Vaccine contaminants and safety

Home Forums Discussion Forum Vaccine contaminants and safety

This topic contains 3 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Clark 1 week, 1 day ago.

  • Author
  • #45309 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    The Mods invited us to continue vaccine discussion here.
    I’ll start off by reproducing some of the discussion from the thread ‘How To Spot A Twitter Troll’. I may possibly have missed some comments, but I don’t think so.
    ‘Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 01:36
    I trust these two links won’t be judged O/T, as they both are about interference with what we access online:
    ‘Who Created Facebook? New Letter from Alleged Insider Claims Zuckerberg is a Frontman for Military Intelligence’:
    and: ‘EXCLUSIVE: Google to block all anti-cancer, “anti-vax” and anti-GMO websites at the browser level as tech giant goes all-in with pharma drug cartels’:
    The strong suspicions that these giant sites, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc are hand-in-glove with the ‘Security’ Services are almost certainly spot on, even to their inception.

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 05:11
    Not so much OT as OTT. We are all aware of the manipulations of Google but what you get reading Natural news and Organics is a series of articles each referencing each others’ articles or their own articles with allegations based on zero evidence just statements. It is this sort of thing that gives adversaries a chance to label people as conspiracy theorists. And to lump weed killers with vaccines and chemotherapy is just plain ignorant. Please do not take these hoax websites at face value be more critical and seek independent evidence and find out a bit more about how vaccines have transformed the prevention of many diseases and how chemotherapy, a crude first step in treating cancers, is evolving.
    Anyway thanks for reminding us not to consult these two websites in future.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 12:04
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 05:11
    As you are aware this is not the place to argue vaccinations etc. Some articles in Natural News I agree with, others I don’t. The point is, blanket banning because the site questions ‘Official Narratives’ is blatant censorship, and to be deplored.
    This site has frequently been attacked by ‘forces’ in support of the PTB; would you be happy if Craig’s alternative to official ‘narratives’ was also censored?

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 16:14
    As far as I know Craig never publishes ‘fake news’. These sites do and are misleading and dangerous and there is no loss if they are censored in my opinion.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 16:59
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 05:11
    ‘… And to lump weed killers with vaccines and chemotherapy is just plain ignorant…’
    Perhaps it is you that needs to watch where you get your info from – there are a slew of reports about Glyphosate being found in vaccines – are they all fake news?
    ‘Glyphosate Found in Childhood Vaccines’:
    ‘…The ever-present narrative that vaccines are perfectly safe is falling apart after testing shows that many childhood vaccines contain the carcinogenic chemical glyphosate

    Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup and hundreds of other herbicides, has been found in vaccines. Moms Across America received preliminary screening results from Microbe Inotech Laboratories Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri, which showed:

    MMR II (Merk) vaccine had 2.671 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate
    DTap Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) vaccine had 0.123 ppb of glyphosate
    Influenza Fluvirin (Novaris) 0.331 ppb of glyphosate
    HepB Energix-B (Glaxo Smith Kline) 0.325 ppb of glyphosate
    Pneumonoccal Vax Polyvalent Pneumovax 23 (Merk) had 0.107 ppb of glyphosate
    The MMR II vaccine had levels up to 25 times higher than the other vaccines. Following our test, additional independent tests have confirmed these findings at or above the same levels. The tests were conducted using the ELISA method….’
    Cast off your blinkers.

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 07:11
    Good for Google and about time. It’s taken Facebook long enough to take down anti-vax sites and those pushing fake cancer cures.

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 11:27
    Can you name any of the fake sites,Kempe, so we can stop wasting our time on them? Denial of facts do not equate with superior knowledge,imho.
    The derision of natural drugs that have been used for thousands of years and, shown drastically in current days, can help people, especially young children from epilepsy, reducing 200 tremors/day to almost none, without ever been scientifically assessed, and what was a large study in1947, coming out with the same conclusion,i.e. that this natural drug helps, was suppressed and buried.

    They knew this for 5 decades, but still send thousands to prison, declared them deranged criminals, and much more. Now big pharma wants to lay their hands and control a natural drug everyone has been growing for themselves for decades.

    Add to this, two Tory’s are growing 40 acres under police protection and with full knowledge of the cartel/Home office who sanctioned this cutting edge business for the Adkins family, whilst busting small scale growers nationwide.

    Thats is only one example, but a very big one, and the commercialisation of this drug in this country, will for years be tinged with the smell of corrupt self serving Tories who kowtow to big pharma and their,often, obsessive pricing.
    looking forward to hear your fake cancer story.

