Vaccination better than you think

@metal-brain said
You are projecting as usual. You would post an excerpt if you were telling the truth.

Well, this link:
https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/formaldehyde

Contains the following:

The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed to in the first two years of life may be as high as 0.7 – 0.8 mg (see table below). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for two reasons:

Formaldehyde is essential in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation (about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood). Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant's circulation would be about 1.1 mg, a value about 1,500 times more than the amount an infant would be exposed to in any individual vaccine.
Quantities of formaldehyde at least 600 times greater than the amount contained in vaccines have been fed safely to animals in drinking water.

@deepthought said
Well, this link:
https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/formaldehyde

Contains the following:

The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed to in the first two years of life may be as high as 0.7 – 0.8 mg (see table below). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for two re ...[text shortened]... ter than the amount contained in vaccines have been fed safely to animals in drinking water.

I think that's an excellent short quote from a link and confirms what I generally strongly suspected from my personal limited relevant knowledge on the subject and that is even without taking into account that I think it would be pretty absurd for them to continually put something in the vaccines at doses that science says is obviously dangerous and damaging to health because that would mean they would have to be all just completely stupid; Obviously if the science says its dangerous then they would have stopped doing that a very long time ago. It is only idiots like Trump that would either ignore or deny what the science says and something like 99% of people aren't like Trump.
I don't know how you managed to find such a very relevant quote from a (any) weblink especially given I think that link is a somewhat obscure link.
That link is a tiny sub-link from the "Children's Hospital of Philadelphia" home website which has the website address of;
https://www.chop.edu/

@deepthought said
The igem link was broken because of a colon followed by a Z being rendered as a smiley face. The intended link, where the space between the colon and the Z, which needs to be removed, is:

https://2019.igem.org/Team: ZJUT-China

That link does not work either.

@humy said
I think that's an excellent short quote from a link and confirms what I generally strongly suspected from my personal limited relevant knowledge on the subject and that is even without taking into account that I think it would be pretty absurd for them to continually put something in the vaccines at doses that science says is obviously dangerous and damaging to health because th ...[text shortened]... n's Hospital of Philadelphia" home website which has the website address of;
https://www.chop.edu/

"I think it would be pretty absurd for them to continually put something in the vaccines at doses that science says is obviously dangerous and damaging to health because that would mean they would have to be all just completely stupid"

Your statement is absurd. Mercury used to be used as a medicine as well as other toxins. What did the science say back then?

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2017/10/22/mercury-was-considered-a-cure-until-it-killed-you.html

It took many years before mercury was removed from most vaccines. Do you think mercury was phased out of vaccines despite being safe?

Your arguing that poison is safe because of dosage alone is misleading. What amount of lead is safe in drinking water? If you had a choice between lead free drinking water and drinking water with a small amount of lead in it which would you choose?

Are you trying to convince people that formaldehyde in vaccines should continue because it is cheaper than the alternative or are you claiming no alternative exists?

@metal-brain said
That link does not work either.

The link works providing you remove the space in it just like Deepthought said but, and have no idea why, weirdly doesn't show anything like what it showed in the original link I found which I appear to have now lost.
No matter, the other links we provided show everything we said is correct and you are wrong with Deepthought's one (below) being the most impressive one for that;

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/formaldehyde

Mercury used to be used as a medicine as well as other toxins.

That was before the more modern and sound medical science and at a time when scientific method was often not used for developing so-called medicine and, unlike formaldehyde, mercury isn't produced by our body cells.
To argue that formaldehyde currently in vaccines is dangerous because mercury was is like arguing modern medicine is dangerous because in ancient times bloodletting was sometimes used as a treatment.

See above link that explains why formaldehyde currently in vaccines is safe and won't ever be shown to be like mercury.
Your claim that formaldehyde at the low doses in vaccines can crediably be unsafe is clearly false and you have shown no evidence that it crediably could be unsafe while we have provided ample evidence that its safe at the low doses in vaccines.
Formaldehyde is only dangerous at much higher doses than that put in vaccines.

@humy said
The link works providing you remove the space in it just like Deepthought said but, and have no idea why, weirdly doesn't show anything like what it showed in the original link I found which I appear to have now lost.
No matter, the other links we provided show everything we said is correct and you are wrong with Deepthought's one (below) being the most impressive one for that; ...[text shortened]... w doses in vaccines.
Formaldehyde is only dangerous at much higher doses than that put in vaccines.

You are evading my questions.

Your arguing that poison is safe because of dosage alone is misleading. What amount of lead is safe in drinking water? If you had a choice between lead free drinking water and drinking water with a small amount of lead in it which would you choose?

Are you trying to convince people that formaldehyde in vaccines should continue because it is cheaper than the alternative or are you claiming no alternative exists?

@metal-brain said
You are evading my questions.

Your arguing that poison is safe because of dosage alone is misleading. What amount of lead is safe in drinking water? If you had a choice between lead free drinking water and drinking water with a small amount of lead in it which would you choose?

Are you trying to convince people that formaldehyde in vaccines should continue because it is cheaper than the alternative or are you claiming no alternative exists?

some substances, such as lead and DDT, are cumulative in the body and rationally assumed to be at least potentially harmful to health if not actually harmful to health in any dosage no matter how low the dose. Other substances, such as oxygen and formaldehyde, are known to be only bad for health above some rough approximate dosage below which it does no significant or long lasting damage to health. Just because a substance, such as oxygen or formaldehyde, are known to be toxic above some dosage, doesn't mean it is toxic no matter how low the dosage. If you want proof of that;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
and yet you wouldn't demand that vaccines shouldn't contain any dissolved oxygen in them! Why is that when you demand that they shouldn't have lead? Its because oxygen, like formaldehyde, isn't harmful or toxic if you don't have too a high a dose of it while lead is thought to be harmful at any dose no matter how low. And that's not even to mention the point that the body cells don't produce lead but they do produce formaldehyde thus formaldehyde is a natural part of our biochemistry.

@humy said
some substances, such as lead and DDT, are cumulative in the body and rationally assumed to be at least potentially harmful to health if not actually harmful to health in any dosage no matter how low the dose. Other substances, such as oxygen and formaldehyde, are known to be only bad for health above some rough approximate dosage below which it does no significant or long lasti ...[text shortened]... oduce lead but they do produce formaldehyde thus formaldehyde is a natural part of our biochemistry.

Formaldehyde is a known poison and human carcinogen.

You are still evading my questions.

What amount of lead is safe in drinking water? If you had a choice between lead free drinking water and drinking water with a small amount of lead in it which would you choose?

Are you trying to convince people that formaldehyde in vaccines should continue because it is cheaper than the alternative or are you claiming no alternative exists?

Instead of insisting known poisons in vaccines are safe why aren't people asking WHY certain things are used to make vaccines? Why are aborted fetal cell lines used to make vaccines? Why are animal organs used to make vaccines? Why are mouse brains and monkey kidneys used to make vaccines?

Why?

@metal-brain said
Formaldehyde is a known poison

Not in very low doses.
+ oxygen is a known poison in very high doses.
So on the bases of that exact same stupid 'logic' of yours, why are you not demanding there should be no dissolved oxygen in vaccines?

What amount of lead is safe in drinking water?

unlike formaldehyde, none in the absolute sense; which is irrelevant because formaldehyde is safe at very low doses.

Are you trying to convince people that formaldehyde in vaccines should continue because it is cheaper than the alternative or are you claiming no alternative exists?

No, I am obviously not 'trying' to convince people that formaldehyde in vaccines should continue and never have done.
I point out and did point out the fact that it is safe in the current doses used in them. Obviously, that doesn't in any way logically imply the former.
Wow you must be desperate for making yet ANOTHER new stupid straw man! You already have plenty.

All your questions are totally irrelevant and apparently you cannot read because you should easily be able to deduce my answers because I had just said in the previous post;

"...some substances, such as lead and DDT, are cumulative in the body and rationally assumed to be at least potentially harmful to health if not actually harmful to health in any dosage no matter how low the dose. Other substances, such as oxygen and formaldehyde, are known to be only bad for health above some rough approximate dosage below which it does no significant or long lasting damage to health. Just because a substance, such as oxygen or formaldehyde, are known to be toxic above some dosage, doesn't mean it is toxic no matter how low the dosage. If you want proof of that;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
and yet you wouldn't demand that vaccines shouldn't contain any dissolved oxygen in them! Why is that when you demand that they shouldn't have lead? Its because oxygen, like formaldehyde, isn't harmful or toxic if you don't have too a high a dose of it while lead is thought to be harmful at any dose no matter how low. And that's not even to mention the point that the body cells don't produce lead but they do produce formaldehyde thus formaldehyde is a natural part of our biochemistry.
..."

Just read my previous above post and come back to me to say which parts you fail to comprehend...

@humy said
Not in very low doses.
+ oxygen is a known poison in very high doses.
So on the bases of that exact same stupid 'logic' of yours, why are you not demanding there should be no dissolved oxygen in vaccines?

What amount of lead is safe in drinking water?

unlike formaldehyde, none in the absolute sense; which is irrelevant because formaldehyde is safe at very ...[text shortened]...

Just read my previous above post and come back to me to say which parts you fail to comprehend...

"No, I am obviously not 'trying' to convince people that formaldehyde in vaccines should continue and never have done."

Do you think they should use an alternative to formaldehyde? Do you think using formaldehyde simply because it saves the vaccine manufacturer money and increases profits is acceptable?

Arsenic is considered safe at low levels in well water. I can think of a lot more examples than lead or mercury, so your excuses for defending a known poison and carcinogen in vaccines is not doing you any good.

Does the UK have liability for vaccine makers or did your country make suing vaccine makers very difficult when their vaccines harm and kill people?

@metal-brain said
"No, I am obviously not 'trying' to convince people that formaldehyde in vaccines should continue and never have done."

Do you think they should use an alternative to formaldehyde? Do you think using formaldehyde simply because it saves the vaccine manufacturer money and increases profits is acceptable?

Arsenic is considered safe at low levels in well water. I can t ...[text shortened]... did your country make suing vaccine makers very difficult when their vaccines harm and kill people?

Do you think using formaldehyde simply because it saves the vaccine manufacturer money and increases profits is acceptable?

formaldehyde isn't used in vaccine manufacturer to save money and increases profits but rather to help make them safer by killing any live viruses that would otherwise end up in them and/or inactivate certain unwanted proteins in them;
https://theconversation.com/toxins-in-vaccines-a-potentially-deadly-misunderstanding-11010
"...Formaldehyde is used in vaccine preparation to kill viruses or inactivate the proteins used. ..."

Incidental, same link says "..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. ..., there is formaldehyde in fruit – plants make it as part of their normal metabolism..."

so, unless you think that makes apples dangerous to eat despite there being no evidence that they are dangerous to eat, that should rationally convince you it is safe in the low doses in vaccines which are MUCH lower than that found in many types of common food.

Does the UK have liability for vaccine makers or did your country make suing vaccine makers very difficult when their vaccines harm and kill people?

the former not the latter; which is irrelevant because there is no evidence that the low doses of formaldehyde in vaccines have ever killed anyone and there is good reason (science) to think it couldn't harm let alone kill anyone at those very low doses. Science tells us that, just like oxygen, formaldehyde is only harms health at relatively excessive doses.

@humy said

Do you think using formaldehyde simply because it saves the vaccine manufacturer money and increases profits is acceptable?

formaldehyde isn't used in vaccine manufacturer to save money and increases profits but rather to help make them safer by killing any live viruses that would otherwise end up in them and/or inactivate certain unwanted proteins in them;
ht ...[text shortened]... re is good reason (science) to think it couldn't harm let alone kill anyone at those very low doses.

Are you claiming formaldehyde is the only way they can kill any live viruses that would otherwise end up in them?

Does your country provide only vaccines from UK vaccine makers or do you get some vaccines from the US?

@metal-brain said
Are you claiming formaldehyde is the only way they can kill any live viruses that would otherwise end up in them?

No. At least not the "only" way.
Trying to change the subject?
Or are you fishing for a new straw man?

Does your country provide only vaccines from UK vaccine makers or do you get some vaccines from the US?

I don't know. As I said, like you, I am not a vaccine expert and never claimed to be. Your point?

@humy said
No.
Trying to change the subject?
Or are you fishing for a new straw man?

If there is an alternative to poison why don't they use it? Because it costs more?

US vaccine makers are immune from lawsuits except in special circumstances and have been since 1986. Merck is one of the few special circumstances that brought on a lawsuit claiming they were aware their vaccine was harmful and covered it up.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/lawsuit-claims-gardasil-merck-human-papilloma-virus-vaccine-caused-severe-vaccine-induced-injuries-teen/5721944