Well, the people that sell cures for disease have it in their interest for people to be sick so they can make money selling you the cure. Simple supply & demand.
I mean... even if that's not true, why even risk that being inside you?
you probably don't know that there's more mercury in your average tuna sandwich than in any vaccine. Even then, all of the chemicals listed are in no way harmful to your system and can only improve your immune system because if a virus or chemical is introduced into the system on such a small level, your system builds up immunity. Formaldahyde keeps viruses and reproducing and spreading throughout the body, and ingredients like aluminium hydroxide stimulate antibody production.
People die from DHMO all the time, did you know this stuff can actually corrode hardened steel into dust? If a human injests a certain amount their brain swells up so much it can kill.
I am stealing that image. It's beautiful. Trying to come up with own terrifying warning...
"DHMO kills 200,000 people per year, and is the leading chemical killer of children [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_among_children_worldwide] in the US."
People die from DHMO all the time, did you know this stuff can actually corrode hardened steel into dust? If a human injests a certain amount their brain swells up so much it can kill.
I am stealing that image. It's beautiful. Trying to come up with own terrifying warning...
"DHMO kills 200,000 people per year, and is the leading chemical killer of children [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_among_children_worldwide] in the US."
The biggest problem with anti-vac people are that there are people who are legitimately unable to receive vaccinations (say, babies born with a form of immune deficiency, that little girl that got a lung transplant definitely can't receive any vaccines for a while) and these people depend on "herd immunity" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity] to protect them from stuff like measles and whooping cough, etc.
The more people electing to not vaccinate, the weaker the herd immunity, and the larger the susceptible population.
Anti-vac parents aren't just putting their own kids or selves at risk, which is why they really need to be educated and not ignored.
Feline leukemia vaccine? Wait, you can have a vaccine against cancer?
Raggedstar said:
Something also interesting to note is that the thing a lot of people are concerned about are adjuvants (chemical additives to vaccines). Animal vaccines don't typically contain adjuvants (especially feline ones), while humans do. Most vaccines for animals also don't tend to contain mercury or mercury products either. Some food for thought.
Yup, don't know if the fuss over Pandemrix ever got publicity across the Atlantic. In Europe the link between a preservative and onset of narcolepsy was proven in adolescents and children. Any idea why animal vaccines don't have these adjuvants?
Quaxar is right. The full name for the vaccine is Feline Leukemia virus (or FLv), so it covers the virus that triggers the cancer. There is also technically a vaccine for FIV (the cat version of HIV in humans) but it's not widely used because it's efficacy is questionable. Also vaccines for melanoma (to trigger regression of melanoma and increase survival times, not to prevent or cure it), but they're not widely available.
As for the adjuvants, odds are it's because animal medicine is allowed to be more flexible than human medicine (though a lot of our drugs are from more human-related companies like Pfizer). I can't give you anything else other than that since I don't know for sure, but it would make sense. Though as I mentioned before, especially in cats, there is a direct proven correlation to vaccines adjuvants and health problems, namely cancer (fibrosarcoma). Companies like Merial will often pay for treatment (surgery), but it is a malignant cancer so even with surgical removal your cat (or dog, though less frequent) may still die eventually from it due to metastasis. The most common vaccines usually associated with it are rabies and FLv. Rabies is required by law in most areas (due to a very real human health risk, and pre-exposure rabies vaccines aren't routinely given to people...and for those Canadians, I'll tell you from experience it's not covered by OHIP), so this is the only sensible thing to do.
Where the lump is, that's where the vaccine went. I don't know the brands or what type of vaccine, but even the safer vaccines from companies like Merial can cause this.
Notice how these three are in the scruff of the neck. That's actually against advised protocol for vaccination in animals. A lot of vets do it in the scruff of the neck because it's the easiest place (scruffing both gives you skin and a method of front-body restraint), but normally they should be done in the limbs so amputation would be possible if needed.
People die from DHMO all the time, did you know this stuff can actually corrode hardened steel into dust? If a human injests a certain amount their brain swells up so much it can kill.
I am stealing that image. It's beautiful. Trying to come up with own terrifying warning...
"DHMO kills 200,000 people per year, and is the leading chemical killer of children [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_among_children_worldwide] in the US."
Feline leukemia vaccine? Wait, you can have a vaccine against cancer?
Raggedstar said:
Something also interesting to note is that the thing a lot of people are concerned about are adjuvants (chemical additives to vaccines). Animal vaccines don't typically contain adjuvants (especially feline ones), while humans do. Most vaccines for animals also don't tend to contain mercury or mercury products either. Some food for thought.
Yup, don't know if the fuss over Pandemrix ever got publicity across the Atlantic. In Europe the link between a preservative and onset of narcolepsy was proven in adolescents and children. Any idea why animal vaccines don't have these adjuvants?
Quaxar is right. The full name for the vaccine is Feline Leukemia virus (or FLv), so it covers the virus that triggers the cancer. There is also technically a vaccine for FIV (the cat version of HIV in humans) but it's not widely used because it's efficacy is questionable. Also vaccines for melanoma (to trigger regression of melanoma and increase survival times, not to prevent or cure it), but they're not widely available.
As for the adjuvants, odds are it's because animal medicine is allowed to be more flexible than human medicine (though a lot of our drugs are from more human-related companies like Pfizer). I can't give you anything else other than that since I don't know for sure, but it would make sense. Though as I mentioned before, especially in cats, there is a direct proven correlation to vaccines adjuvants and health problems, namely cancer (fibrosarcoma). Companies like Merial will often pay for treatment (surgery), but it is a malignant cancer so even with surgical removal your cat (or dog, though less frequent) may still die eventually from it due to metastasis. The most common vaccines usually associated with it are rabies and FLv. Rabies is required by law in most areas (due to a very real human health risk, and pre-exposure rabies vaccines aren't routinely given to people...and for those Canadians, I'll tell you from experience it's not covered by OHIP), so this is the only sensible thing to do.
Where the lump is, that's where the vaccine went. I don't know the brands or what type of vaccine, but even the safer vaccines from companies like Merial can cause this.
Notice how these three are in the scruff of the neck. That's actually against advised protocol for vaccination in animals. A lot of vets do it in the scruff of the neck because it's the easiest place (scruffing both gives you skin and a method of front-body restraint), but normally they should be done in the limbs so amputation would be possible if needed.
...... not to sound callous, but this is fucking cats we're talking about here, the assholes of the animal kingdom. Hardly a case when there is no analogue in even the remotest sense for humans.
The vaccines kids get today are not the ones I got in 1982-86. It's obvious that vaccines prevent disease, but it's also obvious that kids today are increasingly defective- not just with autism, but you never used to hear shit about peanut allergies or gluten intolerance either. Then you have have cancer being up 20% from 1990-2000 and expected to be up another 50% by 2020.
...... not to sound callous, but this is fucking cats we're talking about here, the assholes of the animal kingdom. Hardly a case when there is no analogue in even the remotest sense for humans.
Perhaps you missed my original post, but I mentioned animals as a "food for thought" thing regarding harmful vaccine reactions, the movement of removing adjuvants from vaccines, which are all things relevant to this thread. The vaccination debate is also found in animal medicine for similar reasons, as well as people who refuse all vaccination for their pets for reasons similar to why people don't vaccinate their children. I'm trained in animal medicine, which possibly gives me a unique viewpoint in this thread. Animal and human medicine aren't that different, and advances, products, and concerns in both affect each field. Hell, we use diazepam (Valium) meant for humans to use towards animal behaviour modification and seizure treatment, as well as for anesthes1ia (with ketamine) and as a tranquilizer. The rabies vaccine in cats and dogs (at least the ones I've seen) contains the same strain used in human rabies vaccines. Not to mention animal vaccines are often created by the same companies as human vaccines and follow similar research, marketing, and testing.
I'm quite aware that vaccine fibrosarcomas aren't seen in humans (they get them from other foreign materials), and nowhere did I say "cats can get cancer from vaccines so therefore all vaccines are bad in humans" if that's what you were implying. While I have an issue with many vaccination protocols (such as over-vaccination, vaccinating non-core vaccines when not needed, and injection locations), I've seen too many cats die from URI and too many dogs from parvo to say "all vaccines are bad". I brought it up as an alternate viewpoint to the idea that vaccines can't harm anything and only provide benefits. Nothing wrong with that, especially since this thread is about vaccines and the vaccine debate in general and not specifically for humans from what I see.
Though yes, cats are assholes. I own one and I deal with other people's cats every day, so I'm aware of that fact.
If I remember right, Michelle Bachmann said something similar and since then a lot of people seemed to really rally against it - claiming everything from mental illness, mind control or even death as being the end result of getting these simple injections.
If I remember correctly. It became a way for the republican candidates last election to try to out conservative each other.
Rick Perry had actually required people to get the HPV (STD cancer) shots in his state, Texas, before the primary.
This led to him having to make a speech in which he said he was against cancer. Politics are fun.
OT:
I have to say my favorite "What the fuck are you talking about" is "gay people cause natural disasters"
you're trying to draw an analogue when there is no biological basis for one, everything, from our brains to our limbs are fundamentally different. And when it comes to medicine, in no way are medicines for animals vetted and tested to the point humans are. Yes i just laughed because if they test on animals then what do they test on for animal stuff.. lol. Otherwise, the point you're trying to make might make the layman think twice but anyone with the most remote biological knowledge would know that it's a flawed analogy. But here's a layman answer just for the fun of it...
But i can eat chocolate and that's deadly to animals, in fact, studies say it's beneficial to humans.
Always reminds me of this SMBC comic:
http://i.imgur.com/TTAPS.gif
Deadcyde said:
@ragged
you're trying to draw an analogue when there is no biological basis for one, everything, from our brains to our limbs are fundamentally different. And when it comes to medicine, in no way are medicines for animals vetted and tested to the point humans are. Yes i just laughed because if they test on animals then what do they test on for animal stuff.. lol. Otherwise, the point you're trying to make might make the layman think twice but anyone with the most remote biological knowledge would know that it's a flawed analogy. But here's a layman answer just for the fun of it...
But i can eat chocolate and that's deadly to animals, in fact, studies say it's beneficial to humans.
I think you're making more of it than it was. She's given us a view of vaccines in animals and how there certain additives can indeed cause serious issues there, in no way was there any anti-vaccination business going on.
Animal "stuff" gets primarily tested on mice and rats first, then later on a selected group of the actual target species, like pretty much anything else including humans. Mice really do have a shitty union.
And this animal testing isn't done because they are "fundamentally different". Although there may be specific biological triggers that differ and thus may cause or suppress something compared to human usage much of a cat's biochemistry is pretty much identical to ours.
By the way chocolate is by far not "toxic to all animals", it's merely slow metabolized ones that are more prone to it. Rats and mice actually have much the same if not higher LD50 than humans.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