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 16:19
    I agree mostly with what you say but these are two separate problems. One is that Big Pharma is out to make big money, mostly by charging a lot for drugs developed by others and this sharp practice must be condemned and regulated. But this does not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Big pharma also produce highly effective vaccines and cancer treatments and without this major expansion there would not n=be as much progress in prevention and treatment of many diseases.

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 17:24
    I suggest you do a quick search for MMS, Miracle Mineral Solution, on the search engine of your choice. Here’s a quick overview:-

    Bleaching away what ails you: The Genesis II Church is still selling Miracle Mineral Supplement as a cure-all

    There were quite a number of sites on Facebook promoting this dangerous rubbish which Facebook initially refused to take down as they “didn’t violate Facebook’s terms and conditions” ie they were making money out of them.

    Desperate parents were encouraged to give their sick children enemas (which should only be done with medical supervision) of what is essentially industrial bleach on the promise that it would cure cancer, AIDS, autism; you name it. The result is really a lot physical and mental harm to the child.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 12:06
    @ Kempe July 3, 2019 at 07:11
    As long as they don’t censor the trolls…

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 17:06
    @ Kempe July 3, 2019 at 07:11
    I suggest you too read my comment to SA @ Paul Barbara July 3, 2019 at 16:59
    So if you had your way, this independently sought testing by a Mothers Health site would be censored?
    Why the hell didn’t the Big Pharma Vaccine producers check this out? Because they are not liable for vaccine damages, due to a government protective of ‘Big Donors’.

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 17:34
    Yes Moms Across America. Claims found to be untrue.

    Paul Barbara
    July 4, 2019 at 00:47
    @ Kempeb July 3, 2019 at 17:34
    No, not UNTRUE, the silly bollo^^s say: ..’A closer look at the science shows that what MAAMs and Samsel describe is a very unlikely scenario..’ Where is the science in that?
    And similar prats say Glyphosate doesn’t effect humans, whereas it is an incontrovertible fact that it affects human gut bacteria, extremely important in human health and it’s immune system.
    Anyhow, thanks for at least trying to respond – you normally just ignore stuff you cannot respond to.
    And obviously, Moms Across America must, perforce, be a fake organisation. Why on earth should mothers in America give a truppeny f^ck about their kids?
    But you, obviously, appear to!

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 13:17
    Google are scum and always have been. It’s a kind of litmus test for whether people are worth talking to or not: do they have the activeness of mind to be able to understand to a noticeable extent what Google is and to criticise it? Or do they think it’s just a noun formed from the normal verb for “to look for stuff”, and “obviously” beyond criticism in the way that one doesn’t criticise the sky or the mountains?

    Anyone who slavishly follows Big Pharma propaganda and gets their children vaccinated with every vaccine that is “recommended” and who rushes to get vaccinated against colds and flu every autumn is a complete and utter moron.

    It is about time that some of the moon-faced gumbies whose lives have involved so much “activity” on the internet to realise what the internet is all about and to find channels of communication which can be used for genuine contestation.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 14:49
    @ N_ July 3, 2019 at 13:17
    I’ve just downloaded ‘Brave’ and made it my default browser. It’s Open Source, and though I don’t understand a much about computers, it is supposed to be faster than Google, as well as more privacy-conscious.

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 16:24
    Rather sweeping statement
    “Anyone who slavishly follows Big Pharma propaganda and gets their children vaccinated with every vaccine that is “recommended” and who rushes to get vaccinated against colds and flu every autumn is a complete and utter moron.”

    First vaccines are manufactured and marketed by big pharma after they undergo extensive trials in research laboratories that are not directly under the influence of big pharma so this is not propaganda.
    Secondly, I would say that making sweeping statements about vaccinations is not really a sign of a discriminating mind, surely vaccines have saved millions of lives?

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 17:27
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 16:24
    ‘…First vaccines are manufactured and marketed by big pharma after they undergo extensive trials in research laboratories that are not directly under the influence of big pharma so this is not propaganda…’
    It appears you haven’t seen my comment to you @ Paul Barbara July 3, 2019 at 16:59
    It obviously shows that Big Pharma do not rigorously test their products, and there are many instances where tesing that shows problems is not rectified, but simply covered up.
    There is enough material available to make anyone who cares about vaccines seriously question their blanket support for their ‘safety’.

    July 3, 2019 at 19:32
    I dare say I know much more about vaccines, medical and scientific research than you do. I am trained to read a medical and research paper. I have myself done research and know the methodology of research and how to deduce the validity of scientific research. I say this not to be patronising but to say to you that it takes a lot of training and effort to go through this process. To rubbish this painstaking research and say that it is all big Pharma propaganda is the most blinkered attitude. Yes big pharma is out to get a lot of money but not by killing us all.

    Paul Barbara
    July 4, 2019 at 01:02
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 19:32
    You may well have more knowledge of these issues than me, but that dows not give you any sort of ‘carte blanche’ right to rubbish comments, without giving your evidence.
    I put up evidence showing independent assays had shown Glyphosate in vaccines.
    Kempe replies with some waffle abut some jokers saying it is ‘highly unlikely’.
    The science in that? The science would be multiple assays showing no Glyphosate -n but of course, that might prove problematic, seeing as it has been found.
    Is the independent analyst crooked? So show it – shouldn’t be too hard.

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 17:36
    It’s not propaganda it’s science.

    Reply ↓
    July 3, 2019 at 19:38
    I am not going to make any more comments on this thread because I think you treat this as you treat religious belief. You cannot convince a religious believer by evidence or logic because belief does not need logic or evidence. Therefore I will not convince you and you will forever be using non-evidence and statements as proof. Have a good evening.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 4, 2019 at 01:08
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 19:38
    So you won’t be contesting my comments? What can I say, except I agree we seem diametrically opposed on many issues, so frankly I won’t miss you.

    Reply ↓
    July 4, 2019 at 05:43
    [ Mod: Unfortunately this anti-vax conspiracy theory is well off-topic, so the comments will be pruned accordingly. Please make copies of any foregoing comments you wish to retain.

    You’re welcome to continue the debate in the discussion forum. ]

    Your are upset that I will not be contesting your comments, so I have to be fair to you gone back to look at the ‘evidence’ connecting glyphosate with vaccines. As expected I wasted my time. Look at this for details.

    The problem with the original study as discussed in this article are summarised:
    1. The results were published in a non-peer reviewed journal which means there was no critical analysis of the data.
    2. The techniques used are not suitable for assay of trace contaminants but may be used as a cheap screening test which will then require confirmation by more sophisticated techniques.
    3. The laboratory used is a private lab not qualified to be authoritative in these matters.
    4. Vaccines go through a rigorous process of testing and no such contamination has been found by other much better qualified labs.

    Now you can answer me by saying that of course this is all a big conspiracy theory, as you do, and that all scientists and politicians and everybody is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or you can argue scientifically if you can.
    I have never used glyphosate, not necessarily because it is potentially carcinogenic, because if it is, it is a much weaker carcinogen than other very commonly used agents such as some solvents, let alone cigarettes and alcohol both of which are indulged in by many people who want to ban vaccines and endanger the lives of children.
    The reason I dislike Glyphosate is a simple political and economic one. It and GMO foods are being used as a political and economic tools to monopolise food control by corporations to the detriment of small farmers everywhere. It is well documented that there has been a steep rise in suicide by farmers in India related to this introduction of GM foods. Certainly also the environmental damage from glyphosate and GM crops is much more damaging to wildlife and in turn, mankind than the postulated unproven links produced by people unqualified to make these wild allegations

    So much for linking Glyphosate with vaccines.’

    Where to start?
    I wouldn’t trust
    relied on by both SA and Kempe, as far as I could throw them – typical supporters of the Corporations, albeit ‘allegedly’ not funded by them.
    So, how honest and scientific are they?
    Well, firstly, the MAAM has not been shown to be wrong; admittedly the test they had done was certainly not definitive, but strongly indicates more stringent tests need to be done.
    The fact that GLP say more complex testing has not shown any Glyphosate in the vaccines, means little. The more complex tests are very specific – they are aimed to find specific chemicals. So unless they were aimed to find Glyphosate, they wouldn’t show it.
    Much like NIST – they claimed no evidence of explosives were found in WTC’s 1,2 and 7. When asked if they had looked for them, they answered no, and said it would be a waste of taxpayers money looking for something that wasn’t there!
    Big Pharma may be pulling the same trick.
    The MAAM asked specifically that further more accurate tests be done urgently on the vaccines – they did not rely on the far-from-accurate ELISA findings.
    ‘…While it’s not at all clear that what MAAM, Seneff and Samsel are claiming is true—the techniques they used are not reliable for determining a chemical at those low levels—these claims raise other questions about their hypothesis: How could glyphosate get into a vaccine?…’
    ‘Whilst it may not be clear that what MAAM, Seneff and Samsel are claiming is true’ is an admission that it equally may be true. The fact that the test is inconclusive does not negate their request to government and regulatory agencies to do the more expensive and definitive tests.
    Bottom line – the MAAM organised tests have not been proven wrong, and high-tech testd should be urgently done, rather than trying to rubbish the preliminary testing commissioned by MAAM.

    A closer look at the science shows that what MAAMs and Samsel describe is a very unlikely scenario. Glyphosate is metabolized by microbiota in soil; it is not metabolized by plants. Bioaccumulation (ever larger volumes of the chemical after repeated applications) has never been demonstrated for glyphosate. It is not retained in animal tissues and is quickly eliminated by animals that encounter it—that includes humans….’

    ‘…what MAAMs and Samsel describe is a very unlikely scenario…’
    How scientific is that? Instead of waffling on, they should be doing high-tech tests to prove the issue one way or the other.

    ‘…Bioaccumulation (ever larger volumes of the chemical after repeated applications) has never been demonstrated for glyphosate. It is not retained in animal tissues and is quickly eliminated by animals that encounter it—that includes humans….’
    The bioaccumulation potential of glyphosate and the formulation Roundup Ultra, as well as possible effects on biotransformation and antioxidant enzymes in Lumbriculus variegatus were compared by four days exposure to concentrations between 0.05 and 5 mg L−1 pure glyphosate and its formulation. Bioaccumulation was determined using 14C labeled glyphosate. The bioaccumulation factor (BCF) varied between 1.4 and 5.9 for the different concentrations, and was higher than estimated from log Pow. Glyphosate…’

    Glyphosate found again in animals and humans

    ‘…Glyphosate was detected in various organs of slaughtered cows: intestine, liver, muscles, spleen and kidneys, which is old news to the scientific community (the bioaccumulation of glyphosate is known since 1985). Dairy cows absorb about 35-40% of glyphosate from feed, part of which is permanently stored in bones as glyphosate is known chelator of calcium, macro and micro-elements….’

    Yet GLP state ‘..’…Bioaccumulation (ever larger volumes of the chemical after repeated applications) has never been demonstrated for glyphosate. It is not retained in animal tissues and is quickly eliminated by animals that encounter it—that includes humans….’
    Are you sure you can rely on that quack Corporation supporter?

  • #45324 Reply


    You obviously feel very strongly about this. The problem here is that we have to agree whether you believe in scientific methodology or not. The main protagonists of the theory that all of the diseases on the rise in western society are due to glyphosate are Samsel and Seneff, neither of whom have done or have been trained in biological sciences as far as I can see. Their so called studies are rather limited and their conclusions are too far sweeping for the information provided. The supposed amounts of roundup found in their studies in vaccines are infinitesimally small and for the assay used are liable to false positive results. They have not shown beyond doubt that these results represent roundup and if this is to be believed, then they should get more definitive assays carried out. They get around that by asking the FDA to proof that roundup does is not found in vaccines and various commentators have then said that this is tantamount to asking someone to prove that they are innocent.
    This excellent review by a reputable team explains how the these scientists used a system of deduction called syllogism to reach their unfounded conclusions.
    “The five commentaries by Samsel and Seneff propose a link between exposures to environmental levels of glyphosate and the development of a wide range of chronic diseases (11–15). In each commentary, these authors largely construct their arguments on deductive reasoning based on a logistic structure called syllogism, which is formed when two or more propositions are used in order to generate a conclusion. Although syllogisms can help in deductive reasoning, to ensure that they are used in science in a constructive rather than a misleading way, it is necessary to ensure that the two propositions that lead to the conclusion are firmly evidence-based. We therefore evaluated the Samsel and Seneff commentaries to see whether this was indeed the case.”

  • #45346 Reply


    Paul, this is looks like a fairly complex issue; you recommended one of Goldacre’s lectures a while ago; have you read his books Bad Science and Bad Pharma yet? They supply something of the grounding you need to make sense of all this – corruption is <b>not</b> confined to one “side” as you seem to think it is. There’s no monopoly on either corruption or good-faith error.

  • #45355 Reply


    Paul, do you see these matters as safe, God-given natural medicines versus the lies of Big Pharma and the Powers That Be?

Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety
Your information: