I love it when an antivax “study” meant to sh

Quote:

---

I love it when an antivax “study” meant to show how “dirty” vaccines are backfires so spectacularly

Orac February 2, 2017 396 Comments

---

Quote:

---

Let me repeat for emphasis. The investigators think that what they found is that vaccines are contaminated with all sorts of inorganic metals. What they really found is that the amount of inorganic contamination is so low as to be biologically irrelevant. In fact, what they found is that vaccines are incredibly pure products.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/02/02/an...amination/

And I didn’t even get into a very good question that our scaly friend asked: What were the controls? What would you find if you carried out the same analyses on tap water, for instance? It could very well be that syringe used to draw up and deposit the specimen could be the source of the “contamination.” Hell, it could just as easily be the cellulose matrix on which the specimens are deposited for analysis that were responsible for the “contamination.” I’m familiar with those filters, as they are commonly used in molecular biology. They are not ultra-pure. How were they stored? Often filters can pick up dust from the air. Whatever the source of the particles observed, without controls, there’s no way of knowing if the source was the vaccines or not. It could be that vaccines are even more pure than this study shows!

Now, knowing this, go and read the discussion and conclusion of this paper. You will laugh, and you should laugh. The investigators deserve nothing but mockery for this idiocy, such as:


We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.

Other forms of so-far unknown contaminations have recently been observed and, in any case, vaccines contain components that could themselves be the cause of adverse effects. It is a well-known fact in toxicology that contaminants exert a mutual, synergic effect, and as the number of contaminants increases, the effects grow less and less predictable. The more so when some substances are unknown.
“
Yes, laugh, because what Gatti and Montanari actually showed is that the level of inorganic contamination in vaccines is minuscule, suggesting that the manufacturing processes used to make them are very, very good at making sure that vaccines are pure, given that none of the vaccines contained more inorganic particles at a concentration higher than 0.15 femtomolar. But also get angry at the deception and cry that there will be parents taken in by this ridiculous paper, as groups like CSMRI spread it far and wide with terrifying language about “contamination.”

Given that the CMSRI’s scientific advisory board includes antivaccine “scientists” like Christopher Shaw, Yehuda Shoenfeld, Richard Deth, Stephanie Seneff, and Vicky Debold, along with some others I’m not familiar with, it’s not at all surprising that CMSRI loves it. It also amuses me to no end that the “scientific board” didn’t see the obvious problems with this paper.

That’s because it’s all about antivaccine fear mongering, not science.

396 Comments


Chris Hickie February 2, 2017 at 7:53 am

A drop of about 20 microliter of vaccine is released from the syringe on a 25-mm-diameter cellulose filter (Millipore, USA), inside a flow cabinet. The filter is then deposited on an Aluminum stub covered with an adhesive carbon disc. The sample is immediately put inside a clean box in order to avoid any contamination…

…except you’ve drawn it up into a syringe and then put it through a filter, both of which were not controlled for in this “analysis”, as you’ve noted.

Looking at the standards for reagent water purity (and I will preface with stating I trained undergrad as a physicist, so things didn’t get much more complicated for me than hydrogen and, rarely helium), there are standards for purity per ASTM D1193-06. Given that the highest level of purity (ASTM Type 1) allows 50 mcg/L of TOC (total organic carbon) and 1 mgc/L each of sodium and chloride (as well as 3 mcg/L of silica), it does sound like vaccines they looked at were, as you note, incredibly pure.

What a worthless journal the “International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination” must be to have accepted this rot.


Dangerous Bacon February 2, 2017 at 7:58 am

“Looking at the area outside these precipitates but inside the liquid drop, we identified other things:”

I love it when they talk all technical-like.

I nominate this one for Italian Science Paper of the Year.


Eric Lund February 2, 2017 at 9:04 am

I’d be willing to bet that, if somebody were to use the same protocol to analyze homeopathic remedies, they would find similar or higher amounts of “contaminants”. Because as mentioned above, there were no control samples on things like distilled water. And as I’ve mentioned before, there are limits on how pure distilled water can be made.

---