how it interacts with the immune cells and the proteins in the vaccine. Aluminium oxide is not generally, as Craig points out, associated with immune reactions of itself. This is well studied (and it's not what the anti-vaccinationists are talking about generally anyway)
  
  6 months ago report
4. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Actually the review that Dr Ieraci linked to suggests you are wrong:
  "Although traditionally thought to function primarily
  by forming a long-lasting depot for antigen and by promoting
  their uptake by antigen-presenting cells (APCs), it is now clear
  that innate immune stimulation plays a primary role in the
  adjuvant activity of alum (Lambrecht et al., 2009; Marrack
  et al., 2009)."
  Although, it is not the exactly the potential issue I had in mind, I would feel that using commonly occurring ligands…
  Read more
  
  Actually the review that Dr Ieraci linked to suggests you are wrong:
  "Although traditionally thought to function primarily
  by forming a long-lasting depot for antigen and by promoting
  their uptake by antigen-presenting cells (APCs), it is now clear
  that innate immune stimulation plays a primary role in the
  adjuvant activity of alum (Lambrecht et al., 2009; Marrack
  et al., 2009)."
  Although, it is not the exactly the potential issue I had in mind, I would feel that using commonly occurring ligands for the pattern recognition receptors would be a more conservative, precautionary approach.
  But more broader question that interests me is that there are a number of disorders that appeared to have increased since WW2 including Alzheimers, autism, chronic fatigue, auto-immune disorders and possibly cancer incidence. Now while I accept some of these may be, at least partially, due to better diagnosis, I think the medical consensus is they represent real and genuine increases. So it is natural for people to ponder what aspects of modern living is contributing to this.
  
  Side-effects can be difficult to pick up if they either take a long time to manifest or may only produce an increase that is observable if large populations are observed or the penetration of the possible risk factor [eg here immunisations] approaches 100%.
  So what I would be interested in would be studies that took both a longitudinal approach and a molecular approach. Possible comparison groups would be children whose parents refuse vaccinations and those who do not, or people in the health system who refuse the yearly flu jab and those who accept over a period of years. And I would be looking at molecular or in-vitro investigations into immune functions that might serve as the canary in the mine for problems that might manifest themselves either in the long term or in large populations.
  Are there such studies?
  
  6 months ago report
5. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Err, Sean, those reviews cover the concept that I was summarising, I wan't talking about the depot effect at all.
  
  For more information about the (non) association between aluminium and Alzheimer's, see my forthcoming article for the Conversation.
  
  And pattern recognition receptors are useless for adaptive immunity.
  
  6 months ago report
6. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Errr, Dr Musgrave, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean to say that aluminum plays no role in the immune response - in point of fact the comment in reply was scientific gibberish so you could have meant anything or, more likely, nothing.
  But just for the record, I will point out that most people would take this: "Aluminium oxide is not generally, as Craig points out, associated with immune reactions of itself. "
  and this: " it is now clear that innate immune stimulation…
  Read more
  
  Errr, Dr Musgrave, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean to say that aluminum plays no role in the immune response - in point of fact the comment in reply was scientific gibberish so you could have meant anything or, more likely, nothing.
  But just for the record, I will point out that most people would take this: "Aluminium oxide is not generally, as Craig points out, associated with immune reactions of itself. "
  and this: " it is now clear that innate immune stimulation plays a primary role in the adjuvant activity of alum" as mutually exclusive, regardless of what concept you believed you were communicating.
  Also, and purely for the record, I would point out that while this statement is a true statement: "And pattern recognition receptors are useless for adaptive immunity.", your use of it in this context suggests you have very little understanding of immunology or how adjuvants are supposed to function. I think anyone with the slightest training in the field would understand I was not suggesting that the antigens in vaccines be substituted with PPR ligands! However, I don't want to get into pointless online pissing matches, although I would suggest that since you are outside of your specialty to drop the arrogant and patronising "errrs" - but your choice.
  
  While I personally don't have any firm views on the link between Al and Alzheimers, I do hope your forthcoming article does not conceal from readers that is still an active hypothesis and a matter of debate among specialists. Since this is also outside your field you might like to consult with Prof JR Walton of the UNSW Faculty of Medicine
  
  6 months ago report
7. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Sean, don't presume to tell an Alzhemier's researcher what is or is not a matter of debate amongst Alzheimer's specialists (roll on DANDIS 2014!!)
  
  6 months ago report
8. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  I wouldn't presume at all. I would just refer you to the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, Volume 29, Number 2 / 2012, pages 255-273. Look, it isn't hard to look up your publication record.
  And it is not hard to plug Alzheimer's and aluminum into pubmed. You are welcome to give your view and your assessment of where the preponderance of the evidence points. But I can find half a dozen papers published this year alone which argue the opposite.
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23103708
  "CONCLUSIONS:
  The specific aluminum content of ferritin seems to be related to different disease stages of Alzheimer's disease. This result confirms the hypothesis of aluminum as a possible factor inducing the Alzheimer's disease and opens the ways to possible new diagnostic tests."
  Believe me, if you want to suggest that in the medical literature these days any old rubbish can get published, you won't get any argument from me. All I am saying is it is still an active hypothesis.
  
  6 months ago report
9. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Sean, it's not hard to plug in amyloid, tau, oxidative stress, and metabolic syndrome into pub med and tell the difference between active and productive research areas and moribund ones.
  
  To bring this back to the topic of the article, one of the issues with topics such as vaccination is the "university of Google" effect, where people can bring up lots of results in searches, but lack the context or background to interpret them (aluminium in dialysis fluid vs aluminium in vaccines being an example…
  Read more
  
  Sean, it's not hard to plug in amyloid, tau, oxidative stress, and metabolic syndrome into pub med and tell the difference between active and productive research areas and moribund ones.
  
  To bring this back to the topic of the article, one of the issues with topics such as vaccination is the "university of Google" effect, where people can bring up lots of results in searches, but lack the context or background to interpret them (aluminium in dialysis fluid vs aluminium in vaccines being an example).
  
  In a different context, I've already raised the point that if you do a Google search for "vaccination information Australia" then two of the top three hits are anti-vaccination sites (yes, I know Sean was using pub med, which brings up only scholarly articles, but I'm making a wider point about context and interpretation).
  
  If anyone want's to see my publication list, Google Scholar is better than PubMed as it prunes out the papers from the physicist with a similar name (which is also a point about context and interpretation)
  http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=eU_PyAEAAAAJ
  
  6 months ago report
10. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Sean Lamb - I don't know how familiar you are with critical review of the medical or scientific literature, but the way to evaluate the significance of an article is to obtain the full text, and analyse it systematically.
  
  You have cited a review paper from the Journal of Alzheimers Disease. Can you talk us through what they did and what they found?
  
  6 months ago report
11. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  I have to say I was a bit shocked by what I have learned here and thought a rebuke to Professor Walton might be in order
  j.walton@unsw.edu.au
  Dear Prof Walton,
  There is an Alzheimer Researcher by the name of Dr Musgrave of the University of Adelaide who appears to be suggesting that your Alzheimer research is derived from the University of Google.
  See his comments on this article:
  [link]
  I would like to remind you that your salary is largely derived from the taxpayers of this great nation and ask you to desist from pushing moribund areas of research that you lack the context and background to interpret.
  Thanking you in advance for your co-operation in this matter
  Sean.
  
  6 months ago report
12. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Sean said: "... thought a rebuke to Professor Walton might be in order"
  
  Sean, learn to read please. If you think a comment about people who uncritically utilise the internet for their health information in the absence of of critical context applies to Professor Walton, then you have a serious problem with understanding the written word.
  
  6 months ago report
13. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Oh, well this really confuses the matter.
  I have already said I don't have an opinion on a link between Alzheimer's and aluminum, but simply observed that it was still an active hypothesis.
  It is true, I don't have the depth or context to determine whether Professor Walton is a nutter or not. Initially I thought that as a member of the UNSW medical faculty and publishing in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease she must be presenting a hypothesis that still was seen as having some merit in parts of the research community. Then I simply assumed from your assurances - as an Alzheimer researcher - that it didn't, that she must be a nutter.
  
  Obviously, as Dr Ieraci gently hints, I am not familiar with critical reviews of the medical or scientific literature, nor how to evaluate the significance of an article by obtaining the full text, and analyzing it systematically.
  
  6 months ago report
14. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Sean wrote: "Then I simply assumed from your assurances - as an Alzheimer researcher - that it didn't, that she must be a nutter."
  
  No Sean, Dr. Walton is not the nutter here.
  
  6 months ago report
15. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Just anyone who takes her seriously?
  
  6 months ago report
Craig Morton

Biomedical Research Scientist

Surely Ian the most abundant element in the earth's crust is Oxygen, followed by Silicon?

Aluminium is the most abundant *metallic* element...

OK, so I'm a pedant. :)

Otherwise, great article!

6 months ago report
1. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Craig Morton
  
  [puzzled expression] I'm sure I wrote "third" in there. You're right, it's the third most abundant element in the crust after silicon and oxygen, and the most abundant metal.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Mark Amey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Craig Morton
  
  I thought that iron was the most abundant, but most of that is in the earth's interior, being protected by our reptilian overlords.
  
  6 months ago report
Edward John Fearn

Edward John Fearn is a Friend of The Conversation.

Hypnotherapist and Naturopath

One of the clearest and most readable explanations I have seen on the topic, (and I love the bar graphs simple and straight to the point). Now if we can only get this article on the first page of Google…….

6 months ago report
Mark Amey

logged in via Facebook

"Not another bloody immunisation article'.

Only joking, succinct, easy to understand, some folk just need to read it (but would rather have it chewed up and spat into their mouths!).

6 months ago report
Kate Rowan-Robinson

Kate Rowan-Robinson is a Friend of The Conversation.

Registered Nurse/Sexology Student

Great succinct article. Definitely one to print off and keep around the clinic. Thank you.

6 months ago report
Sivan Elishav

PhD student- anatomy and developmental biology

Fantastic article! very well written. Thank you

6 months ago report
Judy Nicol

logged in via Facebook

Interesting article and might reassure some of those families with children with autism who are very convinced that vaccines have harmed their children as I read in many of the Facebook autism support groups. One interesting paper I saw recently was that in Cuba there is very low autism rates compared to many other countries. When researchers studied the vaccination rates they found them to be very high 95% , but they do not have access to paracetamol because of the embargo from the USA , and since most parents use that either before or after vaccines there is now some thought that may be the problem. Autism has increased hugely since the 1970's, at the same time as the number of multiple vaccinations so it is no wonder parents are concerned that there is a link. More research needs to be done rather than dismissing parents who say it was after their child had a vaccination that they started to regress, researchers and provaccinating doctors need to listen to their concerns.

6 months ago report
1. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Judy Nicol
  
  The "autism epidemic" is largely (but not entirely) one of diagnostic substitution see below for a reasonably straightforward account
  http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/autism-prevalence-now-estimated-to-be-one-in-88-and-the-antivaccine-movement-goes-wild/
  
  6 months ago report
2. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Judy Nicol
  
  Judy Nichol - I don't think autism researchers have been ignoring the concerns of parents. On the contrary, the now-discredited Wakefield paper, which only examined twelve children (who were referred because their parents had contacted lawyers about suing), led to a huge diversion of time and resources looking for a relationship between vaccination and autism. It wasn't found.
  
  Now, the issue is about anti-vaxers accepting the evidence and allowing researchers, doctors and parents to collaborate in other ways to help children with autism.
  
  Autistic children and their parents have been used by the anti-vaccination movement to promote a misguided cause. So many environmental things have changed since the 1970's - from the use of technology to older parenthood. There appear to be also both genetic and pre-natal factors. It's the anti-vaxers who need to listen, and move on.
  
  6 months ago report
Mike Mayfield

Avid Science Nut

Yes Ian, we have formaldehyde naturally in our blood at all times, and it's present in many foods, and it's always present in the air we breath, and what's already in our blood is there in greater concentrations than you can get from a vaccine, and we have an enzyme whose sole purpose in life is to break it down.

But no matter how many times I explain this to an anti-vaxer, nor how many ways I re-explain it and simplify it, I still get:

1) Stone cold silence, followed by
2) "Well formaldehyde is TOXIC didn't you know?"

The common trait among hard-core anti-vaxers like Meryl Dorey and her followers is that they refuse to even *attempt* to understand basic logic. What to do?

6 months ago report
1. Mark Amey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Mike Mayfield
  
  I've had similar conversations ( I work in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). Don't get me started on Mercury, I even get the vials, and manufacturer's pamphlets out to read, but, no, 'there's a whole lotta Big Pharma stuff added'.
  
  Having said that, i think Ian's article would be terrific to print out to give to parents.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Linda Tock
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Mike Mayfield
  
  I've had the same problem, Mike.
  
  Usually the AV line I get is:
  
  1) There's a difference between the 'natural' formaldehyde we make, and the 'synthetic' or 'chemical' formaldehyde in a vaccine.
  
  or
  
  2) "Just because I make it doesn't mean I need more of it!"
  
  Even after mentioning that the average half-life of formaldehyde in the body is somewhere around 2 minutes.
  
  /facepalm
  
  6 months ago report
Megan Barnes

logged in via Facebook

Ian, this is an exceptionally useful and clear article, Thank-you.

6 months ago report
jerry sprom

logged in via email @gmail.com

Well written and informative. Thanks Ian

6 months ago report
Neville Mattick

Grazier: Biodiversity is the key.

Great article, I enjoyed learning from it entirely - thank you!

6 months ago report
Colin Jenkins

Software

Hi Ian. Very clear article and I will be using it when chatting to anti-vaxers. But I can predict their respopnse: we dont inject tuna etc etc. Is there any chance you could address that as a footnote or a comment - i.e. that the same/similar immune responses are still involved...?

6 months ago report
1. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Colin Jenkins
  
  That's a very good idea, the main article is overlong as it is (I routinely get in trouble for being too long), but a supplement is a good idea. I'm at a conference at the moment, but I'll write something as soon as possible.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Colin Jenkins
  
  Good point, Colin.
  
  Some of the old anti-vaxer canards include:
  - "Injected straight into the blood stream" (they aren't)
  - Bypass the mucosal defense system (so do infections - that's how they get established)
  
  Some facts on Ian's common-sense style would be good. Won't convert the nutters, but will help other readers understand the errors in their arguments.
  
  6 months ago report
3. Colin Jenkins
  
  Software
  
  In reply to Colin Jenkins
  
  Awesome. I look forward to reading it. Thanks for your clear articles. This is a great platform..
  
  6 months ago report
4. Joli Bastin
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Colin Jenkins
  
  Can I be notified somehow of when that next article will be posted? Because that was exactly the point I was going to make that anti-vaxxers continuously make.
  Thanks.
  
  6 months ago report
Sue Ieraci

Public hospital clinician

Many anti-vaxers like to argue that "a lot" of mainstream medical people are concerned about vaccine constituents as well.

If that's the case, where are they?

If there are any of you reading, could you come in and explain why you disagree with Ian Musgrave's assessment?

6 months ago report
Amanda Murray

Mum

The discussion of the adjuvant (aluminium) and the reactions of those with a particular genotype got me thinking that perhaps gene sequencing could be done at the same time as Guthrie tests (if they are still done – I’m a long way from breeding). This could be linked to our medicare numbers, so that those with a particular genotype that is known to react with aluminium can be easily identified, together with the minute percentage of people who may react adversely to vaccines, surely this would promote…
Read more

The discussion of the adjuvant (aluminium) and the reactions of those with a particular genotype got me thinking that perhaps gene sequencing could be done at the same time as Guthrie tests (if they are still done – I’m a long way from breeding). This could be linked to our medicare numbers, so that those with a particular genotype that is known to react with aluminium can be easily identified, together with the minute percentage of people who may react adversely to vaccines, surely this would promote a greater uptake and reduce parents fears in regard to vaccination.

I was reading an article some time ago about licensing of medications and the extreme costs involved in research, because so many medications are rejected if they have an adverse reaction on 1% of the population, do the clever bods know if we could identify this 1% through genome sequencing and have a lot more medications available more cheaply and specifically targeted to our genomes?

Having a recent wander through the AVN site (gumboots are necessary) what struck me most was the fear of the unknown expressed on the site, it appears that it is the (irrational) fear of parents that is targeted by the less than scrupulous, perhaps genome sequencing could reduce this fear. Are we at this stage of development yet? Are we at a stage where this is close to reality, or am I just daydreaming?

Happy Saturday

6 months ago report
1. Mark Amey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Amanda Murray
  
  Yes, Amanda, the Newborn Screening Test is still done in Australia. The set of disorders screened has been expanded considerably.
  
  Two problems with gene sequencing. One is. who's going to pay for it? I NSW we are struggling to try to get Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia added to the screen. This, I believe, will be five to ten dollars per card. No one wants to pay this small amount (100,00 deliveries per year in NSW, adds half to one million to the health budget). Gene sequencing will cost a hell of a lot more...for what, something that is not a disease,i.e. sensitivity to vaccines?
  
  The other problem is the tinfoil hat brigade who believe that the NBST card goes to a database owned by the police, AFP or CIA...you really think that gene sequencing will allay their fears?
  
  6 months ago report
2. Amanda Murray
  
  Mum
  
  In reply to Amanda Murray
  
  Hello Mark, thanks for the reply... I know as a mum I would be willing to pay anything to ensure the best opportunity healthwise for my children. It seems a small amount of money to be denied access to a fuller picture of neonatal health knowledge..
  
  I personally paid for additional vaccinations (for hepatitis) when my kids were growing up, that are now available as part of the schedule. Perhaps we should hit up mums at antenatal classes.. What is even $20 out of a baby bonus? I'd pay that for peace of mind, and I'm sure many soon to be mums would too!
  
  There is not much you can do about the tin-foil hat brigade unfortunately, apart from continued education, but why should a few nutters stop the rest of us from moving forward?
  
  P.S. To Ian, thanks very much for a fantasic article, I have passed a link to the article on to my daughters to do all those magical things they can do with their computers to spread the word.
  
  6 months ago report
3. Mark Amey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Amanda Murray
  
  You're welcome, Amanda. I know that many would be happy to pay a one-off fee to screen for all sorts of things, but the bottom line for screening tests for inborn errors of metabolism, is that they are detectable by day three, that they are treatable, and that non-treatment will result in significant morbidity, and/or mortality in the sufferer. The test also should be cheap!
  
  Unfortunately gene sequencing doesn't (yet) meet these criteria.
  
  6 months ago report
4. Amanda Murray
  
  Mum
  
  In reply to Amanda Murray
  
  Oh well, I am daydreaming then, bugger!!
  
  Perhaps when my grandies are having children the kinks will be ironed out and the costs won't be prohibitive and comprehensive screening will be run of the mill.. The earlier the detection of possible problems and their treatment would surely be cheaper than after symptoms present - emotionally and finacially!
  
  Thanks again, Happy Saturday.
  
  6 months ago report
5. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Amanda Murray
  
  The issue is we don't know what genes are associated with these kinds of adverse reactions. If we knew this we wouldn't lose as much money developing drugs (this is an area of significant research with very slow progress unfortunately, biology is complex).
  
  Unlike many drugs, the adverse reactions to vaccines (few that they are), are not linked to mutations in metabolic enzymes. There's a whole slew of reasons why these reactions occur, and the genetic basis of many of these are unclear.
  
  6 months ago report
6. Amanda Murray
  
  Mum
  
  In reply to Amanda Murray
  
  Thanks Ian, for your explanation.
  I shared the article and comments with my beloved (hubby) his reply was as always a joke, maybe not worth sharing, but I will anyway!
  
  What do mums and researchers have in common? - Their work is never done!
  
  I didn't say it was a good one! At least mums get one celebratory day a year.. So here's to all those hard working unsung heros, who work so diligently to improve all our lives!
  Thank you and Huzzah.
  
  6 months ago report
7. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Amanda Murray
  
  Not stupid at all, Amanda, a little bit futuristic, but maybe less than 20 years in the future. A full genome scan of major variations is less than $300, while a whole genome sequencing is supposed to be coming down to $1000.
  
  I have come to the opinion that aluminum adjuvants do potentially represent a problem and I haven't seen any appropriate studies that have addressed these issues.
  Dr Musgrave suggests that there can't be a problem because the amount introduced is similar to the levels…
  Read more
  
  Not stupid at all, Amanda, a little bit futuristic, but maybe less than 20 years in the future. A full genome scan of major variations is less than $300, while a whole genome sequencing is supposed to be coming down to $1000.
  
  I have come to the opinion that aluminum adjuvants do potentially represent a problem and I haven't seen any appropriate studies that have addressed these issues.
  Dr Musgrave suggests that there can't be a problem because the amount introduced is similar to the levels in biological fluids. This sounds convincing to someone who lacks the depth and the context to judge these issues. But these is to ignore the issue of bio-availability, something often overlooked by the shallow and contextless, in as much as most of the aluminum in serum is complexed with transferrin and is effectively sequestered. Now I am not sure about the predominant species of Al when it is absorbed by the gut, but I am guessing not much of it is free.
  
  Obviously the aluminum levels in a vaccine are significant, otherwise they would not be able to act as adjuvant. The question is, then, will the brain be likely to have significant uptake of this free Al, this study suggests it would
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10612065
  When Al was provided complexed with transferrin, uptake into brain was insignificant. When it is provided as Al-citrate uptake is very significant. The extent to which it is released from the brain is disputed, some believe it is one way sink, others believe that only certain brain compartments will retain significant quantities. To the extent these findings can be applied to the forms of Aluminum in vaccines, I can't say, but I am sure that it won't be in the form Al-transferrin. The next question I have yet to see appropriately addressed is what effects on infant neural development sub-toxic doses of aluminum might have.
  
  I have said belong that using Al did not appear to me a conservative or precautionary approach when compared with other adjuvants available. This is because I doubt that the Al used in vaccines is activating a normal biological pathway, whereas using things like components of the bacterial cell wall should be a normal biological process. And hence at least aesthetically preferable.
  
  6 months ago report
8. Amanda Murray
  
  Mum
  
  In reply to Amanda Murray
  
  Thank you Sean, it certainly is a complex issue. Unfortunately I don’t have any sort of qualification that permits me to have an understanding of the peculiarities of all manner of scientific matters. I am in the same boat as the majority, dependant upon the ‘boffins’ interpretations of the data, it is probably possible that I could gain an understanding of all manner of exciting advances in our ever accumulating knowledge if I had a spare decade or two and no children. It is an unreal expectation…
  Read more
  
  Thank you Sean, it certainly is a complex issue. Unfortunately I don’t have any sort of qualification that permits me to have an understanding of the peculiarities of all manner of scientific matters. I am in the same boat as the majority, dependant upon the ‘boffins’ interpretations of the data, it is probably possible that I could gain an understanding of all manner of exciting advances in our ever accumulating knowledge if I had a spare decade or two and no children. It is an unreal expectation to be fully informed on a never ending list of issues, discussing this very thing with my family we developed a methodology to be applied when confronted with new information, we call it THINK? and have found it to be extremely useful when having discussions not only within the family but also out in the big bad old real world. Extended family and friends have adopted using it also when visiting and joining in on our family’s kitchen table chats, because of the success of keeping discussions civil at home I have posted it on a forum site that I am a part of. If at all interested it can be viewed at: http://www.worldleaderproposal.com/forum/index.php?topic=120.0
  
  Happy Monday
  
  6 months ago report
Lisa Hodgson

Director

Hi Professor Ian,

You also said “it’s the dose that makes the poison” in a conversation about fluoridation of our water and how that dose was determined. You never got back to me on my argument that F dosage was, at best haphazard and unscientific?

On topic, after having read lots of “anti-vaxxer” articles, you make the *toxins in vaccines sound positively pleasant! I don’t pretend to be a chemist but as someone wanting to correct any errors in my thinking I am still not convinced these *toxins…
Read more

Hi Professor Ian,

You also said “it’s the dose that makes the poison” in a conversation about fluoridation of our water and how that dose was determined. You never got back to me on my argument that F dosage was, at best haphazard and unscientific?

On topic, after having read lots of “anti-vaxxer” articles, you make the *toxins in vaccines sound positively pleasant! I don’t pretend to be a chemist but as someone wanting to correct any errors in my thinking I am still not convinced these *toxins are safe or indeed necessary.

Can we start with formaldehyde? After reading your link to Wiki I find it hard to accept your reassurances. The third line reads “In view of its widespread use, toxicity and volatility, exposure to formaldehyde is a significant consideration for human health.[4] On 10 June 2011, the US National Toxicology Program described formaldehyde as "known to be a human carcinogen".[5][6][7]”.

You mention that formaldehyde is part of our normal metabolism yet Wiki says “Formaldehyde, as well as its oligomers and hydrates, are rarely encountered in living organisms.”

Wiki says “Humans metabolize formaldehyde quickly, so it does not accumulate, and is converted to formic acid in the body.”

As someone allergic to bee stings, Formic acid seems to be equally (un)pleasant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formic_acid

Wiki also talks about different reactions of formaldehyde with other substances depending on concentrations and temperature. Do these other types of reactions occur within the body on vaccination? Is there an evidence base around these effects to show they are all safe?

If it doesn’t accumulate in the body then how can it be implicated in such adverse effects?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787879

How can I reconcile your safe and pleasant formaldehyde in vaccines against Wikis worrisome characterisation coupled with clear adverse effects of exposure. Might I suggest that it is no wonder many are worried about the presence of Formaldehyde in vaccines.

My question to you Professor Ian; is it really necessary to have this substance in vaccines? Why can’t it be substituted with something a bit more palatable? A bit less carcinogenic?

6 months ago report
1. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Lisa Hodgson
  
  "As someone allergic to bee stings, Formic acid seems to be equally (un)pleasant?"
  
  Tip to Ms Hodgson: if you don't know the difference between bees and ants, it might be better to resist arguing toxicology with a pharmacologist.
  
  6 months ago report
2. Ian Musgrave
  
  Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide
  
  In reply to Lisa Hodgson
  
  [delurks from organising timetables]
  Lets pretend you are allergic to formic acid, rather than bee venom (which has no formic acid). At any given moment your body has 2.5 mg of formaldehyde in every litre of your blood, due to **normal** metabolism. This is converted to formic acid. You are still alive, discuss.
  [relurks to continue timetable organisation]
  
  6 months ago report
3. Lisa Hodgson
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Lisa Hodgson
  
  Well thanks very much guys for engaging so pleasantly with me. I'll consider myself bullied away and not grace your positions on high ever again.
  
  All the best.
  
  6 months ago report
4. Mark Amey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Lisa Hodgson
  
  Lisa, I'm sorry that you felt that you were 'bullied away', but, unfortunately, your arguments were not based on science, and failed to follow any logic. If this is bullying, then society is doomed!
  
  6 months ago report
5. John Cunningham
  
  Orthopaedic spinal surgeon
  
  In reply to Lisa Hodgson
  
  Lisa I think you need to accept several things. Firstly, Wiki is not perfect. The statement, for example, "Formaldehyde, as well as its oligomers and hydrates, are rarely encountered in living organisms." is "sort of" correct. Maybe they mean it is metabolised so quickly, so it's rarely found in large quantities. It is definitely detectable though in human plasma.
  
  Wiki also does not cover topics in as much detail as say, a textbook of human physiology. Many topics are "dumbed down" in Wiki and that's why there are sometimes peculiar and contradictory statements.
  
  5 months ago report
6. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Lisa Hodgson
  
  Having read the tone of Ms Hodgson's post, where she disagrees with Ian's article on the basis of her own reading of wikipedia, I suspect the "bullying" comment is a bit disingenuous. That comment above is dripping with derision for the expert author.
  
  Having been caught out, it is preferable to accept information gracefully than to exit with a flounce.
  
  5 months ago report
7. Mark Amey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Lisa Hodgson
  
  I agree, Sue, there seem to be many drawn to TC who either, don't read the articles, or don't understand them, so seek information from lesser sources. I will be using this article as a resource for parents in my clinical practice, and will make it available for my students, as well.
  
  Again, a very well written article.
  
  5 months ago report
8. Lisa Hodgson
  
  Director
  
  In reply to Lisa Hodgson
  
  Ms Ieraci,
  
  You couldn’t be more wrong. Your assessment of my *tone and that my comment was “dripping with derision” is completely unwarranted. I have asked several genuine questions - your interpretation is extremely unpleasant.
  
  My previous unanswered questions to both you and Professor Ian were also a genuine attempt at conversation around the Fluoridation conversation. My comment about bullying was (IMHO) absolutely valid, but I wouldn’t expect you to recognize that. On several previous…
  Read more
  
  Ms Ieraci,
  
  You couldn’t be more wrong. Your assessment of my *tone and that my comment was “dripping with derision” is completely unwarranted. I have asked several genuine questions - your interpretation is extremely unpleasant.
  
  My previous unanswered questions to both you and Professor Ian were also a genuine attempt at conversation around the Fluoridation conversation. My comment about bullying was (IMHO) absolutely valid, but I wouldn’t expect you to recognize that. On several previous occasions I have requested that you refrain from ad hominem attacks on me and to actually address my arguments. You have been rude, derisive and frankly arrogant. Your latest suggestion that I not comment on these pages was another example of this, along with recent assertions and criticisms that did not even resemble what I had actually said. Your assessment of my previous post lacks any sort of empathic understanding of anothers’ position and reflects a dismissive position of superiority rather than one of conciliatory discussion. Your *tone Ms Ieraci is continually offensive.
  
  I have encountered these (cyber) bullying tactics before and I have no respect for those who partake. That both you and Professor Ian jumped on my apparent error was a perfect example of not actually having any interest in a conversation, rather an immediate response to shout someone down, portray them as stupid, while ignoring all of their valid concerns. You, Ms Ieraci seem to have no interest in conversing with anyone that disagrees with your views. I expected more from Professor Ian. That you and others on these pages seem to think that your knowledge, or education, or area of expertise makes you a better person than most, is arrogantly obvious. People of varying persuasions have concerns around all manner of scientific positions. To patronisingly tell us that an expert advises that all is well, despite the contrary information available, will not produce acceptance nor respect for said position.
  
  An example of some information contrary to what Professor Ian has said.
  
  Apoptosis. 2012 May;17(5):516-27. doi: 10.1007/s10495-011-0690-1.
  Hepatitis B vaccine induces apoptotic death in Hepa1-6 cells.
  Hamza H, Cao J, Li X, Li C, Zhu M, Zhao S.
  Source
  Key Lab of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding, and Reproduction of Ministry of Education, College of Animal Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, People's Republic of China. Heyam68_hamza@yahoo.com
  Abstract
  Vaccines can have adverse side-effects, and these are predominantly associated with the inclusion of chemical additives such as aluminum hydroxide adjuvant. The objective of this study was to establish an in vitro model system amenable to mechanistic investigations of cytotoxicity induced by hepatitis B vaccine, and to investigate the mechanisms of vaccine-induced cell death. The mouse liver hepatoma cell line Hepa1-6 was treated with two doses of adjuvanted (aluminium hydroxide) hepatitis B vaccine (0.5 and 1 μg protein per ml) and cell integrity was measured after 24, 48 and 72 h. Hepatitis B vaccine exposure increased cell apoptosis as detected by flow cytometry and TUNEL assay. Vaccine exposure was accompanied by significant increases in the levels of activated caspase 3, a key effector caspase in the apoptosis cascade. Early transcriptional events were detected by qRT-PCR. We report that hepatitis B vaccine exposure resulted in significant upregulation of the key genes encoding caspase 7, caspase 9, Inhibitor caspase-activated DNase (ICAD), Rho-associated coiled-coil containing protein kinase 1 (ROCK-1), and Apoptotic protease activating factor 1 (Apaf-1). Upregulation of cleaved caspase 3,7 were detected by western blot in addition to Apaf-1 and caspase 9 expressions argues that cell death takes place via the intrinsic apoptotic pathway in which release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria triggers the assembly of a caspase activation complex. We conclude that exposure of Hepa1-6 cells to a low dose of adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine leads to loss of mitochondrial integrity, apoptosis induction, and cell death, apoptosis effect was observed also in C2C12 mouse myoblast cell line after treated with low dose of vaccine (0.3, 0.1, 0.05 μg/ml). In addition In vivo apoptotic effect of hepatitis B vaccine was observed in mouse liver.
  
  5 months ago report
9. Mark Amey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Lisa Hodgson
  
  Ms Hodgson, I'm not sure how this animal study relates to humans. In the study, mice, weighing 17 to 20 grams were given 20 micrograms of Hepatitis Vaccine, with an undisclosed amount of Aluminium Hydroxide (which is a bit sloppy, given that the researchers allege that the adjuvant may be responsible for the side effects). In other words it is around one microgram per gram of bodyweight. An adult receiving the Hep B Vax receives 10 micrograms per injection. Even if the adult weighed only 40 Kgs…
  Read more
  
  Ms Hodgson, I'm not sure how this animal study relates to humans. In the study, mice, weighing 17 to 20 grams were given 20 micrograms of Hepatitis Vaccine, with an undisclosed amount of Aluminium Hydroxide (which is a bit sloppy, given that the researchers allege that the adjuvant may be responsible for the side effects). In other words it is around one microgram per gram of bodyweight. An adult receiving the Hep B Vax receives 10 micrograms per injection. Even if the adult weighed only 40 Kgs (unusual), the dose is 0.00025 micrograms per Kg. i.e they are overdosing the mouse by a factor of, at least 4000 times. Plus they injected the vaccine intraperitoneally, when it is clear from the manufacturers (at least in Australia) that it is ONLY to be given by IM injection.
  
  It is essentially a study of harm caused by massive overdose and inappropriate method of administration.
  
  I can make no comments on the in vitro part of the study, but, the amount of vaccine administered to the cell lines (0.125 to 2 micrograms per ml) is many times the exposure of human liver cells after a routine vaccination.
  
  5 months ago report
Pera Lozac

Heat management assistant

You start you article with the following claim:
"Vaccination is one of the most important preventative measures against serious illness..."

You also use the death number decline as the metrics to support this claim. It the vast majority of infectious diseases the decline in the number of deaths was naturally occurring years before the vaccination was introduced. The reasons being twofold: improvement of living conditions (clean water and food) and build up of natural immunity to these diseases. How can you prove that vaccination has any effect on the death numbers that? Your statistics is flawed because there are numerous examples where countries stopped with mandatory vaccination and the number of deaths continued to decline.

Can you comment on financial interests of pharmaceutical companies to maintain mandatory vaccination since it is bringing a stable and safe profit?

5 months ago report
1. Mark Amey
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Pera Lozac
  
  The decrease in death numbers, on the graphs in Dr Musgrove's article, particularly in tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis may well be linked to the use of penicillin for tetanus and erythromycin for diphtheria and pertussis. The graph for polio shows a steady increase prior to the introduction of polio vaccines. Deaths attributable to measles may be the only disease that was already on the decrease. It would be interesting to have some statistics available on the morbidity of these diseases during the last century, given that most of these illnesses have quite disabling sequellae for many of the survivors.
  
  5 months ago report
2. John Cunningham
  
  Orthopaedic spinal surgeon
  
  In reply to Pera Lozac
  
  Pera,
  
  You've merely repeated the same mantra that many anti-vax proponents recite at times like this, like it's the magic bullet to take down vaccination. Unfortunately, it fails on several levels. Firstly, it does not acknowledge that mortality rates are a poor measure of effectiveness on one intervention. As you allude to yourself, there are confounders to consider as well. However, to claim that you know of the two confounders that explain the death rate changes is spurious. Only two…
  Read more
  
  Pera,
  
  You've merely repeated the same mantra that many anti-vax proponents recite at times like this, like it's the magic bullet to take down vaccination. Unfortunately, it fails on several levels. Firstly, it does not acknowledge that mortality rates are a poor measure of effectiveness on one intervention. As you allude to yourself, there are confounders to consider as well. However, to claim that you know of the two confounders that explain the death rate changes is spurious. Only two? I can think of hundreds.
  
  Secondly, you fail to consider incidence rates and the effect that vaccination had on them. What's the difference between incidence and mortality? Suffering, long term complications, and disease. There can be no argument that incidence rates have plummeted since vaccination.
  
  Thirdly, can you kindly provide an example of a decrease in vaccination leading to a decrease in disease? I can think of incidences in the UK, Sweden, Hong Kong and Ireland where decreased vaccination rates have increased disease and death. I believe your claim is flawed.
  
  Lastly, can you comment on this:
  http://rheumatologyupdate.com.au/latest-news/30-million-doses-of-polio-vaccine-donated-to-who,-unicef
  Why are companies working to eradicate disease, and therefore make their vaccines unnecessary? Another example is the small pox vaccine - disease gone, vaccine not necessary. Why would a company have done that if profit was their only motive?
  
  John
  
  5 months ago report
Trevor S

Jack of all Trades

Well done Sir, one of the better articles I have read here.

Michael Specter had an interesting TED Talk touching on this some time ago (Feb. 2010), I see his thread on TED is still attracting discussion :)

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html

5 months ago report
Mo Kendall

logged in via email @heartshapedhands.co.uk

Thank you for writing this article - and particularly for doing so in such an accessible way. My husband and I have found it really useful in making our decisions around our son's vaccinations. It is very important to us to make our own informed decisions about what goes into our and his bodies; some recommended medical and pharmaceutical interventions we have gratefully accepted, some we have declined.
A lot of what we have found written about vaccinations seems either very biased and poorly evidenced…
Read more

Thank you for writing this article - and particularly for doing so in such an accessible way. My husband and I have found it really useful in making our decisions around our son's vaccinations. It is very important to us to make our own informed decisions about what goes into our and his bodies; some recommended medical and pharmaceutical interventions we have gratefully accepted, some we have declined.
A lot of what we have found written about vaccinations seems either very biased and poorly evidenced, or just inaccessible to the relative lay person. This article differs from those.

Sue - I really object to you referring to people who chose not to vaccinate as "nutters". This is a pretty rude and derogatory term to anyone. Most parents are probably just trying to make the best choices for their children and, although between us we may differ in opinion about what "the best choice is", people deserve to have their opinions and choices respected. Having this attitude is likely to further alienate "anti-vaxxers" from hearing information that may help them to make an informed choice.For example, not everyone knows that formaldehyde is naturally found in fruit, veg and our bodies. I think it's understandable for people to be concerned about the presence of formaldehyde in vaccines when they've seen tobacco packaging warning us that formaldehyde is dangerous! Again, thumbs up to this article for presenting the facts and explaining the science clearly. :)

5 months ago report
1. Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician
  
  In reply to Mo Kendall
  
  Mo Kendall - my comment using the term "nutters" refers to those who do not change their views despite the evidence - not to those who are thoughtful and are genuinely seeking information.
  
  If you spend any time reading on dedicated anti-vaccination sites, you will find astounding conspiracy theories and allegations that no vaccine has ever prevented any disease, even that
  "germ theory" is not valid. Perhaps I could have used a more eloquent term, but these people are "nutters".
  
  You are right - most people who have not studied human physiology will not know about the concentration and effects of formaldehyde, and its natural presence. It makes sense to want to know more about why it is used.
  
  What does not make sense, however, is to assume that the developers, regulators and prescribers of vaccines have somehow overlooked the safety concerns.
  
  5 months ago report
Elizabeth Hart

Independent Vaccine Investigator

Ian, it’s interesting to compare your cavalier attitude to vaccination with that of more thoughtful and cautious experts on vaccination in veterinary medicine.
For many years there have been calls to reduce vaccination of companion animals because it may be harmful. For example, during a roundtable discussion between veterinary academics and a veterinary specialist regarding titre testing and vaccination(1) (report published in 2002), Professor Richard Ford said: “I believe that repeated injections…
Read more

Ian, it’s interesting to compare your cavalier attitude to vaccination with that of more thoughtful and cautious experts on vaccination in veterinary medicine.
For many years there have been calls to reduce vaccination of companion animals because it may be harmful. For example, during a roundtable discussion between veterinary academics and a veterinary specialist regarding titre testing and vaccination(1) (report published in 2002), Professor Richard Ford said: “I believe that repeated injections of immunogenic proteins can potentially be harmful. I work on the internal medicine service in a busy referral teaching hospital. My colleagues and I are all concerned about the inordinate number of cases we see of autoimmune disease like immune-mediated haemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and polyarthritis – more than ever before.”
Dr Jory Olsen said: “I think we underestimate how many problems overvaccination may be causing…At our practice, we think overvaccination probably causes immunologic problems or at least contributes to immunologic problems. I think there are a vast number of other diseases – immunologic, or degenerative diseases such as atopy, chronic allergies, asthma, and other airway diseases – that are exaggerated by, caused by, or stimulated by overvaccination. But it is impossible to prove.”
Another participant, Professor Ronald Schultz, said: “I tell practitioners that vaccines are drugs, albeit biological drugs. I remind them that they would not consider it good medicine to give an unnecessary pharmaceutical drug on a recurring basis. I think it is even worse to give a vaccine, or biological drug, that isn’t necessary. The possible adverse consequences of a vaccine generally far outweigh the adverse consequences of a pharmaceutical drug. A pharmaceutical drug is usually much more restricted in its action. However, each time we stimulate an immune response, we have to look at the effect on all body systems – not only on antibody responses or cell-mediated immunity, but also on interactions with the endocrine system and the nervous system…”
The World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s international vaccination guidelines for dogs and cats(2), (first published in 2007 and updated in 2010), warn we should “reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimize the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products”. These guidelines have generally been ignored by many veterinarians who appear to be reluctant to reduce vaccination as it is a “convenient income generator”(3).
These vaccination guidelines also acknowledge “there is gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”(2).
Given there are more and more vaccine products and repeat vaccinations coming on the market for people, I think we should be alert to these warnings and avoid any unnecessary vaccinations.
Ironically, while warnings are being issued to reduce vaccination of dogs and cats, vaccination for humans is increasing. Ever more vaccines, and repeat vaccinations, are being added to the children’s vaccination schedule(4). All of us are now being urged to have annual vaccinations for influenza.
I suggest it would be useful to compare human and companion animal vaccination practice from a “One Health”(5) perspective, and consider the possible deleterious consequences of repeated vaccination throughout life.
References:
1. Titer testing and vaccination: A new look at traditional practices. Published by Veterinary Healthcare Communications, Lenexa, Kansas. 2002: http://www.synbiotics.com/Products/CompanionAnimals/Canine/TiterCHEK-CDV-CPV-Distemper/96-0460-RoundTableDiscussion.pdf
2. Day, M.J., Horzinek, M.C., Schultz, R.D. World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s (WSAVA) Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol. 51, June 2010: http://www.wsava.org/guidelines/vaccination-guidelines and http://www.wsava.org/sites/default/files/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf
3. A term used by Alan Radford in the Journal of Small Animal Practice’s editorial discussing the updated WSAVA 2010 guidelines: The hitchhiker’s guide to dog and cat vaccination. Journal of Small Animal Practice. June 2010. Vol. 51, Issue 6, pp293-294.
4. Immunise Australia Program – National Immunisation Program Schedule:http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips2
5. “One Health Initiative will unite human and veterinary medicine”: http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/

4 months ago report
1. Mike Mayfield
  
  Avid Science Nut
  
  In reply to Elizabeth Hart
  
  My goodness Elizabeth! What juicy, succulent cherries you've picked there!
  
  The whole roundtable discussion you cite is irrelevant to humans. The discussion centres on whether animals need annual vaccinations, and this is a very valid debate. There is absolutely no need to have this debate in relation to humans because they don't get annual vaccinations for multiple diseases. And why didn't you cite Ford's earlier statement that "all of the vaccines you've mentioned are excellent"? I think we all…
  Read more
  
  My goodness Elizabeth! What juicy, succulent cherries you've picked there!
  
  The whole roundtable discussion you cite is irrelevant to humans. The discussion centres on whether animals need annual vaccinations, and this is a very valid debate. There is absolutely no need to have this debate in relation to humans because they don't get annual vaccinations for multiple diseases. And why didn't you cite Ford's earlier statement that "all of the vaccines you've mentioned are excellent"? I think we all know why. Because taken in context, nothing Ford says in the article supports an anti-vaccination viewpoint. Quite the opposite actually.
  
  Then you quote Professor Schultz, as if he casts doubt on vaccine safety. But I wonder, Elizabeth, why you strangely omitted to continue on with his quote? Why did your quote tail off with "....." as if he continued saying something immediately after this? Let's check the record:
  
  "......We all agree that vaccination should be considered an important medical practice - not just something done on an annual basis because many years ago it was the most convenient way to improve immunity in dogs given canine distemper vaccines."
  
  Puts a bit of perspective into his previous words, doesn't it? Not the conclusion you wanted?
  
  To state that Ian's attitude to vaccination is "cavalier" and the vets you cite are "more thoughtful" is a nonsensical conclusion. You have cherry-picked and quote-mined, as even a precursory glance at your references demonstrates. Being a website run and frequented largely by academics, I suspect there are more than one or two of them here who'd like to stamp your post above with a big red "F".
  
  4 months ago report
Elizabeth Hart

Independent Vaccine Investigator

Mike Mayfield – are you characterising me as ‘anti-vaccination’? On what basis?
I’ll give Mike ‘a big red “F”’ for reading comprehension, like many of his ilk. Perhaps it’s a forlorn hope on my part, but it’s possible there may be some more astute people reading these discussion threads who understand where I’m coming from: http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/elizabeth-hart-6978
Also on vaccination, I have recently forwarded an email to Sir Gus Nossal, Chair of the Australian Academy of Science’s Oversight Committee for “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers” publication, enquiring if disclosure statements for members of The Science of Immunisation Working group, i.e. detailing any possible conflicts of interest, are publicly available on the Australian Academy of Science website. My email to Sir Gus Nossal can be accessed via this link: http://bit.ly/U3ygHo

4 months ago report
1. Mike Mayfield
  
  Avid Science Nut
  
  In reply to Elizabeth Hart
  
  You can colour yourself whatever shade you like, Elizabeth.
  
  You cherry-picked certain selected quotes.
  
  The cherry-picking gave a misleading impression that the views being presented in the discussion on canine vaccines were very vaccination-negative. A read of your references shows this is in fact not the case at all.
  
  Why did you do this? Any particular reason?
  
  4 months ago report
2. Elizabeth Hart
  
  Independent Vaccine Investigator
  
  In reply to Mike Mayfield
  
  Mike, for more background on my position on human and companion animal vaccination, refer to my website “Over-vaccination – Challenging Big Pharma’s lucrative over-vaccination of people and animals”: http://over-vaccination.net/
  My website includes webpages on:
  - Over-vaccination – a multi-billion dollar market;
  - controversial Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination;
  - the arbitrary Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) second ‘booster’ dose;
  - annual flu vaccination and the flu industry;
  - pertussis…
  Read more
  
  Mike, for more background on my position on human and companion animal vaccination, refer to my website “Over-vaccination – Challenging Big Pharma’s lucrative over-vaccination of people and animals”: http://over-vaccination.net/
  My website includes webpages on:
  - Over-vaccination – a multi-billion dollar market;
  - controversial Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination;
  - the arbitrary Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) second ‘booster’ dose;
  - annual flu vaccination and the flu industry;
  - pertussis/whooping cough – how does increasing the number of ‘boosters’ of the current vaccine protect against the new strain?
  - over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice;
  - questions for the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI); the Australian Academy of Science re “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”; and The Cochrane Collaboration;
  - forum discussion on vaccination e.g. the university and CSIRO-funded The Conversation forum; Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ forum; and the Virology Blog.
  
  2 months ago report
3. Kate Squires
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Elizabeth Hart
  
  Your website would strongly indicate that you are anti vaccine.
  
  There is a strong rationale for the second MMR dose, mainly that one dose was not enough to confer strong herd immunity. A second dose has resulted in nearly two decades of lowered rates of measles, to the point where Australia was declared endemic measles free in 2005, due to a total of 10 cases of measles. This is down from 10,000 cases of measles in 1993/1994, shortly before the second dose was recommended.
  
  2 months ago report

Formaldehyde

Thiomersal

Aluminium

Antibiotics

Don’t panic

Articles also by This Author

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter